Why would I bother paying you to enrich yourself to help my competition?
But why should the financier of the invention (company) enjoy all the profits from the sale of the product in exchange for providing a common service such as inventor's salary and tools? What gives them the right to make so much money off someone else's work?
If the invention were truly valuable, shouldn't the deal about profit-sharing be reasonable and fair? Something like the maximum of either: a) fixed payment of $8 million OR b) 2% of revenue related to product derived from patent OR c) 0.5% of profit related to product derived from patent.
Right, providing a chair, a table, a computer, some lab equipment and 3-4 year salary constitutes the majority value of the invention (car).
The training on how to drive the car.
Wait, which corp trains you to invent stuff? They don't even teach you the basics of the field. You have to learn everything on your time and your dime.
Your analogy pertains more to a low-skilled taxi driver, not an inventor.
"Hey I agreed to drive the car for $65,000 per year but now I want more. More MOre MORE. $8 Million! I WANT MORE CAUSE I DROVE HERE!!!!"
Oh wow, that sounds like a lot of money. But wait, the corp made over $100 billion in revenue and perhaps $50 billion profit of that invention. So what percentage did the inventor get off his own work?
$10 million / $50 billion = 0.02%
That's some teeny-tiny value, all because the inventor belongs to the working class. Even the credit card company makes more off a transaction, and all they do is debit one account and credit another.
Stealing a movie isn't stealing because they can still sell it another million times.
This same old canard from the anti-IP and freeloaders association. If you can legally watch that movie without paying, why should anyone else be required to pay? And if no one pays, how will the movie producer generate revenue to even cover the cost of making the movie, let alone profit? If someone loses profit because of unethical and illegal actions of another, it's a crime. So copying that movie is a crime.
Here's webster's definition for stealing as applied to non-tangible goods such as IP:
to wrongly take and use (another person's idea, words, etc.)
That someone provided him with all the equipment and capabilities to do the research
To make a car analogy: if I pay gas money for a shared long trip in your car, do I own the car at the end of the journey? The amount risked (gas money) by the employer is a drop in the bucket compared to the value of the invention (car).
... and *paid him a salary while at it*, explicitly for him to make inventions. He was doing his fucking job -- his employer was taking the risk.
So? That meager f**ing living wage is nowhere equivalent to the total profit the company got off that invention. The flat wage system where you get paid the same no matter how hard or how little you work is the ruin of this planet.
Getting a bonus of 8M on top of that does sound like a good deal, methinks.
No it's not. Money is common, inventions like that are not. I can't wait for the day a kickstarter version of funding is available to inventors so the corps can get a big fat 0% off things they did not invent.
I am tempted to be a volunteer. Not sure how it keeps the idiots out who may abuse this. (Yes, there are such people out there!)
The fundamental problem of trust (or lack thereof) is the reason many crowdsourced services don't seem feasible. For example, why hire a taxi when you can get a ride from someone going the direction in exchange for taking someone else on a ride in the future? The problem is the driver may not be trustworthy.
So the consumer is stuck trying to decide between "cheap but untrustworthy" and, "trustworthy but expensive". That is, you could hire trustworthy people to guide the blind.
What's that got to do with uber? Simply eliminate the medallion system and that will get rid of the so-called taxi monopoly. Be aware, even if the govt doesn't mind, the existing taxi drivers will protest.
Governments are mafia and they do break legs and kidnap and murder people. Legislation? Nice business you have here, too bad something should happen to it.
Next you're going to say anyone who's read a few medical books and taken a few online medical courses can set up a website to start treating patients, like a doctor would. The govts should answer this question: Does the medallion system exist to restrict the number of taxi drivers so as to keep the fares high (and the profits high for taxi companies)?
A bigger question here is should part-time, low-paid freelancers like uber drivers be allowed to force out full-time taxi drivers by eating into their business? This has happened before in other fields such as photography (flickr.com).
What if a mugger pulls a gun in an alley and asks this info? He could easily make $100 to $300 selling this info. What felony law is going to stop someone who makes a living breaking laws?
A more sneaky way would picking your pocket or hacking your PC to get this info ID.
Another worst part is the people who create and operate the voting machines would know who voted for whom. This is not democracy it's fascism.
Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet; you are a plague and we are the cure."
That may be true of modern, technologically advanced humans. Those humans that have lived in primitive tribes for hundreds/thousands of years haven't harmed the environment much.
And you think the rest of the websites are saints when they install trackers like addthis.com scripts that can uniquely identify and track you without cookies? There is no openness about who they sell your info about your activity on their website. www == spyware
But would they still be easily accessible? What if the people who knew them died and the artifacts, such as paper and hard disks, that had a recording of these truths were destroyed. Then these small group of people would have to spend hundreds/thousands of years to rediscover these truths again.
And why should the consumer care whether Tesla sells cars directly or through a dealer? Is Tesla offering a significant discount in direct sales compared to dealer price? For all we know, it could pull an amazon and sell the car at the same price as dealership price and pocket the increased profit from lowered costs, in which case consumers should not care since it's Tesla's problem.
