What he explicitly said is that the kindle creates extra value for the work. In return the people who created the material should share in that extra value.
I am going to disagree with this statement. To be clear, it sounds like I don't disagree with you, just with Mr. Blount. The author created the book, they got paid for it when somebody bought it. If a third party comes along and gives that book more value doesn't mean the author should get paid more. As an example, movie studios didn't (and rightfully shouldn't have) gotten paid more when VCRs were made with 4 or even 6 heads, better tracking, etc.
I can't argue that murder is a much more serious and permanent thing to happen to a person. However, it is a local problem that the people of Oakland should rally behind and fix. Let's have federal people worry about federal things, and local people worry about local things. The constitutionality of federal level laws is one of those things that a federal level person such as the PotUS should be more worried about. At a more personal level, Obama should be worried about whether he will keep his promises.
[D]on't change my words. I said I'd rather have him worry about the high murder rates in Oakland than the RIAA prosecuting file-sharers.
Don't change your words. You actually said you'd rather him worry about Oakland's murder rate than "an industry whose music isn't that great anyway". The article isn't about the RIAA, it's about a trial concerning the constitutionality of federal level laws _and_ whether Obama will keep his promises. The "industry whose music isn't that great" is merely a player. The article isn't about the industry, it's about a trial and promises. If I had taken what you said literally at face value, I would have passed it off as a non sequitur and off-topic. I assumed you were being on-topic however. And that is different than what you are now implying.
Why is it that people have this weird fetish with capitalizing letters that don't need to be capitalized?
What prompted you to write VALVe rather than just Valve? But before anyone jumps in and says that's how Valve spells it, check again. The last 'e' is smaller than the other letters, but it's still capatalized! It's an 'E', not an 'e'. It's VALVE, not VALVe. Notice the difference? If you're going to capitalize everything else, just keep on capitalizing everything like they do. Never mind that/. doesn't know how to use the <sup> tag. All the letters are capitalized.
Why do people insist on writing ID or iD when it is just id? I can see Id, as that is the more common convention, by why anything else?
Why do people write MAC when referring to the Macintosh as the short form Mac?
Google's search market share: 23.7%
Google's online ads market share: as 59.2%
Microsoft Window's market share:89.62%
By your logic Microsoft is not a monopoly either.
I don't know what the GP's threshold for monopoly status is, but it's apparent he thinks it's more than 59% market share. You are the one with faulty logic to then reason that because he doesn't think 59% is enough that he must not think 89% is enough.
Now for the more serious reply. You do realize the drop from 99% to 75% is correlated wth The Great Depression right? That had lots of causes but I don't think the automating of car manufacturing (roughly 1915) or the use of computers for telephones (certainly after WWII) was one of them. Since then has been when society has probably automated itself the fastest and yet you can see with your own numbers a trend towards 99% (current economy aside). In fact, as the other poster points out, in not so many words, the entirety of human civilization has been spent finding ways to get more with less work. Robots and computers are merely an extension of pulleys, wheels, incline planes, wedges, etc. Sure, in the short term all of those things caused us to use less humans. In the long term, that gave people with more free time to devise even more ways to reduce work and at the same time increase productivity. Remember, the ultimate goal is to get more with less work.
Yes it sucks for the people who lose their job and we should find some way of helping them. However, to say that machines and automation causes unemployment would be to say that the most glorious economic times would be before mankind had ever started using tools. Sure, everyone then was working (because they had to in order to survive) but we were an entirely inefficient group then compared to now.
If you still think your "machines increase employment" statement is true, then please back-up your claim with some facts.
In the 1930s employment was at 75%. The 1930s was a very human-oriented economy. Since that time we've become more automated with cars built by machines, telephone operators replaced with computers, et cetera. Our current economic meltdown aside, we've enjoyed roughly 95% employment for a long time. All stats from taken from here.
would it be OK if a stranger walked into your house or office
The stranger, unless I invited him in, has already committed trespassing and possibly breaking and entering. However, my office is open all the time (so long as you can get into the building). If a stranger (the nightly janitorial crew, perhaps) came into my office and copied everything I have then I wouldn't be upset. Why should I? They were allowed to be there, didn't take anything away from me, didn't break anything, didn't vandalize anything, didn't interfere with me. What would I have lost? Why should it bother me? If any of the above was not true, then I might have been able to take some kind of action, legal or otherwise, but if all of those things are the case then what harm has been done?
If that were the case, then I would be fine with the PotUS or congress worrying about illegal immigrants and interstate drug and gun trafficking. It would have to be Oakland, though, that figured out why their murder rates are high and then make the appropriate federal authorities aware of it. In this case, Obama still shouldn't be worried about murder rates in Oakland, but about the illegal immigration.
