You must have missed the whole market segmentation portion of the GP...
Say for instance I'm interested in buying a new Dodge Charger, of which there are 5 trim levels.
I can either get a base model (SE) V6 for $22k, all of the above with better speakers and power drivers seat (SXT) for +4k, all of the above with a V8 hemi (R/T) with larger wheels and leather for +8k, all of the above with decals and a spoiler for +10k (daytona R/T), or a even bigger V8, even bigger wheels, and some performance extras and a lot of style addons (SRT8) for +15k.
The thing with cars is that as the trim level increases so does the manufacturer's margin. It is a testament to their marketing folks that you think you are getting what you pay for (esp. in the charger example the "upgrade" from R/T to Daytona R/T.)
Point taken that there is no additional cost in including extra features on a CD, except of course in development which is what the cost of software really covers anyway. To me it makes good buisness sense to charge extra for features that people are willing to pay extra for. Just because something has zero cost to deliver doesn't mean it's free; this is very obvious in the software industry. The costs are all burried in development. Why shouldn't you pay more for a feature that does cost more.
It seems to me that your just upset because Microsoft isn't segmenting the market as well as Detroit.
I'm with you. My point is that people who claim not interpret scripture tend to be much less rational people because they fail to recognize that reading comprehension is a form of interpretation. Oh, and their particular brand of uninterpreted interpretation is the only way the Word can be understood, so they're never wrong.
Sure no one says profits are bad directly, but what they do say is that patents are. This leads to one of two possible conclusions: either we are cutting off our noses to spite our face i.e patents are screwed up so lets get rid of them regardless of the effect on R&D, or patents are bad because buisness use them to make money at the expense of others i.e profit is bad.
What I'm saying is that patents are screwed up, but there is a legitimate reason for awarding temporary monopolies to inventors, we shouldn't do away with that.
The problem with your request is that slashdot groupthink narrowly defines profit as bad, so with such a definition no there are no good uses of patents.
However, if we accept that we live in a money driven society and that profit isn't necessarily a bad thing then yes profits have helped many, many products come to market. For instance it is not difficult to argue that the invention of Nylon by the DuPont Company created profits that allowed for increased R&D spending that ultimately turned out Teflon and Kevlar, among other things.
The catch is that we can't run the control experiment so the standard anti-patent comeback to this is that some other player would have developed them anyway. Personally, I think that an anti-patent stance reduces to an anti-business stance, but hey whatever floats your (commie pinko;) boat.
All that said the USPTO is incompetent and patents like "one-click shopping" and the JPEG and this nonsense are abuses of the system that shouldn't be allowed. A patent should, in my mind, cover things that are actually unique and non-obvious, and a working implementation of the patented device should have to be presented. Oh, and there should be some kind of common property catch where if something you patented has become widely popular and profitable and you haven't acted you can't try to cash in after the fact.
Jewish law definately has codified violence, so christianity also does by adoption of the OT.
I'm with the parent that this isn't a problem with Islam, but rather a problem with a religion being twisted into an excuse to hate Jews and by extension the West.
It is my opinion that the single most important war in Western history is the 30 years war. Only because the Peace of Westphalia basically resulted in Europeans not killing each other solely over religion anymore.
Nothing is ever meant to be interpreted, presented as a parable, or allegory, and the Word is static and unchangeable.
The Word is not a document to be considered in a historical context, and it is meaningless to attempt to understand the culture in which it is written.
It boggles my mind how people can honestly think that they have a coherent religious philosophy AND rely on biblical literalism. Or even more bizarrely, they claim that the certain parts of the bible are meant to be interpreted, and others aren't - somehow they seem to be the only ones who know which portions are to be interpreted and which aren't.
Either way I give to you Jesus' take on literalism:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Seems pretty clear to me (especially if I'm not interpreting), the bible was written by men, and should be interpreted as a historical document with an understanding that the culture in which it was created is different from the culture today. If Moses (or the deuteronomist) didn't have it right, how can we be sure that Paul does? Additionally the men who wrote the bible, and made the laws may not be 100% faithful in reproducing the will of God - people are funny like that.
Furthermore, it is impossible to have a coherent and consistent theological perspective by relying only on scripture. Where is it indicated in the bible that one should not be open to different sources of revelation? Even if the books of the bible on their own are to be regarded as the only sacred truth, how do we justify the current bible as a compilation - a compilation created by the Catholic Church? Some books were excluded; how do we know that there is no sacred truth in them? How do we know that the right books were chosen? Maybe we ought to have the Gospel according to Thomas instead of the Gospel according to John. IIRC there isn't a divine index.
