Or that we've turned Iraq over to the same religious group than runs Iran.
Given the alternatives, Iranian control of Iraq could be the best thing that could happen. It would bring order to the region, and the internal religious battles would become Iran's problem, not the US. Iran can claim victory, while at the same time being saddled with reconstruction costs. For the US, a single enemy you know is better than many enemies you don't know. The US still hasn't recognized the post-Cold War, new world order, which is moving towards regional control. Europe - EU, SE Asia - China, South America - Venezuala, Middle East - Iran.
In subsequent emails, he was begging me to come up with a solution (e.g. diamond sword, coated with steel, etc.?)...
The sword is MAGIC!! or... The fact that a diamond sword is awe inspiring and valuable, but shatters upon the protagonists first use could actually make for an interesting story element. An enormous sense of loss, coupled with the shock of reality would definately be affective.
Lets just say that to compete in that industry, you would probably have to launch yourself outside that box and think spatially...
Outside of the box... so the processor is in a box right now. Think spacially... space is empty. So it would be a company selling the processor taken out of an empty box Phantom Entertainment will release the CPU from their Phantom Console!!
Yes, and as I recall, America lost the Vietnam war. You'd think that with the whole "right to bear arms" gun culture that Americans are brought up with, that they'd at least know how to shoot.
America lost the Vietnam war based on politics (the whole "hippie culture") not on the battlefield.
Patents are *supposed* to lead to investments. However, in reality patents are more than not used to stiffle innovation. In reality, the huge profits those companies make go primarily into marketing, NOT R&D.
Most of that marketing is in the form of free samples, so essentially half that marketing goes back to subsidizing consumers. As I mentioned before much of that marketing goes towards drugs in competitive markets (generic equivalents, or many substitutes). So getting rid of exclusivity will result in more spent on advertising.
And the relatively small investment (compared to the overall profits and what goes to other departemtns like marketing and the legal teams) that remains, is that really the best return one can get? Is that the most efficient (in terms of being beneficial to the populace at large instead of being most beneficial for the monopolist) we can get?
12.5% of revenue spent on R&D is inline with what the electronics industry invests. The drug corps must spend on R&D because they constantly need new patents to replace those that are expiring. If they don't get new drugs to market, they go out of business.
I would say that patent protections are too long and should be reduced (avg time for drug to recoup it's investment is 8.5 years).
Basically, patents make monopolies, monopolies make products more expensive, expensive products mean not all people can buy it - especially the weaker/poor populace who often needs it the most.
Patents lead to investments - an expensive medicine that becomes cheap because patents expire, is better than no medicine.
Oh, sure!!! Right NOW the big companies are not exploiting the creators to the limit.
They are exploiting but not to the limit. The creators are the ones making the deal with the devil, remove copyright and the devil doesn't even need to deal. Write a great song, the big companies will just give it to a sexy group of girls with big breasts to perform it live and not compensate you at all. At least now you have the right to say no to them.
Besides, the existance of loopholes is a problem in every law. Fair use is also a loophole for some, but we don't want it taken away, do we?
Everytime you add specific exceptions it adds exponentially more avenues for exploitation. It also adds complexity the other way making it more difficult to be in compliance with fair use. By specifically calling out a certain exception, you can end up being in compliance with general fair use, but not with the exception. For example if you have a website that has video clips, and you have a sponsored link to pay for bandwidth charges, you could be considered as a commercial distributor. Rather than the clips falling under fair use laws, your site falls under commercial distribution laws.
just to clarify, most likely you'll find that 95% of all revenue occurs within the first 5-10 years given the revenue drop is logarithmic week-by-week, which is in the time frame previously mentioned.
The Swedish Pirate Party, which I am a member of, advocates a reduction in the term of copyright to somewhere betweeh 5 or 20 years after the work has been produced, as well as a reduction in scope of copyright only to cover commercial copying.
I agree that copyrights should be reduced - do a survey, find out that 95% of all revenue occurs in the first X years and set it to that. My concern is when you start giving a pass to certain interests (eg non-commercial) you start opening up loopholes in the system and there will be ways commercial interests will try to exploit the legislation. The big corps may be hurt, but they'll always find a way to exploit talent/customers to turn a dime; it's the individual creator that will end up the most hurt.
What mammoth R&D investments? At best, this would would kill the mammoth advertising expenditures, which arguably should not exist in the first place.
