It is actually quite easy to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that at least some of the customers would be willing to pay for some of those games.
If it were not the case then the manufacturer (and resellers) would have no reason to put those games on the device (and risk legal action) - customers would buy the device anyway (at the same price) with 74 games, 50 games, or just 1.
Some of the games might be worth a buck, some only a penny, but they are worth something.
There's obviously no way I can convey this to you. No matter how many inconsistencies in your argument I point out to you.
What do you think about that idea? Love it. Of course we will do the same for child labor, pollution, racial discrimination, firing workers for activities on personal time,... Let people decide vote on how much they care about each of those issues by using their pocket book.
For the record, YOU entered both of these seemingly contradictory statements into slashdot lore. I, on the other hand, have only summarized what others have said (that DRM is a small factor) even though I'm personally not convinced (as evident by my previous posts). So again I have to ask, who is the one not following the thread? You don't even remember what you said in your OWN post, let alone understand that I'm the one who actually believes that DRM is pretty much a non-factor. It's not surprising you didn't clue in to my ironic statement. Cluing in is not your strong suit.
When I say "DRM is a reason why some people might wait." You freak out about me being an anti-DRM nut. Then you say "DRM is a reason why some people might wait" and I give you the same (irrational) treatment.
Go back to my first post. I said that one of the many reasons some people might choose to not go HD is because they couldn't rip the discs. Do you want to take another crack at refuting that statement since you failed so miserably the previous two times?
I haven't said people should do ANYTHING. I have no idea why I'm wasting my time with someone so stubborn and dense.
Let me recap, one final time. Seumas said "People shouldn't wait and here's why." You said "No, no, no and here's some ignorant reasons why."
Need I tell you that the opposite of "should not" is "should". If you are disagreeing with Seumas (and me) then you are saying that people should wait. If you believe that people who want HD should not wait, then you are violently agreeing with us.
Neither of us ever said that people weren't buying because of the format war, but you keep on insisting that they are. And no doubt you will insist it again in your reply to this post.
Neither of us ever said that HD was not a significant investment (and it certainly is to some more than others.)
What we have said (oh, so many times) is that for those who want HD that sitting on the sidelines until the war is over does not make sense, practically or even financially.
You've provided nothing but nonsense to rebut that. Jeez, how many times have you claimed that the second HD player will cost $400! Or that users will be forced, yes forced to rebuy their media because they won't be able to play their obsolete discs?
One more attempt at a lesson in simple boolean logic (at no charge to you):
Not "should not" == "should"
Not "some people" == "no people"
Straw man? The problem is that you're arguing against a straw man that I didn't even create. How do you think all those things became illegal? How do you think all the taxes, fees, fines, etc. we currently have were created?
As a society (although never unanimously) we decide certain behaviors are either reprehensible and make them criminal or undesirable and put fines and fees on them or allow civil judgements against them.
All I've ever said is that we should do what we currently are already doing and extend it to where it makes sense. Yet for some reason you think I want to put fines on companies because of some trivial and totally personal belief. You don't seem to realize that by not criminalizing everything in sight and instead by adding fines or fees we actually give companies and consumers more choices.
Let's look at a restaurant that does not have handicapped access as a free market example. Well, of course, you would say, "Duh, that is illegal!" and feel it proved some point. But isn't forcing restaurants to comply with the current law inefficient and wasteful and against every principle you've stated so far? On the other hand, do we really want to let them off the hook totally? I.e. without that law is this something that the free market can correct; that non-handicapped consumers will patronize "good" restaurants and thus encourage many of them to have handicapped access? I don't think so, because of competitive pressure you will end up with very few restaurants that are accessible.
What if instead you set a fee for each restaurant (depending on size) to opt out of the law. If you set the fee properly you would end up with restaurants that could reasonably remodel not paying the fee and restaurants where the cost to remodel was prohibitive would just pay it. And there would be a wide selection of restaurants for the handicapped.
Can you actually give me one example of a type of tax/fee/fine that you think I want to implement that you think illustrates your point?
Fantastic! So we've boiled it down to your argument being that people SHOULD sit out the format war because they ARE sitting out the format war.
