Current economic system doesn't fairly reward creative or complex tasks. Example:
R&D designs new uber-electronic-widget -> manufacturer sells at cost plus some markup -> retailer sells to consumer, price now has a double markup -> consumer pays with credit card and bank receives the processing fee.
In this transaction, a bank is taking a cut by just providing a credit card processing service. Of course, being a bank or a retailer is not an easy task, but it is an order of magnitude easier than being a R&D scientist / engineer who makes our gizmos better, more powerful and efficient. Obviously Walmart put a lot of thought to have efficient operations and distribution, and any bank for that matter has (had) the capital to be able to finance credit cards, but its tougher intellectually to add pixels to a CCD, cycles to a processor or better code to software.
I used an analogy with science, but the same can be applied in creative fields like advertising. Here, low-level creatives at an agency are cranking out ideas for the next Ad campaign. The agency charges customers astronomical fees that never proportionally reward the actual creators and developers of content.
I have been living almost a year without cable. Stream Netflix to my PS3 and watch sports on espn360. I only miss Sportscenter, whenever I am able to stream that I will never ever get into a cable contract again.
Without a change in there pricing and contracts cable companies are doomed. Too expensive, poor customer service and ironclad contracts.
I sign loads of stuff every day, a simple thing to do to add a bit of security is always to use blue ink for signatures, and always send documents scanned in color.
I agree. Here's a quote summarizing your post:
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. -- H. Poincar'e
The best (or may just the coolest/weirdest) version of Dune will never see the light of day. It was supposed to be directed by cult hero Alejandro Jodorowsky with contributions with equally amazing underground and cult artists like illustrator Jean "Moebius" Giraud. I read somewhere that he even had Salvador Dali on board.
The project went way over budget and the few script and storyboard advances took ages to complete. Here is some info
250k is quite a large percentage. I live in Mexico and there are countless offers from many people that are now selling (at an increased price) unlocked iPhones to use with local wireless providers. The iPhone is an awesome piece of hardware, it would be even more awesome if you could buy it free from any locks.
IMHO agreements like the one between ATT and Apple only hurt the final consumer. I wonder what could have happened from a revolutionary launch date of worldwide unlocked iPhone sales so that if you live in NY, Tokyo, or Zimbabwe you could buy your iPhone and use it as you please.
If around 250k iPhones are bought by people willing to go through the trouble and risks of unlocking and maybe damaging a USD 599 piece of hardware, just imagine the increase in sales if this device was sold free from these restrictions. I guess its all part of corporate BS, we can only dream that someday a business will have the vision to support openess.
Ambition makes you look pretty ugly
This is gonna be a great experiment, could revolutionize music sales and set the true market price for an album. Awesome.
From TFA
As people get more used to having this kind of control, it's going to settle down into a more tasteful use and will just be a tool like anything else, and you won't see the extreme fringes quite as much.
IMHO movies are still abusing CGI a lot and forgetting completely about a cool story or good dialogue, with few exceptions. Hollywood has turned making films into making remake-rehash-bloated with CGI worthless movies.
Film making is a business but also an art, it is sad to see that (being a bit simplistic) whatever studio releases the flashiest effects with the poorest acting/dialogue is the best movie. Compare Indiana Jones (cool effects, humour, dialogues and story) vs. Episodes I, II, III (ridiculous dialogues and plots cut and pasted with special FX).
Both Slim and Gates have profited from business models with little or no competition.
In Slim's case, its easy to be filthy rich when you own the monopoly for telecommunications (both mobile and wired) in a country with 100 million people.
Slim owned an investment and trading bank that allowed him to have enough cash to buy Telmex back in 1994 at a bargain price from then president and "friend" Carlos Salinas. Telmex was a state owned monopoly with a strong and corrupt union, horrible service, no quality in infrastructure, you had to go through hell to get a phone line working.
Now it is a private monopoly with mediocre service, and very high prices. Basic Broadband is around USD 40.00/monthly. If you try to get this service from other of the few and small ISP's the connection is very unreliable as Telmex own the fiber infrastructure and licenses access to it. Don't even get me started on the prices his mobile company Telcel charges, its basically theft, but then again other mobile companies have little infrastructure with little coverage. Its sad that Mexico is left without any real options when it comes to telecom services.
Adding to this that Slim also owns a bank, copper and fiber cable manufacturing, cigarette manufacturing, real state, retail stores, etc.
He was a smart banker and trader, I'll give him that, but the rest of his fortune is due to the fact that his connections lead to him acquiring Telmex.
A series with as much depth as The Sopranos doesn't need to end with a Hollywood style ending. You don't need a shootout like Scarface or Tony going into jail or Silvio going into witness protection like Goodfellas.
Any attempt at making a happy or concluding ending would have been a bigger disappointment to fans of the series. As it would have been very hard to make something like this "conclude" in some way.
