To put it bluntly: if you do not like the wage or working conditions at your job, do not work there. This is the choice faced by everyone who works, factory and hi-tech workers included. Of course we are "ultimately alone," such is the nature of existence as human beings. Join a union if you want, but don't expect special legal protections for doing so (such as those enjoyed by teacher's unions). The statement "I mean how much is your boss making at your expense even if he did start the company long before you joined up?" is patently absurd. This reeks of Marx's labor theory of value, and is not a valid economic analysis. Entrepeneur's start companies in order to attempt to gain profits. For these purposes they hire workers to fulfill duties for reimbursements (wages/salary). Again, if you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. What exactly is stopping anyone else from starting their own company if it is so easy?
Much of what Katz sees as "corporatist" domination of copyright rulings is based more in basic copyright law than in some neo-fascist conspiracy which he sees as threatening the lifestyles of millions of Americans. Katz seems to be overwhelmed by the idea that someone might want to have distribution control over their own original material. This surprises me most in the sense that Katz, as a journalist, certainly values his own right to produce content and have control over how it is viewed and distributed. If I were to copy the text of this very article and print it in a newspaper column as my own work, its author would be inclined to take steps to gain control of how and when his writing is printed. In the same manner, any musician wants to be compensated for the work he or she is doing. Whether or not these artists/companies are making more or less money due to the proliferation of free online music is irrelevant (Katz himself pointed out that any viewpoint can find a study to back up its argument). The fact remains that the artist has the right to sell, give away, or even not sell his or her own material. This right to decide predates copyright law, and is fundamental in any economic/social system. Individuals, groups, and corporations are free to decide to produce and distribute music, just as individuals are free to pay a price for that music. If someone doesn't wish to pay the price for an item, they are free not to buy it, but they are not free to use alternative methods of gaining possession of that item free. The notion that end users are somehow entitled to recieve free music is ludicrous.
Every once in awhile I hear something or other about the promises of quantam physics. At the same time it seems as if no one truly understands this branch of science (even those who win the nobel prize in the area admit to not fully comprehending it). Can you give me a simple explanation (no easy task) as to what the basic ideas/assumptions, and possible implications of those ideas? Where is quantam physics headed? What will it do for us in the future? Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
To put it bluntly: if you do not like the wage or working conditions at your job, do not work there. This is the choice faced by everyone who works, factory and hi-tech workers included. Of course we are "ultimately alone," such is the nature of existence as human beings. Join a union if you want, but don't expect special legal protections for doing so (such as those enjoyed by teacher's unions).
The statement "I mean how much is your boss making at your expense even if he did start the company long before you joined up?" is patently absurd. This reeks of Marx's labor theory of value, and is not a valid economic analysis. Entrepeneur's start companies in order to attempt to gain profits. For these purposes they hire workers to fulfill duties for reimbursements (wages/salary). Again, if you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. What exactly is stopping anyone else from starting their own company if it is so easy?
Much of what Katz sees as "corporatist" domination of copyright rulings is based more in basic copyright law than in some neo-fascist conspiracy which he sees as threatening the lifestyles of millions of Americans. Katz seems to be overwhelmed by the idea that someone might want to have distribution control over their own original material. This surprises me most in the sense that Katz, as a journalist, certainly values his own right to produce content and have control over how it is viewed and distributed. If I were to copy the text of this very article and print it in a newspaper column as my own work, its author would be inclined to take steps to gain control of how and when his writing is printed. In the same manner, any musician wants to be compensated for the work he or she is doing. Whether or not these artists/companies are making more or less money due to the proliferation of free online music is irrelevant (Katz himself pointed out that any viewpoint can find a study to back up its argument). The fact remains that the artist has the right to sell, give away, or even not sell his or her own material. This right to decide predates copyright law, and is fundamental in any economic/social system. Individuals, groups, and corporations are free to decide to produce and distribute music, just as individuals are free to pay a price for that music. If someone doesn't wish to pay the price for an item, they are free not to buy it, but they are not free to use alternative methods of gaining possession of that item free. The notion that end users are somehow entitled to recieve free music is ludicrous.
Every once in awhile I hear something or other about the promises of quantam physics. At the same time it seems as if no one truly understands this branch of science (even those who win the nobel prize in the area admit to not fully comprehending it). Can you give me a simple explanation (no easy task) as to what the basic ideas/assumptions, and possible implications of those ideas? Where is quantam physics headed? What will it do for us in the future? Thanks.
Ohhh it's a dry heat for sure. The doubters in the crowd can stuff it, I for one am eagerly awaiting the home offering.
Tired of my rusty old DSL line.
=)
that enough people don't know what a light year is that Yahoo felt compelled to explain it in the article.