I won't address the next three ignorant or inconsistent comments in your post because the very first one is sufficient to indicate you have no idea what the discussion is about. Although I do have to respond to this:
There are other issues...inability to defeat DRM,... How can you seriously believe that DRM is the reason people are not buying HD?! This is not about DRM! What is it with you slashdotters and your DRM agenda!!!
fool your GPS into believing, there is some sort of interference (accident, jam) ahead, which will simply cause the device to pick an alternate (and sub-optimal) route. You will not be lost, you'll just arrive later. Why is it infeasible to insert a bogus traffic delay designed to divert drivers off a main highway in a remote area so the cars could easily be jacked? If there are 4 guys with guns waiting at a stop sign because you got off the interstate, I'd say that new route is pretty darn sub-optimal.
So you have no problem letting the free market decide? Even if companies choose to hire child laborers, pay below minimum wage, padlock all the doors, pollute to their hearts content,...? Why should a consumer be forced to donate to protect children from companies who would exploit them, eh?
It's not my place to challenge you on your ethics or morality, but I admire your consistency for that position.
When logic and fact go over the head of the person you're debating what are you left with but ad hominem attacks? Yes, it's a weakness of mine, I should just just keep quiet and let you blunder on through life.
Have the words "fear," "uncertainty," and "doubt" taken on new meanings since I left school? Would you rather I said, "uncertainty, doubt and fear?" Or chosen three different words that mean the same thing. Sheesh, I congratulated you that had found a minor (although insignificant) flaw in my post, and you now go and ruin it by following it up with something stupid like that.
What makes you "truly a moron" is the total absence of worth in your previous post, after having been given 3 or more tries to get it right. I certainly can't spend all day trying to educate you, but I defy you to find even one valid point that you made (other than the FUD) which makes any sense in the context of this thread and diminishes in any way the points that Seumas made and I built upon. I eagerly away what you thing your strongest argument is. Of course, that might require you to understand what the topic is. Hint: it's not about DRM.
Wow, it's rare that I give up on someone this quickly, but you are truly a moron. I'll let someone else point out the many obvious (and repeated) idiotic and clueless statements you've made here. Hold on, I'm re-reading your post looking for one thing that is even close to be factually or logically correct...
Ooh, good news! I found something! I'll grant that I used FUD in a non-traditional way. I had started to write out "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" which certainly applies and chose to tighten my post by abbreviating it. My bad, I'll try to be more verbose in the future to avoid confusion.
But the rest of your post is pure and utter nonsense. Are you sure you're even responding in the right thread?
No need to wonder anymore, it's clearly you who has this ridiculous idea in your head and can't see past it. Should I try again? Okay, I confess I'm a masochist.
First, are you seriously positing that there aren't any consumers who are avoiding HD because of DRM? Perhaps you think those on Slashdot are lying, but we have here many people who have confessed to avoiding it for that very reason. And if you think there aren't millions of consumers who are impacted by DRM (and the difficulty of ripping/copying HD) even if they don't know it by that name, then you are very much mistaken. So there we have it, DRM is one of the many valid reasons to avoid buying an HD player. Go back and read my post and you will see that I didn't say it was the only reason, or even the major reason, just that it is a valid reason. So you're wrong on that one.
Second, you are confusing why people are not buying and whether it is a valid reason. I've already clearly stated that current players are expensive and not everyone can afford to go to HD yet. That is a valid reason (although often greatly exaggerated, by you for example). I have no idea why you keep repeating that as if it were a new revelation. I'm going to count this one against you too, because it shows you're not really following the thread.
Third, there is no doubt that many are not buying because of the FUD over the two formats. Most consumers are sheep and, like yourself, blindly agreeing with reporters looking for a controversial story without giving it a single thought or calculation. But Seumas (among others) has, and his analysis (which wasn't really that complicated) should disabuse any reasonable person of that faulty conclusion. Yet you persist in repeating the same ignorant notions that he has clearly, clearly contradicted, and you have done so without adding any new arguments or data to support your reanalysis. Let's go through them in detail so they are hard for you to overlook:
1) You don't have to buy two $400 players! He's said that at least twice and I've said it once. You buy one now and a cheap $100 one in 5 years or more if your player is not the clear winner in the format war. So it will cost you roughly the price of two HD discs. That's worth waiting for?