So Oakland looks into its rising murder rates, decides it is because of illegal immigration and tells Obama and the Congress. They work to reduce illegal immigration either through the passage of new laws or the enforcement of existing laws. The feds can track their success only by the lowering of illegal immigration, not by whether or not Oakland's murder rate goes down, thus they are still not worried about Oakland's murder rate, only about federal issues.
I think you missed an episode or two. Angela already has a new cat and Dwight tried to burn the whole building down with it inside. You only have to watch the first few minutes, specifically 2:28-2:58.
Ignoring all the other issues from the article and this thread, I just want to point out one thing that many people seem to be having here.
I certainly would not expect to pay more for it, especially as the 'new' stuff is supposed to better and thus more expensive.
The price of an item is not related to its newness. In fact, it is also not even related to its betterness. It is in direct relation to how much people are willing to pay for it. If Subway came out with a new sandwich which was nothing more than their own Meatball Marinara but laid the habanero's on really thick, people would not pay more for it simply because it is new. Sure, some people might find it to be better, but most people would rather have the older stuff than to burn themselves. And if they saw their options as being limited, they might even pay more to downgrade to the non-habanero version.
Heck, on my scale I'd rather have Obama worrying about the high rates of murder in Oakland, CA than worrying about an industry whose music isn't that great anyway.
Sincerely, why? The rates of murder in Oakland, CA are an issue for the people living in Oakland, and maybe for the people in California. On the other hand, the statutory damages from copyright are a federal thing. I'd rather the people of California be concerned about the problems in California and the people at the federal level be concerned with federal level things.
So, really, why is it that you want the PotUS to be concerned about murder rates in one city over worrying about the constitutionality of federal laws? Why is it that you want the head of the Executive Office to be concerned about a local issue rather than whether he will be true to his own promises that his appointments won't be involved in the industries they previously represented? Please explain.
Barney was first broadcast in 1992. Rush Limbaugh started as a DJ in the 70s but that was as a music DJ. He didn't start doing talk until 1984. If alien life has received Rush in his political talk show days, then they're pretty close. If they have Barney, they're even closer.
Only an absolutely perfect person has a legitimate reason for not wanting to grow and learn. I don't know about you, but I've never met an absolutely perfect person.
I've met some people who were pretty close to perfect. Of course, that was because they didn't find reasons to not want to grow and learn.
Anyway, have you ever seen someone chucked out for discreetly drinking some bottled water or chewing on a sweet?
I don't think I've seen any one ever chucked out of a cinema. I've been in some with people answering cell phones, with crying children, and talking the whole way through. I'm not entirely convinced they would chuck someone out if they fired up a full size BBQ and smoker and started cooking rotten seafood.
Thanks for the info. However, if the kid is autistic enough to warrant being kicked out of school for autistim-related disrupions wouldn't that be easy enough for a doctor to detect early on? I assume that if a doctor is weary about diagnosing a kid with autism then the kid is probably not going to be kicked out of school for autism-related disruptions. So either my assumptions are wrong (could very well be) or I'm still misunderstanding what the problem is. The AC I replied to said the problem was school's refusing to offer services to kids who aren't autistic. But I don't see that as a problem. What I do see as a problem is parents shopping around to find a doctor willing to diagnose their kid with autism because their kid got himself kicked out of school because he was disruptive. But, again I'm assuming, if his disruptions were autism-related, you wouldn't need to shop around as any competent doctor would be able to diagnose that.
That's not to say a kid can't have mild autism but still be kicked out for non-autistic spectrum behavior, but if that were the case, it'd still be parents trying to lay the blame on some thing that isn't the real issue (i.e., their kid is disruptive for non-autistic spectrum behavior).
The problem here is that the schools would refuse to provide services to kids who didn't get the diagnosis, and then kick the kids out of school when they would be disruptive. So the parents were left with no alternative but seek a doctor that would give them what they wanted.
Wait, what is the problem? Either the kids actually have Autism and doctors should have diagnosed them, or parents of disruptive kids without Autism need get their kids to behave. Maybe you worded it wrongly, but it sounds like you are saying the problem is that schools are refusing to provide services to kids who don't need those services. That's not a problem. If the kid isn't Autistic, he shouldn't be treated as if he is. If a kid isn't Autistic and is being disruptive, he should be kicked out and the parents should be told to deal with that, not shop around for a doctor willing to misdiagnose just so the parents can claim that their non-Autistic kid isn't really a bad person.
Or are your really suggesting that the problem is doctors need to do a better job of detecting earlier so that autistic kids can get the services they need? I'm really not sure. Please clarify.
The problem with gaming being seen solely as the preserve of kids, is that I, a 41 year old, am restricted to content that's been approved for 18 and under. As a game developer as well as a player, I get that from both sides. I can't work on a game with a plot that's too involved, or the kiddies won't get it. I can't show too much emotion between two NPCs, or someone might think it's sexual tension and ban the game.