Maybe you should try discovering something new (mathematical or scientific) that will be useful for thousands of years, then come back and tell us it was so easy that you don't deserve any credit.
Will Tesla be able to provide at least one or two service centers in every city/town big or small, in the entire US? That sounds hard to accomplish and people often service their cars at their dealership.
When these crypto-currencies are added to the currency pool, doesn't it reduce the overall value of all currencies, at least a bit.
So if there are $100B paper dollars, and $10B worth bitcoins plus $100 million fubar crypto-currency is added to the circulation, does the USD fall in value or can we keep "printing" new crypto-currencies without affecting other currencies?
I really don't understand why an ereader app needs to check phone call status, read text messages or activate the camera, but whatever, it's free!
Blame google since it approved the app into its play store. But since google collects unnecessary data from its users, it would be hypocritical for it to stop other companies from doing the same. Maybe govt. regulation may help.
2) You're basically paying regularly/multiple times to hear the same music you could just pay for/download once.
It's not about how much it costs you, but how much you are willing to pay for the content. Watching a movie on a big-screen in a theater once may cost you $10, whereas watching the same movie on a smaller screen, but unlimited times costs you $19 for the DVD. Some people prefer to watch only once and get the better experience of a big screen, whereas others prefer to collect DVDs for repeat watching.
So, if you want to download and play the song forever, you have to buy the song instead of renting it on a music streaming service.
Radio pays much, much less than streaming. The industry does not want anyone comparing streaming to radio
Radio plays the same tired top-100 hits or the songs the music industry is currently trying to sell. Radio is not very comparable to streaming music, where you can listen to whatever song you want. Streaming is more like a renting/subscription model.
So, for a song to be played to one person (which is what Spotify is) the radio play gets.024 pence, the Spotify play gets 0.4 pence.
Let's say a good song may get 100 listens, an average song 30 listens before they are boring and the song is removed from the playlist or the playlist is not used any more.
0.4 uk pence ~= 0.6 us cent 100 listens = 0.6 x 100 = 60 cents 30 listens = 0.6 x 30 = 18 cents
So, other than the very best songs, you only pay 18 cents per song compared to the itunes song cost of 69c (+ 30c for apple) cents. Renting (streaming) should always be more expensive than owning otherwise someone (in this case, artists) is getting underpaid/screwed. The streaming service has to charge roughly $60-$90/mo. per customer for this model to be valid.
Youtube transmits very low sound-quality music (bass and treble are very much muted). The day they start transmitting hi-fi music, is likely the day they go kaput, like napster.
The problem with streaming is, like amazon ebooks, it pays very little to the artist compared to traditional publishing. Until they come up with pricing model that is affordable to the consumer and generous to the artists, it's unlikely they will take off.
Slashdot Mirror
But why should the financier of the invention (company) enjoy all the profits from the sale of the product in exchange for providing a common service such as inventor's salary and tools? What gives them the right to make so much money off someone else's work?
If the invention were truly valuable, shouldn't the deal about profit-sharing be reasonable and fair? Something like the maximum of either:
a) fixed payment of $8 million
OR
b) 2% of revenue related to product derived from patent
OR
c) 0.5% of profit related to product derived from patent.
Right, providing a chair, a table, a computer, some lab equipment and 3-4 year salary constitutes the majority value of the invention (car).
Wait, which corp trains you to invent stuff? They don't even teach you the basics of the field. You have to learn everything on your time and your dime.
Your analogy pertains more to a low-skilled taxi driver, not an inventor.
Oh wow, that sounds like a lot of money. But wait, the corp made over $100 billion in revenue and perhaps $50 billion profit of that invention. So what percentage did the inventor get off his own work?
$10 million / $50 billion = 0.02%
That's some teeny-tiny value, all because the inventor belongs to the working class. Even the credit card company makes more off a transaction, and all they do is debit one account and credit another.
This same old canard from the anti-IP and freeloaders association. If you can legally watch that movie without paying, why should anyone else be required to pay? And if no one pays, how will the movie producer generate revenue to even cover the cost of making the movie, let alone profit? If someone loses profit because of unethical and illegal actions of another, it's a crime. So copying that movie is a crime.
Here's webster's definition for stealing as applied to non-tangible goods such as IP:
To make a car analogy: if I pay gas money for a shared long trip in your car, do I own the car at the end of the journey? The amount risked (gas money) by the employer is a drop in the bucket compared to the value of the invention (car).
So? That meager f**ing living wage is nowhere equivalent to the total profit the company got off that invention. The flat wage system where you get paid the same no matter how hard or how little you work is the ruin of this planet.
No it's not. Money is common, inventions like that are not. I can't wait for the day a kickstarter version of funding is available to inventors so the corps can get a big fat 0% off things they did not invent.
The fundamental problem of trust (or lack thereof) is the reason many crowdsourced services don't seem feasible. For example, why hire a taxi when you can get a ride from someone going the direction in exchange for taking someone else on a ride in the future? The problem is the driver may not be trustworthy.