2) You won't, won't, won't have to rebuy all your media. Even if your format is the loser your current player will still work at least for 5 years, probably 10 or more and they will be making new ones (of the losing format) for the next 10 years, so you will be able to rebuy for less than $100. Let alone that you will be able to buy cheap, used, but working players for the next 50 years. You can still buy laserdisc players on ebay for $10 to $100, fer chrissakes. History is not your bitch, in this case.
3) Say you sit on the sidelines for 5 years. How many 100s of dollars have you wasted buying standard DVDs when you could have been buying and enjoying HD discs? And, according to your logic, you will then have to rebuy all those DVDs in HD!
Avoid HD if you don't care about the quality and you think the players and discs are too expensive for your budget. You could have made the same argument against going to DVD 10 years ago (and many did). Are they happy with their choice?
However, the dual format concern is a non-issue and you haven't supplied a single shred of evidence to the contrary.
Frankly, you're completely missing the point. If you are struggling to feed your family then you should probably not be thinking about buying a $400 HD player at all, let alone two. But that's just my opinion.
The boneheaded article (and summary) is telling people who want HD to sit on the sidelines until the battle is over. Which is almost completely irrational, as Seumas has clearly pointed out. There are many reasons why individuals may rationally choose not to buy a player now: they're still expensive, they aren't easily ripped, you don't care about the higher resolution.... But the irrational fear of obsolescence is not one of them.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering. It's pretty clear you're not reading, let alone understanding the guy's point.
Does it matter to us which is bigger? I think you're asking the wrong questions here.
In some cases it may be more profitable for a company to do the right thing, but your logic is giving them the moral high ground to take whichever actions are most profitable even when they are ethically and morally in the wrong. If your argument were correct then we wouldn't need discrimination laws either.
So wouldn't making such corporate behavior actionable (i.e. allowing the fired employee to sue and win under certain circumstances) be a more unambiguous option? Assuming that society can agree that firing an employee for personal activity is wrong, of course.
In any event, instead of "Our job is to make them aware the answer to #2 is even greater." shouldn't it be "Our job is to make sure the answer to #2 is even greater."
Your situation is completely different. Responding to customers or co-workers with your personal home page is unprofessional. If your name and profession can identify you and someone happens to look for and find your home page (or blog) on their own then your company and its customers have no right to complain.
Calm down - I just asked you a few simple questions that are crucial to its overall success or failure, which you didn't answer. Here is the problem with your responses. You assume that I am trying to convince you of the correctness of my proposed solution and that I therefore need to "prove" its value to you beyond some arbitrary degree that you decide (a degree which will no doubt be impossible to meet because you will add increasingly more obscure details).
But, that's not how it works. This is a discussion board and you aren't voting for this suggestion in any real way, so if you choose to not have an open mind then I couldn't care less.
The burden is upon each of us to weigh the ideas and come to our own conclusions. You have not made any concrete statements or suggestions so you feel that you have nothing to prove, but in reality that just means you have added zero value to the discussion. Your responses can be summed up as "There are reasons why your idea may not be practical." Thanks, that helps.
All economics aside, one big thing you've got to take into consideration is that you're saying we ought to force people to make choices that they wouldn't normally make. You can't just discard people's free will so lightly - there had better be a really convincing reason to do so, and it's up to you, the person proposing that we restrict people's free will, to show it!
In addition to demonstrating why you think restricting everyone's economic freedom is OK, you've got to compare the costs of regulating versus the costs of not regulating. And since you're the one proposing that regulation of pickles (or lightbulbs) is a "good idea," then you're the one who has to show that it's better than what we're doing right now, which is allowing people to buy whatever pickles or lightbulbs they want. Since you are so into "proof", how about you demonstrate why this approach will not work, rather than just throwing out vague (and obvious) concerns like "Look, the idea of regulation is not always "bad," but it's also not always the best solution."
That would have been a fantastic response if my suggestion had been "regulation is always better" instead of "we should consider adding regulation."