In general I agree with you, but you should recognize that this drug was developed in acadamia, almost certainly with tax payer dollars. BYU has patented the drug and is licensing it to big pharma.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but astra zenica's research budget was something like $2 billion, and their advertising budget something like $2.3 billion two years ago...
Makes me scratch my head. You know if I developed a drug that cured some disease, I think the only people I'd have to tell about it are the MDs, AND I could do that through a scientific journal and roll that cost into the R&D program.
Which is why any serious inventor, or any company R&D orginization keeps maticulous records. Notebooks signed, dated, and witnessed are common practice.
Sounds good, but how do you get a new show made? Someone has to pony up the dollars for the pilot, and that someone is going to what copyright protection so they can recover their investment. Otherwise it's going to be 32 episodes before a show is truely profitable, and thats only if the first couple episodes are solid enough to hold the publics interest.
Under such a model I'd suspect we'd see a lot more Survivors, and a lot fewer Farscapes.
The problem is that the RIAA and MPAA want to continue to be stagnant, creatively devoid institutions and remain profitable.
If I were a musician and I had to pick the ideal world in which to ply my trade I would pick one in which I was able to distribute my work at no cost to the consumer. I would make my money putting on concerts, and wouldn't have sold my soul and future income to an archaic distributing entity.
If I were a film maker and I had to pick the ideal world in which to ply my trade I would pick one in which I was able to distribute my work widely at little cost to the consumer. I would make my money by selling a theatre experience, one which televisions and computer monitors cannot duplicate. I wouldn't have to rely on affording a big name actor who commands a salary greater than most movies will ever see to become profitable.
I believe that what is holding copyright back is that both the music and movie industries have built up a massive institution that aided everyone at a less perfect time for artists. Both industies have utilized "tricks" to make their artists profitable. In the days of significant distribution cost the RIAA got into bed with radio and concert producers, necessitating being an RIAA member if you want to be on the radio, or have a successful tour. In the days of limited distribution the MPAA set up actors for hero worship, made films with ever increasing budgets, and bet the farm on advertising. Because this institution doing what institutions do and holding on for dear life it is difficult for the artists to "make it" without getting into bed with the artist associations of the world. This has quickly become a self-perpetuating death spiral.
That's true in the most places, where the first to file is awarded a patent, but not in the US, in theory anyways. If an inventor A can prove to the court that he invented something before inventor B came up with it completely, and demonstrably, independently of A. Inventor A still gets the patent, provided he files within a year.
I agree, I started to read TFA, but I soon realized that it read like someone in 1960 promising flying cars by 2000.
Their whole concept of nano tech is based on the premise that we can build factories that can build anything they want - with no constraint on power or materials.
Yeah yeah, "one of the first projects couild be a massive solar array..." to which I answer, even if we had cheeply available power, something I consider much more likely than their verson of nanotech, you would still need nano miners mining nano iron and shipping it on nano trains to the nano factory so they can make my rocket car. In short it's not going to happen because nano is limited by scale to something small, a nano infrastructure is no longer nano.
IMO what the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology should be doing is funding groups that are trying to see if nanotubes can actually be absorbed by the body, and if so do they actually interfere with biological processes. Oh but wait, that work is already being done by orginizations with out the rocket-car blueprints.
How many times can a quote be quoted before someone actually thinks about it?
How many times can a quote be quoted before someone realizes that an argument from authority is a really crappy way to make a point?
For the record I'm mostly against the Patriot Act, the DCMA, and illegal wire tapings, but for God's sake try to think about what Ben is saying for a minute.
Whether you like it or not there is a continuum of safety and liberty, and the ideal location on the continuum isn't extreme liberty.
If as a nation we decided that in all cases liberty was better than safety we wouldn't have warrants because no court could order an invasion of someone else's privacy. We wouldn't have traffic control devices, because damnit I'll drive when, where and how I want to. We wouldn't have police, because that's just the Man's way of telling you what to do.
Now I think that we should fight to preserve our liberties, especially when it comes to the first amendment, but I can come up with better arguments for doing so than quoting a 300 yr old dead guy - no matter how expierienced, accomplished, and intelligent said dead guy was.
Ah but the distinction between "free market" and "monopoly" becomes very fuzzy in this case.
In a laisez faire economy it is still very possible that in the institution of your choosing a particular class is required that requires specific course materials that are offered by only one party. In such a case you are still required to meet the asking price.
