Books cost a fortune to buy, not to produce. I haven't done the math and I can't say it too confidently, but it seems to me, at first glance, that if the content is free, it would be cheaper to get it to a large number of people in the form of a book they'll all get to use, and which others can use after them, than in electronic form, since than a lot of electricity is involved, over and over and over again each time someone reads the book. The money you saved was saved on the content, not on the infrastructure (the pages and etc.).
I propose the following thought-experiment (I'm still aware I may be absolutely wrong) - what would be cheaper, printing this post once and passing the paper around school, or having people take turns reading it from the screen (assuming no wear and tear costs on the computer, only the cost of electricity)?
You can get those children books for much less money than the electricity's cost for reading an entire book from a monitor, which can only be done once for that price, while a book is there to stay, and can benefit thousands before its retirement. Saving the money on the machine itself, you get a great head start on that cheap education.
With the amount of turning you'll have to do, this will be the first thing to go. That is, if you'll be able to keep yourself from tossing the thing against a rock after the first 100,000 spins aren't enough to finish a single game of minesweeper.
Sorry, I feel asleep midsentence.
(Actually, I forgot putting "the writer fell asleep etc." inside triangular brackets would cause it to be regarded as an HTML tag. Don't let this happen to you.)
Freedom of Speech isn't The Right to Have Someone Who Would Listen. Those people you've mentioned, I've not run into them, and I don't see how they could be a problem anyhow. Don't you prefer them preaching to their monitor to them shouting in the streets? Sure, the first hundred times or so it's hilarious to see them lynched, but after that, it's just more traffic.
Most blogs are created by someone you don't know, often about something you don't care about, but that hasn't stopped 'blogging' from becoming a remarkably ubiquitous phenomenon.
It's the same with websites. What's the problem? The freedom of speech can't be the sole domain of those with something interesting to say.
Maybe this is exactly what people want? Maybe we (as in the royal "you" if you think this doesn't apply to other countries, to differing extents) aren't really interested in "freedom" as much as we (as in the actual "me and you") would like to think. Bread, circuses and the ability to lead extremely safe lives without the need to think to much, these may be what most people really want. Maybe they're not being robbed of their less commonly used freedoms, maybe they're trading them away?
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
THE tips of their toes.
Why this post, of all posts?
Note to modders - this isn't fucking funny! I don't want no +funny on this one!
Wait, who am I kidding? Bring them on. It's only when other people get modded up for this kind of sillines that I should speak out (up?) against this practice.
You're absolutely right, but that's not what I meant (actually, it was 3 or 4 AM when I wrote that post and I have no idea what was going through my head at the time, but it sure doesn't seem like something I'd mean now, and the post sits in perfectly with what I'm currently thinking).
I don't think just as much lanbour would be in demand when people start consuming less, that would be silly. I just think (but I don't "believe" it - if I were in a position of power, I'd research the subject before I implemented any solutions) the drop in demand would be so significantly higher than the drop in supply, that it would bring more people within the new "acceptable" and "high" standards of living segments. That may also not be true, due to some more elaborate reasons, so I'll take care to read more on the subject (thanks for pointing out the issue).
It's smart and important, hell, even crucial, to save. But you shouldn't hoard. You may not live to see retirement. You may not be the same person by the time you do. Learn to balance.
Bring down the big bucks and then drop out of the rat race.
If you indeed mean "drop out as soon as possible (and safe)", then we're not in disagreement. But I do think most people would rather keep working (but less) well into their 60s, because there's not much else for them to do, and hell, they may even enjoy it. So work less (and spend less) for a long time instead of rush to the finish line.
That is why the US accounts for 30% of the world's economic activity.
Not to mention 100% of World Series winners are American baseball teams!
Seriously now... First, a very sincere and emphatic kudos to all those hard-workers out there. But I can't help but ask:
1. Are all of you really doing what's best for yourselves? Clearly not all of you, working long and hard for status symbols that (usually) won't get you a thing, and products (of course not all of them, but the percentage is high) you likely wouldn't have cared for if they weren't a short distraction from a moment of idleness spent leafing through advertisements at the paper. Most rational people would rather spend the money buying back that most important of commodities (well, after food and shelter) - time. Free time.
2. Are you doing what's best for society? No. If you were unwilling to work as long, other people would have been hired to fill your places when you're not at work. Both you and them would have been paid more for the time you did work, as there would have been more demand for workers and less of a supply of them. Also, if you consumed less... Well, we I don't need to tell you what that would have done for the environment.
(By the way, saying I'm not a socialist would be putting it mildly. But the opposing view to that isn't a mindless race to consume as much as possible, frittering precious time away in the process.)
You marvelous genius of comedy you!
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 1
You marvelous genius of comedy you!/me tears down his shirt, screams at you like a teenage girl and blows you a kiss.
It does, whenever it can.
on
Ask Sid Meier
·
· Score: 1
The gaming industry produces original games whenever it manages to. The fact it (and you'll excuse my refering to it as a single entity) also produces a ton of mimicries, mindless sequels and bundles of [five "new" racetracks, two new bike skins and yesteryear's second-best graphics engine], this fact doesn't stand in opposition. There's demand to that sort of thing, and some companies, some of the time, aim to profit from it (no reason why they shouln't). And there's the cry for originality most of us here echo, and companies are working hard to make money there, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Books cost a fortune to buy, not to produce. I haven't done the math and I can't say it too confidently, but it seems to me, at first glance, that if the content is free, it would be cheaper to get it to a large number of people in the form of a book they'll all get to use, and which others can use after them, than in electronic form, since than a lot of electricity is involved, over and over and over again each time someone reads the book. The money you saved was saved on the content, not on the infrastructure (the pages and etc.).