How about putting some real effort into this discussion, rather than taking the easy (and pointless) role of devil's advocate. Are you saying that putting some regulations on light bulbs (or pickles) is a bad idea and will be less efficient than the current method? If so, are you willing to prove it?
Are you saying that taxes (e.g. alcohol, gas,...) and fines (pollution, discrimination,...) should be eliminated because they "restrict economic freedom"? If you are saying that we shouldn't even consider adding a pickle tax, then surely the current taxes should also be repealed.
You took issue with nebosuke's original proposal of "well-informed specialists" which I was supporting. So what is your alternative?
1) Are you saying that the current system works? I.e. that well-informed consumers are making the proper choices now and that the $3 pickles are not being bought?
2) If not, are you saying that someone (presumably not a government agency) should educate those consumers? If so, please prove how this is economically feasible.
3) Are you saying that there are in reality no pickle companies that unfairly externalize costs, i.e. that all companies should do whatever they can to keep their costs down? Therefore consumers should always buy the lowest priced good (assuming same quality)?
4) Are you saying that some companies do act against the public good, but it is just not worth the time for the consumer (or the government) to be concerned with it?
Those are the only logical positions I can see anyone having, but if you have anything else please state it clearly (and show your work, of course). All I've seen from you is "maybe, maybe, maybe" and no real suggestions or even definitive statements about how things currently work.
Simply put, I don't see how your stated positions (vague as they are) are at all consistent and jibe with current reality.
You're right, the real answer is 15,374, but I was just being a dick.
Of course, there are no specific answers because the problem hasn't been worked out fully and it will be constantly evolving. Your approach seems to be that you should never make any change unless all problems are worked out in advance and every eventuality accounted for. I.e. you propose we never do anything. Can you honestly suggest one significant change to me that supports all the criteria that you expect of me?
How about instead we take this more sensible approach. We both agree on something that is a "nice idea" and we both try to figure out if there are any flaws that completely break it (or make it worse than the current system). Do you have any reason to believe that the number of experts is too high, well then why don't we together (i.e. all of society) pursue the idea a little further rather than declaring it dead without further review?
I think the rest of this discussion will be pointless, but I'll address one of your nitpicking points just to show how it works.
What if the cost of "specialists" and their support bureaucracy needed to enforce correct behavior in the pickle industry (which they will have to support through taxes) ends up putting half the pickle companies out of business?
What if? Okay, is your point that no business should ever be regulated? Should the USDA not inspect meat packing plants, should the FDA not approve new drugs? How about we address the big issues first and work our way down? Clearly there will be a point where costs outweigh the benefits and we would stop there. But arguably if that point is reached than the economic (and environmental, etc.) consequences are negligible. If we can't afford to have one guy keeping the pickle business fair, then I'm willing to let it slide.
So, "encourage" means: If an individual doesn't do what you want, then you put them in jail, or take their money. In order to pay for it all, you force all participants to contribute unwillingly.
Uh, yeah. People contribute their fair share, is that a concept you're uncomfortable with? Would you also like to apply your idea to paying taxes? "What? Force people to pay taxes, even if they don't feel like it or they don't support our war in Iraq? Ridiculous!"
Coerce: to compel to an act or choice. You can call it whatever you want, but it's coercion.
I'm really concerned about your well-being. Do you feel "coerced" when they library asks you to kick in the 25 cents for your overdue book? Apparently so.
On the other hand, I think the economic analysis of crime and punishment works like this: The idea is to make the punishment severe enough that the vast majority of people would agree that the punishment is *not* worth the illegal behavior.
Yeah, how is that different from what I said?
I mean, think about it - if every time you littered, you knew that a cop would catch you you and you'd have to pay $500, would it *ever* be worth it? What if, every time someone committed murder, they *knew* that they would be caught, and sentenced to life in prison?
Except that your idea is pointless, impractical and stupid. Enforcement is not absolute, perfect and it is damn expensive, which is the whole point of setting a high enough penalty that the occasional, yes probabilistic, enforcement still acts as a substantial deterrent.
Your side-track here has added absolutely no value to the discussion.