You do realize that advertising $$ are an indication of a competitive market. If you hold the patent on the sole drug to help with disease X, you don't need to advertise. If you are trying to push a brand name product with a generic equivalent you'll need to spend massive amounts to convince people that your exact same drug is better. That's why J&J spends over a quarter billion dollars a year advertising Tylenol.
Investment in medicine should be driven by need rather than profit, and the existing system is clearly a massive failure.
How has it failed? Shortages of medicines usually occur because there is no profit so few companies manufacture.
Not tell him what a great chance he could have of making *some* money by putting his book out on Internet, and selling hardcopies to interested parties.
Who is to say the money from hardcopies will go to him? The business model works because only those he assigns rights to are allowed to make hard copies of his book. Now if you totally remove copyright, anybody can make hardcopies of his book.
As opposed to today... a world filled with mediocre books, music and movies? Oh wait. Not much of a difference is there.:-)
Sure there's mostly junk, but in terms of magnitude, check out the difference between TV and youtube. TV sucks in general, but there are a some really great shows, now Youtube is just trash, upon trash, upon trash.
As an example: Shakespeare, Mozart and Sir Isaac Newton, among many others produced a long time copyright was even conceived
And most art & science was controlled by sponsorship dollars from the economic elite. You don't think the rich corps will still find way to make their money? There's still a gap between creating intellectual property and physical property that the individual can't bridge. Without copyright corporations can be even more exploitive in this regard. Create a nice painting? Well Poster corp will copy it and sell posters to every college kid sprucing up their dorm room. Create a nice song? Well the music conglomerates will just take the song, give it to a girl band with big breasts and capitalize on their live performances. At least now the individual has the option to sell out to get a little bit of return on their hard work.
mortgage rate changes mean absolutely nothing in the long run because mortgage interest is tax deductible.
interest deductability only gets you back a percentage of the interest money you pay, and the lower the tax bracket the less it helps. Interest rates play a major factor in how much money is left in your pocket, or how much house you can afford.
I dont live in cali or the northeast, i live in the atlanta metropolitan area, and housing prices have tripled in the last decade around here. have wages tripled?
And that's why it's being called a housing bubble. Housing prices shot-up in the past 5 years because of demand. How can housing be too expensive for the middle class, yet they are the ones driving the housing prices up? It's because people were willing to take riskier mortgages betting prices will continue to go up. The bubble is already leaking and things will normalize.
inflation adjusted housing price indices graphed for the last hundred years.
That chart ignores the effect of mortgage rate changes and wage growth (though admittedly small recently) on affordability.
you have it wrong.. most middle class americans are seeing their wages fail to adjust upward to meet inflation due to h1b's and offshoring, and are being forced to run up their home equity like credit cards to maintain their current standard of living.
Wages have been stagnant when inflation adjusted. People have decided to borrow more to increase their standard of living rather than maintaining status quo.
I'm not saying that there isn't a growing wealth gap, because the top 1% are far and away gaining far more than the middle and lower classes, however, it's not a zero-sum game, just because the top 1% are gaining more wealth, the middle class isn't necessarily losing any. Blaming things on H1b's and offshoring is shortsighted, as those have also been key contributors to economic growth and new American jobs. There are broken systems like taxes, social security, unfair foreign trade practices (which results in too much offshoring), and especially poor education funding (not just k-12, but also job re-training) which are contributing to the gap. We should also realize how we shoot ourselves in the foot with things like negative savings rates are also key contributors. There's been a nice rally in the stock market over the past few years, but too many of the middle class are paying for their $50k SUV (hey interest rates are low so I can afford it) so they don't take advantage.
and real housing prices have now exceeded by a wide magin the realistic income of most americans.
Housing affordability is better now than 25 years ago. The biggest problem is that most middle class Americans have decided to carry more debt which makes purchasing a home harder.
Getting someone fired over a comment is tantamount to saying that person has no right to make said comment
I disagree. Getting fired means your employers choose not to associate with that comment. Nobody denies the right to speech, however, if you spout off unpopular comments you'll find yourself speaking alone. That's what happened to Imus, his comments lost him his support.
Whether you like it or not, the goal of these watchdog groups is to regulate speech.
I think it's more sinister than that. These groups are actively working to push their agenda by manipulating words to work people into a frenzy... it's mob rule, not regulation.