I propose the following thought-experiment (I'm still aware I may be absolutely wrong) - what would be cheaper, printing this post once and passing the paper around school, or having people take turns reading it from the screen (assuming no wear and tear costs on the computer, only the cost of electricity)?
You can get those children books for much less money than the electricity's cost for reading an entire book from a monitor, which can only be done once for that price, while a book is there to stay, and can benefit thousands before its retirement. Saving the money on the machine itself, you get a great head start on that cheap education.
Most companies in the business will soon imitate the design, and all will rejoice, except for MIT, who won't be making that ton of money.
With the amount of turning you'll have to do, this will be the first thing to go. That is, if you'll be able to keep yourself from tossing the thing against a rock after the first 100,000 spins aren't enough to finish a single game of minesweeper.
This should be modded "funny", not "interesting".
1. Cause a distant star to crack, releasing profane amount of energy. 2. Silly post on a Slashdot forum. 3. ??? 4. Profit!!!
Do we know each other?
Just wait, I'll metamoderate him -1: Moron.
Oops, I didn't notice his mistake.
Sorry, I feel asleep midsentence. (Actually, I forgot putting "the writer fell asleep etc." inside triangular brackets would cause it to be regarded as an HTML tag. Don't let this happen to you.)
You're a closet dull-er, but you'll come around. You'll learn to appericiate the wonders of
That's a damn good one.
Freedom of Speech isn't The Right to Have Someone Who Would Listen. Those people you've mentioned, I've not run into them, and I don't see how they could be a problem anyhow. Don't you prefer them preaching to their monitor to them shouting in the streets? Sure, the first hundred times or so it's hilarious to see them lynched, but after that, it's just more traffic.
Heed your own advice, buddy.
Maybe this is exactly what people want? Maybe we (as in the royal "you" if you think this doesn't apply to other countries, to differing extents) aren't really interested in "freedom" as much as we (as in the actual "me and you") would like to think. Bread, circuses and the ability to lead extremely safe lives without the need to think to much, these may be what most people really want. Maybe they're not being robbed of their less commonly used freedoms, maybe they're trading them away?
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck THE tips of their toes. Why this post, of all posts? Note to modders - this isn't fucking funny! I don't want no +funny on this one! Wait, who am I kidding? Bring them on. It's only when other people get modded up for this kind of sillines that I should speak out (up?) against this practice.
We shouldn't bend down for the sake of the idiots. Let them stand on their tips of their toes.
You're absolutely right, but that's not what I meant (actually, it was 3 or 4 AM when I wrote that post and I have no idea what was going through my head at the time, but it sure doesn't seem like something I'd mean now, and the post sits in perfectly with what I'm currently thinking).
I don't think just as much lanbour would be in demand when people start consuming less, that would be silly. I just think (but I don't "believe" it - if I were in a position of power, I'd research the subject before I implemented any solutions) the drop in demand would be so significantly higher than the drop in supply, that it would bring more people within the new "acceptable" and "high" standards of living segments. That may also not be true, due to some more elaborate reasons, so I'll take care to read more on the subject (thanks for pointing out the issue).
If you indeed mean "drop out as soon as possible (and safe)", then we're not in disagreement. But I do think most people would rather keep working (but less) well into their 60s, because there's not much else for them to do, and hell, they may even enjoy it. So work less (and spend less) for a long time instead of rush to the finish line.
Sure, Steve may not be happy, but he has the power to make you sad. Hell, he'll fucking bury you! He's done it before and he'll do it again!
Why did you switch back to the US, if this is the case?
Seriously now... First, a very sincere and emphatic kudos to all those hard-workers out there. But I can't help but ask:
1. Are all of you really doing what's best for yourselves? Clearly not all of you, working long and hard for status symbols that (usually) won't get you a thing, and products (of course not all of them, but the percentage is high) you likely wouldn't have cared for if they weren't a short distraction from a moment of idleness spent leafing through advertisements at the paper. Most rational people would rather spend the money buying back that most important of commodities (well, after food and shelter) - time. Free time.
2. Are you doing what's best for society? No. If you were unwilling to work as long, other people would have been hired to fill your places when you're not at work. Both you and them would have been paid more for the time you did work, as there would have been more demand for workers and less of a supply of them. Also, if you consumed less... Well, we I don't need to tell you what that would have done for the environment.
(By the way, saying I'm not a socialist would be putting it mildly. But the opposing view to that isn't a mindless race to consume as much as possible, frittering precious time away in the process.)
You marvelous genius of comedy you! /me tears down his shirt, screams at you like a teenage girl and blows you a kiss.
The gaming industry produces original games whenever it manages to. The fact it (and you'll excuse my refering to it as a single entity) also produces a ton of mimicries, mindless sequels and bundles of [five "new" racetracks, two new bike skins and yesteryear's second-best graphics engine], this fact doesn't stand in opposition. There's demand to that sort of thing, and some companies, some of the time, aim to profit from it (no reason why they shouln't). And there's the cry for originality most of us here echo, and companies are working hard to make money there, too.