And here's mine: Don't regulate the sales of lightbulbs. Let people make their own economic choices. Those who choose to purchase energy-efficient lightbulbs will do so. Those who don't, won't. If there's not an economic incentive to do so now, then maybe there will be someday. But until there's an actual, real incentive that causes people to change their everyday, responsible behavior, there's no reason to
It's not nitpicking to point out that your argument is complete hogwash. Let's see, we've got:
"This is not censorship, because it's not the government."
"Because if it were the government it would be illegal, and this is legal."
"If it were illegal, only then would it be censorship."
You really can't tell that what you've just said is circular reasoning, at best!? I wish you would point to the other sub-thread where this was discussed in more detail, because your summary of the argument is crap.
Well, at first glance (and this is where most people stop), this idea sure sounds good! But, how do you propose to add this layer of "well-informed specialists" to the economy? Who will they work for? Who will pay them? How many will we need? How do we hire them? How do we ensure that they are, indeed, "well-informed?" How will they force people to make "correct" choices? Who decides what choices are "correct," and which ones aren't? The "well-informed specialists" would be employed by the government, just as they are today. There will be as many as it takes to correct for major market problems, but not too many as to bog the system down. They are accountable directly to our elected representatives and their findings would be open to public scrutiny.
They will encourage people (and corporations) to make better choices by making some activities illegal and by imposing fines and taxes on others.
Unless the choice is illegal, do you really think it's OK to forcibly coerce someone into making a choice that they normally wouldn't make? I would use the word "encourage" instead of "coerce", but yes, I think it is absolutely okay to do this. We do it today with cigarettes, alcohol, and many, many other activities. I may not always agree with the things that are encouraged or discouraged, but I'd be willing to let society as a whole decide this.
The simple fact is that people making choices that you don't agree with does not automatically mean that they are wrong and that they need to be forced into making the same choices that you would make in that situation. This is the whole point. You force people to take responsibility for the externalized costs and then let them make their own decisions. Maybe it's worthwhile for me to take the risk of littering and getting a $100 fine, maybe it's not for you. If the fine is properly set (and the chance of getting caught non-zero) then we can both make the decision that's best for us and society does not suffer.
What's your alternative? If you don't punish litterers, because a handful of people don't feel it's wrong, then you end up with filthy streets and the majority suffers. If you make the penalty incredibly severe, then no one will litter, but you end up with grossly inefficient behavior that costs society in the long run.
I would say a panel of experts would have a much better estimate of the costs of "making a river sick" than you or I could. Another qualified panel would determine whether a company was using unfair labor practices (by whatever measure we, as a nation, decide) and impose additional penalties on those products (or suppliers).
Since their data and decisions would be publicly available you could certainly spend your time arguing with their determination and have it corrected for all consumers. Rather than the current method which is to have each individual consumer guess blindly and only a small percentage of them are even going to try.
And none of this prevents you from having your own pet issues and acting alone on them. I'm sure it would be quite futile, but it would at least make you feel better.
I read what he said about the article. I also read the part where he admitted selling Wiis online at an inflated price to boost his online store and pick up a small profit. The fact that he was pretty unsuccessful at it is the part that makes his decision so stupid (if it had worked out then it would just have been unethical).
The honest thing to do at this point would be to admit it was a boneheaded thing to do (which was probably exaggerated by the article), and promise to never make the same mistake again.
There's no reason that all the factors can't be captured in the price tag, so "religious capitalism" works and it doesn't require every consumer to understand the entire production chain.
For example, if a company is a gross polluter you charge them for it. Maybe it costs the "dirty" pickle maker 25 cents per jar for the pollution he causes so he has to raise his prices to make a profit. So his $3.25 jar is still more cost effective to society than the $3.50 alternative and the average customer doesn't have to know why.
Too late. Twenty years ago Palau was conned/bribed into building a power plant that could supply several times the amount of power they should have ever needed (and could never pay for).
So the owner's defense is that he's not that smart?
You know, being seen as a price gouger by your customers, threatening your relationship with a valuable supplier and looking like a douche on the internet, all to make only $375 dollars seemed like a good idea at the time. It did give his ebay store a higher profile, I'll give him that.
but the exemption in fuel efficiency standards for them should be removed, and they should be taxed like any gas guzzler. Why not just tax them for the gas they actually use, rather than the gas they might use?