Even in if this free marked did not have copyright, if the course marerials were updated regularly it could still be feasable to possess a monopoly.
Aside: In a free market, which you seem to find desirable, what would keep novel material from becoming laden with DRM crap? Wouldn't the inevitable crap flood of DRMd serve the same purpose as copyright?
I don't think the problem is in eating chicken pumped full of antibiotics (the cooking will destroy them,) but rather that it creates a population perfectly suited for breeding antibiotic resistant strains of disease.
For example now we're starting to see some pretty beefy strain of salmonella.
Situations where more value is placed in profits than people is where pure capitalism breaks down. The free market doen't care what kind of conditions factory workers work in, especially if manufacturing and consumption are seperated by substancial distances.
IMO the real problem is that the government isn't going to say anything, because China has most favored nation status. Buisness does a piss poor job or regulating itself, and this is a situation where the law should make it clear that corporate actions which mitigate the value of human life have financial consequences.
I don't think it's about adding to the censorship, I think it's about supporting, or even proping up the censorship. IMO if China wants to block off information that's their buisness, but they shouldn't expect western companies to help them do it, and western companies shouldn't be so eager to sell out in order to buy in to the chinese market.
This is a situation where if all western media outlets and tech companies refused to offer censored content it would make China much less able to stem the tide. As it is western companies are tripping over themselves to try to get a piece of "The World's Fastest Growing Market." The effect of all this is it leaves China in a position to demand whatever they want from those companies.
Your comment is correct, but incomplete in its analogy. Should you sell the fireworks and canes to said cultures with full knowledge of what they'll do with them? I'd say "Heck no".
I wanted the fireworks thing to be somewhat rediculous, a case where most people would agree we shouldn't interfere at all. Perhaps a better example would be, "Should I stop another culture from improperly buttering their toast."
I the caning statement was supposed to inspire indescion, much as it did with the Sri Lanka incident several years ago. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem selling canes to the Sri Lankans, but then again I don't think corporal punishment is as much a problem as is capital punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have missed the whole market segmentation portion of the GP...
Say for instance I'm interested in buying a new Dodge Charger, of which there are 5 trim levels.
I can either get a base model (SE) V6 for $22k,
all of the above with better speakers and power drivers seat (SXT) for +4k,
all of the above with a V8 hemi (R/T) with larger wheels and leather for +8k,
all of the above with decals and a spoiler for +10k (daytona R/T),
or a even bigger V8, even bigger wheels, and some performance extras and a lot of style addons (SRT8) for +15k.
The thing with cars is that as the trim level increases so does the manufacturer's margin. It is a testament to their marketing folks that you think you are getting what you pay for (esp. in the charger example the "upgrade" from R/T to Daytona R/T.)
Point taken that there is no additional cost in including extra features on a CD, except of course in development which is what the cost of software really covers anyway. To me it makes good buisness sense to charge extra for features that people are willing to pay extra for. Just because something has zero cost to deliver doesn't mean it's free; this is very obvious in the software industry. The costs are all burried in development. Why shouldn't you pay more for a feature that does cost more.
It seems to me that your just upset because Microsoft isn't segmenting the market as well as Detroit.
... and you can also piss into the tube, turn the crank, and voila drinking water.
I just tried that and the google results are shockingly bad, and I'm assuming that is your point.
Then I searched the same thing through MSN and the results are worse, which I didn't think to be possible.
Not only that, but apperently the chip is implanted by means of a 28-gauge shotgun.
I'm with you. My point is that people who claim not interpret scripture tend to be much less rational people because they fail to recognize that reading comprehension is a form of interpretation. Oh, and their particular brand of uninterpreted interpretation is the only way the Word can be understood, so they're never wrong.
Right, because people who subscribe to biblical literalism are frequently more rational than those who allow scripture to be interpreted.
Sure no one says profits are bad directly, but what they do say is that patents are. This leads to one of two possible conclusions: either we are cutting off our noses to spite our face i.e patents are screwed up so lets get rid of them regardless of the effect on R&D, or patents are bad because buisness use them to make money at the expense of others i.e profit is bad.
What I'm saying is that patents are screwed up, but there is a legitimate reason for awarding temporary monopolies to inventors, we shouldn't do away with that.
The problem with your request is that slashdot groupthink narrowly defines profit as bad, so with such a definition no there are no good uses of patents.
;) boat.