IMHO this is the best series ever seen on TV and one of the most realistic mob stories ever told.
Do you think Photoshop would be one of the most pirated software in existence if they sold it for $60-80 instead of $600? Probably not, and they'd likely make more than 10x the $$$ off of sales than they do now.
I totally agree. Any good that has none or few close substitutes will sell more if its price is lowered. (Basic Supply and Demand)
This also applies to CD's or DVD's. If your favorite artist's new CD costs $5, will you even think about trying to buy a pirated copy or download the songs illegally? I guess not.
The solution seems simple and straightforward I wonder why MS, **AA, have not seen that the solution to piracy lies in lowering the price of the original version, instead of spending millions in copy protection schemes and root kits, and lawsuits to students and 90 year old ladies.
I agree. UI and user friendliness are abismal. I wonder why is it so damn hard for SAP to get functionality and user friendliness both right.
Maybe its part of their business plan. Make things as inaccesible as possible so that you require 1,000 hours of consulting just to get the most basic things working.
The best part of TFA was that an important CEO like Jobs is finally publicly telling the world what has been debated countless times in forums like Slashdot: maintaining DRM is a pain in the ass, high cost in research, maintenance, logisitcs, etc. More importantly it is useless against fighting piracy.
Will a DRM free (less costs in time and money) online store mean that songs can be priced at 50 cents or less? Meaning a benefit in volume of sales, revenue and in keeping the big four, online stores and consumers happy. Sure sounds to good to be true. Lets hope for it.
If you are not going to be drawing money constantly out of this investment go with short term (1 month) Treasury Bills or Certificates of Deposit. Do not go on a longer term now as the FED will rise FED fund rates at the end of August and probably once more before year's end. Then you can go into 6 months to 1 year terms.
If you need to constantly or urgently draw cash from this, look for a money market fund that is liquid (ie: lets you draw out money any day on a 24 hr notice or sometimes same day). Look for a fund that spreads out its investments in T-Bills or other high quality government debt, as well as some high rated commercial debt (banks, etc.).
With any of the above you are looking at 4.5% - 5.5% safe returns.
Do not look into playing with stocks, unless you plan on following closely daily market news.
There is no great secret to investing, there are stories of people turning 10k into a million, but there are also stories of people struck by lightning. Start out with any fixed income safe investments, play with stocks, real estate, or other fancy stuff when you can afford losing a few bucks, as of now you can't.
Indeed. RIAA, MPAA, *AA wield so much power (money) inside the US that they can force to block Russia's addition to WTO! Corporations and money truly rule inside the US.
"Protecting" copyright owners from the evils of technology is just a bullshit argument from the *AA. Artists earn money through royalties from each CD/DVD sale but it is only a small percentage, record labels are the ones who reap huge sums from each sale. Depending on the deal or contract, artists can earn a lot more from signing bonuses and touring.
The RIAA wants to sell this argument to the general public, saying that artists are the ones hurt by P2P, allofmp3, or whatever thing that doesn't agree with their business model, when the ones not profiting from this new services are record labels and not artists.
The solution is clear price CD's at USD $5.00. Economic theory states that when a good has no close substitutes (ie: An original CD which includes music, artwork, etc), lowering its price increases total revenue because the quantity demanded increases:
low price * many CDs = a lot of money
The *AA wants to squeeze the last cent out of its current business model before facing the fact that you cannot fight changes in business models or technological advances that speed up the traditional methods of distributing music/films.
I always cite Pearl Jam as a good example of adapting: back in 2000 they released every live show as a double CD at the price of a single CD. This accomplished the task of winning over traditional bootleggers selling live shows with crappy quality at $30 bucks.
Technology has made music or film exchange easier than ever but in essence it is exactly the same as creating a tape and giving it to a friend. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act states that it is illegal to download mp3's for financial or other "gains". Then they go on to define that just having an mp3 of a song is a "gain" and therefore illegal. This is BS! I didn't see anybody complain back in the day when somebody gave you a tape.
Record companies then try to make p2p users feel guilty saying that they are hurting artists. The ones that suffer the most from this are the companies themselves. Artists only receive a very small amount from each album sold, their main income is when they sign a deal with the company and they get a contract and get payed. But I do see a solution to this whole thing: lower album and movie prices. Basic economic theory clearly states that lowering the price of a good that has few substitutes (ie: any given artist's album) will increase the quantity demanded of that good and will increase total revenue for the firm. Just imagine cd's priced at 5-7 USD instead of your usual 15-20, movie tickets priced at 1-2. I would buy a lot more music and watch more films. One can't fight progress and technology. If the MPAA and RIAA keep trying to fight that battle they are sure gonna lose in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed.