Slashdot Mirror
It is actually quite easy to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that at least some of the customers would be willing to pay for some of those games.
If it were not the case then the manufacturer (and resellers) would have no reason to put those games on the device (and risk legal action) - customers would buy the device anyway (at the same price) with 74 games, 50 games, or just 1.
Some of the games might be worth a buck, some only a penny, but they are worth something.
Agreed?
When I say "DRM is a reason why some people might wait." You freak out about me being an anti-DRM nut. Then you say "DRM is a reason why some people might wait" and I give you the same (irrational) treatment.
Go back to my first post. I said that one of the many reasons some people might choose to not go HD is because they couldn't rip the discs. Do you want to take another crack at refuting that statement since you failed so miserably the previous two times?
I haven't said people should do ANYTHING. I have no idea why I'm wasting my time with someone so stubborn and dense.
Let me recap, one final time. Seumas said "People shouldn't wait and here's why." You said "No, no, no and here's some ignorant reasons why."
Need I tell you that the opposite of "should not" is "should". If you are disagreeing with Seumas (and me) then you are saying that people should wait. If you believe that people who want HD should not wait, then you are violently agreeing with us.
Neither of us ever said that people weren't buying because of the format war, but you keep on insisting that they are. And no doubt you will insist it again in your reply to this post.
Neither of us ever said that HD was not a significant investment (and it certainly is to some more than others.)
What we have said (oh, so many times) is that for those who want HD that sitting on the sidelines until the war is over does not make sense, practically or even financially.
You've provided nothing but nonsense to rebut that. Jeez, how many times have you claimed that the second HD player will cost $400! Or that users will be forced, yes forced to rebuy their media because they won't be able to play their obsolete discs?
One more attempt at a lesson in simple boolean logic (at no charge to you):
Not "should not" == "should"
Not "some people" == "no people"
Straw man? The problem is that you're arguing against a straw man that I didn't even create. How do you think all those things became illegal? How do you think all the taxes, fees, fines, etc. we currently have were created?
As a society (although never unanimously) we decide certain behaviors are either reprehensible and make them criminal or undesirable and put fines and fees on them or allow civil judgements against them.
All I've ever said is that we should do what we currently are already doing and extend it to where it makes sense. Yet for some reason you think I want to put fines on companies because of some trivial and totally personal belief. You don't seem to realize that by not criminalizing everything in sight and instead by adding fines or fees we actually give companies and consumers more choices.
Let's look at a restaurant that does not have handicapped access as a free market example. Well, of course, you would say, "Duh, that is illegal!" and feel it proved some point. But isn't forcing restaurants to comply with the current law inefficient and wasteful and against every principle you've stated so far? On the other hand, do we really want to let them off the hook totally? I.e. without that law is this something that the free market can correct; that non-handicapped consumers will patronize "good" restaurants and thus encourage many of them to have handicapped access? I don't think so, because of competitive pressure you will end up with very few restaurants that are accessible.
What if instead you set a fee for each restaurant (depending on size) to opt out of the law. If you set the fee properly you would end up with restaurants that could reasonably remodel not paying the fee and restaurants where the cost to remodel was prohibitive would just pay it. And there would be a wide selection of restaurants for the handicapped.
Can you actually give me one example of a type of tax/fee/fine that you think I want to implement that you think illustrates your point?
I won't address the next three ignorant or inconsistent comments in your post because the very first one is sufficient to indicate you have no idea what the discussion is about. Although I do have to respond to this: There are other issues...inability to defeat DRM,... How can you seriously believe that DRM is the reason people are not buying HD?! This is not about DRM! What is it with you slashdotters and your DRM agenda!!!
So you have no problem letting the free market decide? Even if companies choose to hire child laborers, pay below minimum wage, padlock all the doors, pollute to their hearts content, ...? Why should a consumer be forced to donate to protect children from companies who would exploit them, eh?
It's not my place to challenge you on your ethics or morality, but I admire your consistency for that position.