You are bringing up two different things here. Ratings have nothing to do with plot complexity. You could have a rated e for everyone game with enough complexity that would make most grown adults stare, and you can have an AO game with so little complexity a two year old could grok it.
Slashdot Mirror
What he explicitly said is that the kindle creates extra value for the work. In return the people who created the material should share in that extra value.
I am going to disagree with this statement. To be clear, it sounds like I don't disagree with you, just with Mr. Blount. The author created the book, they got paid for it when somebody bought it. If a third party comes along and gives that book more value doesn't mean the author should get paid more. As an example, movie studios didn't (and rightfully shouldn't have) gotten paid more when VCRs were made with 4 or even 6 heads, better tracking, etc.
I can't argue that murder is a much more serious and permanent thing to happen to a person. However, it is a local problem that the people of Oakland should rally behind and fix. Let's have federal people worry about federal things, and local people worry about local things. The constitutionality of federal level laws is one of those things that a federal level person such as the PotUS should be more worried about. At a more personal level, Obama should be worried about whether he will keep his promises.
Don't change your words. You actually said you'd rather him worry about Oakland's murder rate than "an industry whose music isn't that great anyway". The article isn't about the RIAA, it's about a trial concerning the constitutionality of federal level laws _and_ whether Obama will keep his promises. The "industry whose music isn't that great" is merely a player. The article isn't about the industry, it's about a trial and promises. If I had taken what you said literally at face value, I would have passed it off as a non sequitur and off-topic. I assumed you were being on-topic however. And that is different than what you are now implying.
Why is it that people have this weird fetish with capitalizing letters that don't need to be capitalized?
/. doesn't know how to use the <sup> tag. All the letters are capitalized.
/rant
What prompted you to write VALVe rather than just Valve? But before anyone jumps in and says that's how Valve spells it, check again. The last 'e' is smaller than the other letters, but it's still capatalized! It's an 'E', not an 'e'. It's VALVE, not VALVe. Notice the difference? If you're going to capitalize everything else, just keep on capitalizing everything like they do. Never mind that
Why do people insist on writing ID or iD when it is just id? I can see Id, as that is the more common convention, by why anything else?
Why do people write MAC when referring to the Macintosh as the short form Mac?
Wouldn't it be even funnier if they weren't a monopoly?
And I have faulty logic because I got those mixed up. 23.7% is their online ad market share. 59.2% is their search share.
Google's online ads market share: as 59.2%
Microsoft Window's market share:89.62%
I don't know what the GP's threshold for monopoly status is, but it's apparent he thinks it's more than 59% market share. You are the one with faulty logic to then reason that because he doesn't think 59% is enough that he must not think 89% is enough.
Sonny Bono and Walt Disney? Why does it always have to be zombies!? Can't these people ever come up with something new?
Yes
I'm pretty sure it's Epic's fault for you losing 25% of your First Person Shooter. Perhaps they should have made UT3 better.
I'll see myself to the door, thanks.
Now for the more serious reply. You do realize the drop from 99% to 75% is correlated wth The Great Depression right? That had lots of causes but I don't think the automating of car manufacturing (roughly 1915) or the use of computers for telephones (certainly after WWII) was one of them. Since then has been when society has probably automated itself the fastest and yet you can see with your own numbers a trend towards 99% (current economy aside). In fact, as the other poster points out, in not so many words, the entirety of human civilization has been spent finding ways to get more with less work. Robots and computers are merely an extension of pulleys, wheels, incline planes, wedges, etc. Sure, in the short term all of those things caused us to use less humans. In the long term, that gave people with more free time to devise even more ways to reduce work and at the same time increase productivity. Remember, the ultimate goal is to get more with less work.
Yes it sucks for the people who lose their job and we should find some way of helping them. However, to say that machines and automation causes unemployment would be to say that the most glorious economic times would be before mankind had ever started using tools. Sure, everyone then was working (because they had to in order to survive) but we were an entirely inefficient group then compared to now.
In the 1930s employment was at 75%. The 1930s was a very human-oriented economy. Since that time we've become more automated with cars built by machines, telephone operators replaced with computers, et cetera. Our current economic meltdown aside, we've enjoyed roughly 95% employment for a long time. All stats from taken from here.
The stranger, unless I invited him in, has already committed trespassing and possibly breaking and entering. However, my office is open all the time (so long as you can get into the building). If a stranger (the nightly janitorial crew, perhaps) came into my office and copied everything I have then I wouldn't be upset. Why should I? They were allowed to be there, didn't take anything away from me, didn't break anything, didn't vandalize anything, didn't interfere with me. What would I have lost? Why should it bother me? If any of the above was not true, then I might have been able to take some kind of action, legal or otherwise, but if all of those things are the case then what harm has been done?