So are you saying, because I'm white, I can't choose what I can be offended by? Just because he doesn't address his comments to whites doesn't mean that someone still won't take offense to it.
You can choose to be offended by anything. Chris Rock's comments were part of a staged stand up routine. If he had said them perhaps in an interview during a morning show, I think some people might be offended. It works the other way also, Quentin Tarantino is white, wrote and uses offensive language against other groups throughout his movies, and most don't consider him racist.
Political organizations on both sides of the political spectrum are monitoring speeches, public appearances, radio and TV shows waiting for the other side to make a mistake.
Not to mention that's the entire model for The Daily Show
Slashdot Mirror
The US still hasn't recognized the post-Cold War, new world order, which is moving towards regional control. Europe - EU, SE Asia - China, South America - Venezuala, Middle East - Iran.
or...
The fact that a diamond sword is awe inspiring and valuable, but shatters upon the protagonists first use could actually make for an interesting story element. An enormous sense of loss, coupled with the shock of reality would definately be affective.
Phantom Entertainment will release the CPU from their Phantom Console!!
As I mentioned before much of that marketing goes towards drugs in competitive markets (generic equivalents, or many substitutes). So getting rid of exclusivity will result in more spent on advertising.
12.5% of revenue spent on R&D is inline with what the electronics industry invests. The drug corps must spend on R&D because they constantly need new patents to replace those that are expiring. If they don't get new drugs to market, they go out of business.
I would say that patent protections are too long and should be reduced (avg time for drug to recoup it's investment is 8.5 years).
Write a great song, the big companies will just give it to a sexy group of girls with big breasts to perform it live and not compensate you at all. At least now you have the right to say no to them.
Everytime you add specific exceptions it adds exponentially more avenues for exploitation.
It also adds complexity the other way making it more difficult to be in compliance with fair use. By specifically calling out a certain exception, you can end up being in compliance with general fair use, but not with the exception. For example if you have a website that has video clips, and you have a sponsored link to pay for bandwidth charges, you could be considered as a commercial distributor. Rather than the clips falling under fair use laws, your site falls under commercial distribution laws.
just to clarify, most likely you'll find that 95% of all revenue occurs within the first 5-10 years given the revenue drop is logarithmic week-by-week, which is in the time frame previously mentioned.
My concern is when you start giving a pass to certain interests (eg non-commercial) you start opening up loopholes in the system and there will be ways commercial interests will try to exploit the legislation. The big corps may be hurt, but they'll always find a way to exploit talent/customers to turn a dime; it's the individual creator that will end up the most hurt.
How has it failed? Shortages of medicines usually occur because there is no profit so few companies manufacture.
And most art & science was controlled by sponsorship dollars from the economic elite.
You don't think the rich corps will still find way to make their money? There's still a gap between creating intellectual property and physical property that the individual can't bridge. Without copyright corporations can be even more exploitive in this regard.
Create a nice painting? Well Poster corp will copy it and sell posters to every college kid sprucing up their dorm room. Create a nice song? Well the music conglomerates will just take the song, give it to a girl band with big breasts and capitalize on their live performances.
At least now the individual has the option to sell out to get a little bit of return on their hard work.
And that's why it's being called a housing bubble. Housing prices shot-up in the past 5 years because of demand. How can housing be too expensive for the middle class, yet they are the ones driving the housing prices up? It's because people were willing to take riskier mortgages betting prices will continue to go up. The bubble is already leaking and things will normalize.
Wages have been stagnant when inflation adjusted. People have decided to borrow more to increase their standard of living rather than maintaining status quo.
I'm not saying that there isn't a growing wealth gap, because the top 1% are far and away gaining far more than the middle and lower classes, however, it's not a zero-sum game, just because the top 1% are gaining more wealth, the middle class isn't necessarily losing any.
Blaming things on H1b's and offshoring is shortsighted, as those have also been key contributors to economic growth and new American jobs. There are broken systems like taxes, social security, unfair foreign trade practices (which results in too much offshoring), and especially poor education funding (not just k-12, but also job re-training) which are contributing to the gap. We should also realize how we shoot ourselves in the foot with things like negative savings rates are also key contributors. There's been a nice rally in the stock market over the past few years, but too many of the middle class are paying for their $50k SUV (hey interest rates are low so I can afford it) so they don't take advantage.
I think it's more sinister than that. These groups are actively working to push their agenda by manipulating words to work people into a frenzy... it's mob rule, not regulation.