However, if we accept that we live in a money driven society and that profit isn't necessarily a bad thing then yes profits have helped many, many products come to market. For instance it is not difficult to argue that the invention of Nylon by the DuPont Company created profits that allowed for increased R&D spending that ultimately turned out Teflon and Kevlar, among other things.
The catch is that we can't run the control experiment so the standard anti-patent comeback to this is that some other player would have developed them anyway. Personally, I think that an anti-patent stance reduces to an anti-business stance, but hey whatever floats your (commie pinko
All that said the USPTO is incompetent and patents like "one-click shopping" and the JPEG and this nonsense are abuses of the system that shouldn't be allowed. A patent should, in my mind, cover things that are actually unique and non-obvious, and a working implementation of the patented device should have to be presented. Oh, and there should be some kind of common property catch where if something you patented has become widely popular and profitable and you haven't acted you can't try to cash in after the fact.
Jewish law definately has codified violence, so christianity also does by adoption of the OT.
I'm with the parent that this isn't a problem with Islam, but rather a problem with a religion being twisted into an excuse to hate Jews and by extension the West.
It is my opinion that the single most important war in Western history is the 30 years war. Only because the Peace of Westphalia basically resulted in Europeans not killing each other solely over religion anymore.
Nothing is ever meant to be interpreted, presented as a parable, or allegory, and the Word is static and unchangeable.
The Word is not a document to be considered in a historical context, and it is meaningless to attempt to understand the culture in which it is written.
It boggles my mind how people can honestly think that they have a coherent religious philosophy AND rely on biblical literalism. Or even more bizarrely, they claim that the certain parts of the bible are meant to be interpreted, and others aren't - somehow they seem to be the only ones who know which portions are to be interpreted and which aren't.
Either way I give to you Jesus' take on literalism:
Seems pretty clear to me (especially if I'm not interpreting), the bible was written by men, and should be interpreted as a historical document with an understanding that the culture in which it was created is different from the culture today. If Moses (or the deuteronomist) didn't have it right, how can we be sure that Paul does? Additionally the men who wrote the bible, and made the laws may not be 100% faithful in reproducing the will of God - people are funny like that.
Furthermore, it is impossible to have a coherent and consistent theological perspective by relying only on scripture. Where is it indicated in the bible that one should not be open to different sources of revelation? Even if the books of the bible on their own are to be regarded as the only sacred truth, how do we justify the current bible as a compilation - a compilation created by the Catholic Church? Some books were excluded; how do we know that there is no sacred truth in them? How do we know that the right books were chosen? Maybe we ought to have the Gospel according to Thomas instead of the Gospel according to John. IIRC there isn't a divine index.
In general I agree with you, but you should recognize that this drug was developed in acadamia, almost certainly with tax payer dollars. BYU has patented the drug and is licensing it to big pharma.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but astra zenica's research budget was something like $2 billion, and their advertising budget something like $2.3 billion two years ago...
Makes me scratch my head. You know if I developed a drug that cured some disease, I think the only people I'd have to tell about it are the MDs, AND I could do that through a scientific journal and roll that cost into the R&D program.
Which is why any serious inventor, or any company R&D orginization keeps maticulous records. Notebooks signed, dated, and witnessed are common practice.
Sounds good, but how do you get a new show made? Someone has to pony up the dollars for the pilot, and that someone is going to what copyright protection so they can recover their investment. Otherwise it's going to be 32 episodes before a show is truely profitable, and thats only if the first couple episodes are solid enough to hold the publics interest.
Under such a model I'd suspect we'd see a lot more Survivors, and a lot fewer Farscapes.
The problem is that the RIAA and MPAA want to continue to be stagnant, creatively devoid institutions and remain profitable.
If I were a musician and I had to pick the ideal world in which to ply my trade I would pick one in which I was able to distribute my work at no cost to the consumer. I would make my money putting on concerts, and wouldn't have sold my soul and future income to an archaic distributing entity.
If I were a film maker and I had to pick the ideal world in which to ply my trade I would pick one in which I was able to distribute my work widely at little cost to the consumer. I would make my money by selling a theatre experience, one which televisions and computer monitors cannot duplicate. I wouldn't have to rely on affording a big name actor who commands a salary greater than most movies will ever see to become profitable.