If that were the case, then I would be fine with the PotUS or congress worrying about illegal immigrants and interstate drug and gun trafficking. It would have to be Oakland, though, that figured out why their murder rates are high and then make the appropriate federal authorities aware of it. In this case, Obama still shouldn't be worried about murder rates in Oakland, but about the illegal immigration.
So Oakland looks into its rising murder rates, decides it is because of illegal immigration and tells Obama and the Congress. They work to reduce illegal immigration either through the passage of new laws or the enforcement of existing laws. The feds can track their success only by the lowering of illegal immigration, not by whether or not Oakland's murder rate goes down, thus they are still not worried about Oakland's murder rate, only about federal issues.
I think you missed an episode or two. Angela already has a new cat and Dwight tried to burn the whole building down with it inside. You only have to watch the first few minutes, specifically 2:28-2:58.
The price of an item is not related to its newness. In fact, it is also not even related to its betterness. It is in direct relation to how much people are willing to pay for it. If Subway came out with a new sandwich which was nothing more than their own Meatball Marinara but laid the habanero's on really thick, people would not pay more for it simply because it is new. Sure, some people might find it to be better, but most people would rather have the older stuff than to burn themselves. And if they saw their options as being limited, they might even pay more to downgrade to the non-habanero version.
Sincerely, why? The rates of murder in Oakland, CA are an issue for the people living in Oakland, and maybe for the people in California. On the other hand, the statutory damages from copyright are a federal thing. I'd rather the people of California be concerned about the problems in California and the people at the federal level be concerned with federal level things.
So, really, why is it that you want the PotUS to be concerned about murder rates in one city over worrying about the constitutionality of federal laws? Why is it that you want the head of the Executive Office to be concerned about a local issue rather than whether he will be true to his own promises that his appointments won't be involved in the industries they previously represented? Please explain.
He probably should have put his real name in the Ask Slashdot post. It'd have a good chance of overcoming the other google rankings.
Barney was first broadcast in 1992. Rush Limbaugh started as a DJ in the 70s but that was as a music DJ. He didn't start doing talk until 1984. If alien life has received Rush in his political talk show days, then they're pretty close. If they have Barney, they're even closer.
Just an FYI.
I've met some people who were pretty close to perfect. Of course, that was because they didn't find reasons to not want to grow and learn.
I used to laugh when I was spanked. That was the impetus behind my parents deciding that spanking was not as effective as they had previously thought.
I don't think I've seen any one ever chucked out of a cinema. I've been in some with people answering cell phones, with crying children, and talking the whole way through. I'm not entirely convinced they would chuck someone out if they fired up a full size BBQ and smoker and started cooking rotten seafood.
Thanks for the info. However, if the kid is autistic enough to warrant being kicked out of school for autistim-related disrupions wouldn't that be easy enough for a doctor to detect early on? I assume that if a doctor is weary about diagnosing a kid with autism then the kid is probably not going to be kicked out of school for autism-related disruptions. So either my assumptions are wrong (could very well be) or I'm still misunderstanding what the problem is. The AC I replied to said the problem was school's refusing to offer services to kids who aren't autistic. But I don't see that as a problem. What I do see as a problem is parents shopping around to find a doctor willing to diagnose their kid with autism because their kid got himself kicked out of school because he was disruptive. But, again I'm assuming, if his disruptions were autism-related, you wouldn't need to shop around as any competent doctor would be able to diagnose that.
That's not to say a kid can't have mild autism but still be kicked out for non-autistic spectrum behavior, but if that were the case, it'd still be parents trying to lay the blame on some thing that isn't the real issue (i.e., their kid is disruptive for non-autistic spectrum behavior).
Wait, what is the problem? Either the kids actually have Autism and doctors should have diagnosed them, or parents of disruptive kids without Autism need get their kids to behave. Maybe you worded it wrongly, but it sounds like you are saying the problem is that schools are refusing to provide services to kids who don't need those services. That's not a problem. If the kid isn't Autistic, he shouldn't be treated as if he is. If a kid isn't Autistic and is being disruptive, he should be kicked out and the parents should be told to deal with that, not shop around for a doctor willing to misdiagnose just so the parents can claim that their non-Autistic kid isn't really a bad person.
Or are your really suggesting that the problem is doctors need to do a better job of detecting earlier so that autistic kids can get the services they need? I'm really not sure. Please clarify.
You are bringing up two different things here. Ratings have nothing to do with plot complexity. You could have a rated e for everyone game with enough complexity that would make most grown adults stare, and you can have an AO game with so little complexity a two year old could grok it.
Actually, Warren Buffet is the richest man in the US. Bill Gates is the third richest man in the world.