Current economic system doesn't fairly reward creative or complex tasks. Example:
R&D designs new uber-electronic-widget -> manufacturer sells at cost plus some markup -> retailer sells to consumer, price now has a double markup -> consumer pays with credit card and bank receives the processing fee.
In this transaction, a bank is taking a cut by just providing a credit card processing service. Of course, being a bank or a retailer is not an easy task, but it is an order of magnitude easier than being a R&D scientist / engineer who makes our gizmos better, more powerful and efficient. Obviously Walmart put a lot of thought to have efficient operations and distribution, and any bank for that matter has (had) the capital to be able to finance credit cards, but its tougher intellectually to add pixels to a CCD, cycles to a processor or better code to software.
I used an analogy with science, but the same can be applied in creative fields like advertising. Here, low-level creatives at an agency are cranking out ideas for the next Ad campaign. The agency charges customers astronomical fees that never proportionally reward the actual creators and developers of content.
I have been living almost a year without cable. Stream Netflix to my PS3 and watch sports on espn360. I only miss Sportscenter, whenever I am able to stream that I will never ever get into a cable contract again. Without a change in there pricing and contracts cable companies are doomed. Too expensive, poor customer service and ironclad contracts.
Just remember: everything in moderation, specially moderation
I sign loads of stuff every day, a simple thing to do to add a bit of security is always to use blue ink for signatures, and always send documents scanned in color.
One of the funniest and most memorable episodes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqTO2GaI3U
This is also relevant. Here
The best (or may just the coolest/weirdest) version of Dune will never see the light of day. It was supposed to be directed by cult hero Alejandro Jodorowsky with contributions with equally amazing underground and cult artists like illustrator Jean "Moebius" Giraud. I read somewhere that he even had Salvador Dali on board.
The project went way over budget and the few script and storyboard advances took ages to complete. Here is some info
250k is quite a large percentage. I live in Mexico and there are countless offers from many people that are now selling (at an increased price) unlocked iPhones to use with local wireless providers. The iPhone is an awesome piece of hardware, it would be even more awesome if you could buy it free from any locks.
IMHO agreements like the one between ATT and Apple only hurt the final consumer. I wonder what could have happened from a revolutionary launch date of worldwide unlocked iPhone sales so that if you live in NY, Tokyo, or Zimbabwe you could buy your iPhone and use it as you please.
If around 250k iPhones are bought by people willing to go through the trouble and risks of unlocking and maybe damaging a USD 599 piece of hardware, just imagine the increase in sales if this device was sold free from these restrictions. I guess its all part of corporate BS, we can only dream that someday a business will have the vision to support openess.
What are your favorite Tacos?? Have you ever been to Mexico and tried the real stuff??
Ambition makes you look pretty ugly
This is gonna be a great experiment, could revolutionize music sales and set the true market price for an album. Awesome.
IMHO movies are still abusing CGI a lot and forgetting completely about a cool story or good dialogue, with few exceptions. Hollywood has turned making films into making remake-rehash-bloated with CGI worthless movies.
Film making is a business but also an art, it is sad to see that (being a bit simplistic) whatever studio releases the flashiest effects with the poorest acting/dialogue is the best movie. Compare Indiana Jones (cool effects, humour, dialogues and story) vs. Episodes I, II, III (ridiculous dialogues and plots cut and pasted with special FX).
Both Slim and Gates have profited from business models with little or no competition.
In Slim's case, its easy to be filthy rich when you own the monopoly for telecommunications (both mobile and wired) in a country with 100 million people.
Slim owned an investment and trading bank that allowed him to have enough cash to buy Telmex back in 1994 at a bargain price from then president and "friend" Carlos Salinas. Telmex was a state owned monopoly with a strong and corrupt union, horrible service, no quality in infrastructure, you had to go through hell to get a phone line working.
Now it is a private monopoly with mediocre service, and very high prices. Basic Broadband is around USD 40.00/monthly. If you try to get this service from other of the few and small ISP's the connection is very unreliable as Telmex own the fiber infrastructure and licenses access to it. Don't even get me started on the prices his mobile company Telcel charges, its basically theft, but then again other mobile companies have little infrastructure with little coverage. Its sad that Mexico is left without any real options when it comes to telecom services.
Adding to this that Slim also owns a bank, copper and fiber cable manufacturing, cigarette manufacturing, real state, retail stores, etc.
He was a smart banker and trader, I'll give him that, but the rest of his fortune is due to the fact that his connections lead to him acquiring Telmex.
A series with as much depth as The Sopranos doesn't need to end with a Hollywood style ending. You don't need a shootout like Scarface or Tony going into jail or Silvio going into witness protection like Goodfellas. Any attempt at making a happy or concluding ending would have been a bigger disappointment to fans of the series. As it would have been very hard to make something like this "conclude" in some way. IMHO this is the best series ever seen on TV and one of the most realistic mob stories ever told.