I believe that what is holding copyright back is that both the music and movie industries have built up a massive institution that aided everyone at a less perfect time for artists. Both industies have utilized "tricks" to make their artists profitable. In the days of significant distribution cost the RIAA got into bed with radio and concert producers, necessitating being an RIAA member if you want to be on the radio, or have a successful tour. In the days of limited distribution the MPAA set up actors for hero worship, made films with ever increasing budgets, and bet the farm on advertising. Because this institution doing what institutions do and holding on for dear life it is difficult for the artists to "make it" without getting into bed with the artist associations of the world. This has quickly become a self-perpetuating death spiral.
That's true in the most places, where the first to file is awarded a patent, but not in the US, in theory anyways. If an inventor A can prove to the court that he invented something before inventor B came up with it completely, and demonstrably, independently of A. Inventor A still gets the patent, provided he files within a year.
See this
I agree, I started to read TFA, but I soon realized that it read like someone in 1960 promising flying cars by 2000.
Their whole concept of nano tech is based on the premise that we can build factories that can build anything they want - with no constraint on power or materials.
Yeah yeah, "one of the first projects couild be a massive solar array..." to which I answer, even if we had cheeply available power, something I consider much more likely than their verson of nanotech, you would still need nano miners mining nano iron and shipping it on nano trains to the nano factory so they can make my rocket car. In short it's not going to happen because nano is limited by scale to something small, a nano infrastructure is no longer nano.
IMO what the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology should be doing is funding groups that are trying to see if nanotubes can actually be absorbed by the body, and if so do they actually interfere with biological processes. Oh but wait, that work is already being done by orginizations with out the rocket-car blueprints.
How many times can a quote be quoted before someone actually thinks about it?
How many times can a quote be quoted before someone realizes that an argument from authority is a really crappy way to make a point?
For the record I'm mostly against the Patriot Act, the DCMA, and illegal wire tapings, but for God's sake try to think about what Ben is saying for a minute.
Whether you like it or not there is a continuum of safety and liberty, and the ideal location on the continuum isn't extreme liberty.
If as a nation we decided that in all cases liberty was better than safety we wouldn't have warrants because no court could order an invasion of someone else's privacy. We wouldn't have traffic control devices, because damnit I'll drive when, where and how I want to. We wouldn't have police, because that's just the Man's way of telling you what to do.
Now I think that we should fight to preserve our liberties, especially when it comes to the first amendment, but I can come up with better arguments for doing so than quoting a 300 yr old dead guy - no matter how expierienced, accomplished, and intelligent said dead guy was.
Ah but the distinction between "free market" and "monopoly" becomes very fuzzy in this case.
In a laisez faire economy it is still very possible that in the institution of your choosing a particular class is required that requires specific course materials that are offered by only one party. In such a case you are still required to meet the asking price.
Even in if this free marked did not have copyright, if the course marerials were updated regularly it could still be feasable to possess a monopoly.
Aside: In a free market, which you seem to find desirable, what would keep novel material from becoming laden with DRM crap? Wouldn't the inevitable crap flood of DRMd serve the same purpose as copyright?
I don't think the problem is in eating chicken pumped full of antibiotics (the cooking will destroy them,) but rather that it creates a population perfectly suited for breeding antibiotic resistant strains of disease.
For example now we're starting to see some pretty beefy strain of salmonella.
Which clearly means they should file a patent.
Situations where more value is placed in profits than people is where pure capitalism breaks down. The free market doen't care what kind of conditions factory workers work in, especially if manufacturing and consumption are seperated by substancial distances.
IMO the real problem is that the government isn't going to say anything, because China has most favored nation status. Buisness does a piss poor job or regulating itself, and this is a situation where the law should make it clear that corporate actions which mitigate the value of human life have financial consequences.
I don't think it's about adding to the censorship, I think it's about supporting, or even proping up the censorship. IMO if China wants to block off information that's their buisness, but they shouldn't expect western companies to help them do it, and western companies shouldn't be so eager to sell out in order to buy in to the chinese market.
This is a situation where if all western media outlets and tech companies refused to offer censored content it would make China much less able to stem the tide. As it is western companies are tripping over themselves to try to get a piece of "The World's Fastest Growing Market." The effect of all this is it leaves China in a position to demand whatever they want from those companies.
I wanted the fireworks thing to be somewhat rediculous, a case where most people would agree we shouldn't interfere at all. Perhaps a better example would be, "Should I stop another culture from improperly buttering their toast."
I the caning statement was supposed to inspire indescion, much as it did with the Sri Lanka incident several years ago. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem selling canes to the Sri Lankans, but then again I don't think corporal punishment is as much a problem as is capital punishment.