So the consumer is stuck trying to decide between "cheap but untrustworthy" and, "trustworthy but expensive". That is, you could hire trustworthy people to guide the blind.
What's that got to do with uber? Simply eliminate the medallion system and that will get rid of the so-called taxi monopoly. Be aware, even if the govt doesn't mind, the existing taxi drivers will protest.
Next you're going to say anyone who's read a few medical books and taken a few online medical courses can set up a website to start treating patients, like a doctor would. The govts should answer this question: Does the medallion system exist to restrict the number of taxi drivers so as to keep the fares high (and the profits high for taxi companies)?
A bigger question here is should part-time, low-paid freelancers like uber drivers be allowed to force out full-time taxi drivers by eating into their business? This has happened before in other fields such as photography (flickr.com).
Simple, they want one codebase and UI for windows desktop and windows phone/tablet. So you got tablet UI on your desktop/laptop, which is horrible.
What if a mugger pulls a gun in an alley and asks this info? He could easily make $100 to $300 selling this info. What felony law is going to stop someone who makes a living breaking laws?
A more sneaky way would picking your pocket or hacking your PC to get this info ID.
Another worst part is the people who create and operate the voting machines would know who voted for whom. This is not democracy it's fascism.
Non-anonymous voting = bad and UTTERLY STUPID
That may be true of modern, technologically advanced humans. Those humans that have lived in primitive tribes for hundreds/thousands of years haven't harmed the environment much.
And you think the rest of the websites are saints when they install trackers like addthis.com scripts that can uniquely identify and track you without cookies? There is no openness about who they sell your info about your activity on their website. www == spyware
Yeah, I did not read the schedule before I wrote that post. But $600 for changing brake pads and windshield wipers seems a lot.
But would they still be easily accessible? What if the people who knew them died and the artifacts, such as paper and hard disks, that had a recording of these truths were destroyed. Then these small group of people would have to spend hundreds/thousands of years to rediscover these truths again.
And why should the consumer care whether Tesla sells cars directly or through a dealer? Is Tesla offering a significant discount in direct sales compared to dealer price? For all we know, it could pull an amazon and sell the car at the same price as dealership price and pocket the increased profit from lowered costs, in which case consumers should not care since it's Tesla's problem.
Maybe you should try discovering something new (mathematical or scientific) that will be useful for thousands of years, then come back and tell us it was so easy that you don't deserve any credit.
And who keeps their PC/laptop on all the time. It's not a server.
Will Tesla be able to provide at least one or two service centers in every city/town big or small, in the entire US? That sounds hard to accomplish and people often service their cars at their dealership.
From your link:
How many good OO language exist without constructors? Maybe only javascript. This seems like a terrible decision.
When these crypto-currencies are added to the currency pool, doesn't it reduce the overall value of all currencies, at least a bit.
So if there are $100B paper dollars, and $10B worth bitcoins plus $100 million fubar crypto-currency is added to the circulation, does the USD fall in value or can we keep "printing" new crypto-currencies without affecting other currencies?
But they still do it, because short trips are not very profitable
Blame google since it approved the app into its play store. But since google collects unnecessary data from its users, it would be hypocritical for it to stop other companies from doing the same. Maybe govt. regulation may help.
It's not about how much it costs you, but how much you are willing to pay for the content. Watching a movie on a big-screen in a theater once may cost you $10, whereas watching the same movie on a smaller screen, but unlimited times costs you $19 for the DVD. Some people prefer to watch only once and get the better experience of a big screen, whereas others prefer to collect DVDs for repeat watching.
So, if you want to download and play the song forever, you have to buy the song instead of renting it on a music streaming service.
Radio plays the same tired top-100 hits or the songs the music industry is currently trying to sell. Radio is not very comparable to streaming music, where you can listen to whatever song you want. Streaming is more like a renting/subscription model.
Let's say a good song may get 100 listens, an average song 30 listens before they are boring and the song is removed from the playlist or the playlist is not used any more.
0.4 uk pence ~= 0.6 us cent
100 listens = 0.6 x 100 = 60 cents
30 listens = 0.6 x 30 = 18 cents
So, other than the very best songs, you only pay 18 cents per song compared to the itunes song cost of 69c (+ 30c for apple) cents. Renting (streaming) should always be more expensive than owning otherwise someone (in this case, artists) is getting underpaid/screwed. The streaming service has to charge roughly $60-$90/mo. per customer for this model to be valid.
Youtube transmits very low sound-quality music (bass and treble are very much muted). The day they start transmitting hi-fi music, is likely the day they go kaput, like napster.
The problem with streaming is, like amazon ebooks, it pays very little to the artist compared to traditional publishing. Until they come up with pricing model that is affordable to the consumer and generous to the artists, it's unlikely they will take off.
If a raw cacao pod last only a week after harvesting, how do you obtain, store and eat a cacao pod within one week?