I totally agree. Any good that has none or few close substitutes will sell more if its price is lowered. (Basic Supply and Demand)
This also applies to CD's or DVD's. If your favorite artist's new CD costs $5, will you even think about trying to buy a pirated copy or download the songs illegally? I guess not.
The solution seems simple and straightforward I wonder why MS, **AA, have not seen that the solution to piracy lies in lowering the price of the original version, instead of spending millions in copy protection schemes and root kits, and lawsuits to students and 90 year old ladies.
I agree. UI and user friendliness are abismal. I wonder why is it so damn hard for SAP to get functionality and user friendliness both right. Maybe its part of their business plan. Make things as inaccesible as possible so that you require 1,000 hours of consulting just to get the most basic things working.
Don't forget the only Metal Sub Genre that should be associated with intelligent people: Stoner Metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_metal
Weed has been proved to make you smarter, right?
The best part of TFA was that an important CEO like Jobs is finally publicly telling the world what has been debated countless times in forums like Slashdot: maintaining DRM is a pain in the ass, high cost in research, maintenance, logisitcs, etc. More importantly it is useless against fighting piracy.
Will a DRM free (less costs in time and money) online store mean that songs can be priced at 50 cents or less? Meaning a benefit in volume of sales, revenue and in keeping the big four, online stores and consumers happy. Sure sounds to good to be true. Lets hope for it.
Calorie burning Coke:
*sniff* go ravin' and dancin' like crazy for about an hour you'll burn about 600-800 calories
If you are not going to be drawing money constantly out of this investment go with short term (1 month) Treasury Bills or Certificates of Deposit. Do not go on a longer term now as the FED will rise FED fund rates at the end of August and probably once more before year's end. Then you can go into 6 months to 1 year terms.
If you need to constantly or urgently draw cash from this, look for a money market fund that is liquid (ie: lets you draw out money any day on a 24 hr notice or sometimes same day). Look for a fund that spreads out its investments in T-Bills or other high quality government debt, as well as some high rated commercial debt (banks, etc.).
With any of the above you are looking at 4.5% - 5.5% safe returns.
Do not look into playing with stocks, unless you plan on following closely daily market news.
There is no great secret to investing, there are stories of people turning 10k into a million, but there are also stories of people struck by lightning. Start out with any fixed income safe investments, play with stocks, real estate, or other fancy stuff when you can afford losing a few bucks, as of now you can't.
Cheers
Indeed. RIAA, MPAA, *AA wield so much power (money) inside the US that they can force to block Russia's addition to WTO! Corporations and money truly rule inside the US.
"Protecting" copyright owners from the evils of technology is just a bullshit argument from the *AA. Artists earn money through royalties from each CD/DVD sale but it is only a small percentage, record labels are the ones who reap huge sums from each sale. Depending on the deal or contract, artists can earn a lot more from signing bonuses and touring.
The RIAA wants to sell this argument to the general public, saying that artists are the ones hurt by P2P, allofmp3, or whatever thing that doesn't agree with their business model, when the ones not profiting from this new services are record labels and not artists.
The solution is clear price CD's at USD $5.00. Economic theory states that when a good has no close substitutes (ie: An original CD which includes music, artwork, etc), lowering its price increases total revenue because the quantity demanded increases:
low price * many CDs = a lot of money
The *AA wants to squeeze the last cent out of its current business model before facing the fact that you cannot fight changes in business models or technological advances that speed up the traditional methods of distributing music/films.
I always cite Pearl Jam as a good example of adapting: back in 2000 they released every live show as a double CD at the price of a single CD. This accomplished the task of winning over traditional bootleggers selling live shows with crappy quality at $30 bucks.
Just my opinion.
Do not forget the Challeger Space Shuttle which exploded during launch and the Ford Pinto whose gas tank easily exploded with light impacts.
Technology has made music or film exchange easier than ever but in essence it is exactly the same as creating a tape and giving it to a friend. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act states that it is illegal to download mp3's for financial or other "gains". Then they go on to define that just having an mp3 of a song is a "gain" and therefore illegal. This is BS! I didn't see anybody complain back in the day when somebody gave you a tape. Record companies then try to make p2p users feel guilty saying that they are hurting artists. The ones that suffer the most from this are the companies themselves. Artists only receive a very small amount from each album sold, their main income is when they sign a deal with the company and they get a contract and get payed. But I do see a solution to this whole thing: lower album and movie prices. Basic economic theory clearly states that lowering the price of a good that has few substitutes (ie: any given artist's album) will increase the quantity demanded of that good and will increase total revenue for the firm. Just imagine cd's priced at 5-7 USD instead of your usual 15-20, movie tickets priced at 1-2. I would buy a lot more music and watch more films. One can't fight progress and technology. If the MPAA and RIAA keep trying to fight that battle they are sure gonna lose in the long run.