When logic and fact go over the head of the person you're debating what are you left with but ad hominem attacks? Yes, it's a weakness of mine, I should just just keep quiet and let you blunder on through life.
Have the words "fear," "uncertainty," and "doubt" taken on new meanings since I left school? Would you rather I said, "uncertainty, doubt and fear?" Or chosen three different words that mean the same thing. Sheesh, I congratulated you that had found a minor (although insignificant) flaw in my post, and you now go and ruin it by following it up with something stupid like that.
What makes you "truly a moron" is the total absence of worth in your previous post, after having been given 3 or more tries to get it right. I certainly can't spend all day trying to educate you, but I defy you to find even one valid point that you made (other than the FUD) which makes any sense in the context of this thread and diminishes in any way the points that Seumas made and I built upon. I eagerly away what you thing your strongest argument is. Of course, that might require you to understand what the topic is. Hint: it's not about DRM.
Wow, it's rare that I give up on someone this quickly, but you are truly a moron. I'll let someone else point out the many obvious (and repeated) idiotic and clueless statements you've made here. Hold on, I'm re-reading your post looking for one thing that is even close to be factually or logically correct...
Ooh, good news! I found something! I'll grant that I used FUD in a non-traditional way. I had started to write out "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" which certainly applies and chose to tighten my post by abbreviating it. My bad, I'll try to be more verbose in the future to avoid confusion.
But the rest of your post is pure and utter nonsense. Are you sure you're even responding in the right thread?
No need to wonder anymore, it's clearly you who has this ridiculous idea in your head and can't see past it. Should I try again? Okay, I confess I'm a masochist.
First, are you seriously positing that there aren't any consumers who are avoiding HD because of DRM? Perhaps you think those on Slashdot are lying, but we have here many people who have confessed to avoiding it for that very reason. And if you think there aren't millions of consumers who are impacted by DRM (and the difficulty of ripping/copying HD) even if they don't know it by that name, then you are very much mistaken. So there we have it, DRM is one of the many valid reasons to avoid buying an HD player. Go back and read my post and you will see that I didn't say it was the only reason, or even the major reason, just that it is a valid reason. So you're wrong on that one.
Second, you are confusing why people are not buying and whether it is a valid reason. I've already clearly stated that current players are expensive and not everyone can afford to go to HD yet. That is a valid reason (although often greatly exaggerated, by you for example). I have no idea why you keep repeating that as if it were a new revelation. I'm going to count this one against you too, because it shows you're not really following the thread.
Third, there is no doubt that many are not buying because of the FUD over the two formats. Most consumers are sheep and, like yourself, blindly agreeing with reporters looking for a controversial story without giving it a single thought or calculation. But Seumas (among others) has, and his analysis (which wasn't really that complicated) should disabuse any reasonable person of that faulty conclusion. Yet you persist in repeating the same ignorant notions that he has clearly, clearly contradicted, and you have done so without adding any new arguments or data to support your reanalysis. Let's go through them in detail so they are hard for you to overlook:
1) You don't have to buy two $400 players! He's said that at least twice and I've said it once. You buy one now and a cheap $100 one in 5 years or more if your player is not the clear winner in the format war. So it will cost you roughly the price of two HD discs. That's worth waiting for?
2) You won't, won't, won't have to rebuy all your media. Even if your format is the loser your current player will still work at least for 5 years, probably 10 or more and they will be making new ones (of the losing format) for the next 10 years, so you will be able to rebuy for less than $100. Let alone that you will be able to buy cheap, used, but working players for the next 50 years. You can still buy laserdisc players on ebay for $10 to $100, fer chrissakes. History is not your bitch, in this case.
3) Say you sit on the sidelines for 5 years. How many 100s of dollars have you wasted buying standard DVDs when you could have been buying and enjoying HD discs? And, according to your logic, you will then have to rebuy all those DVDs in HD!
Avoid HD if you don't care about the quality and you think the players and discs are too expensive for your budget. You could have made the same argument against going to DVD 10 years ago (and many did). Are they happy with their choice?
However, the dual format concern is a non-issue and you haven't supplied a single shred of evidence to the contrary.
Frankly, you're completely missing the point. If you are struggling to feed your family then you should probably not be thinking about buying a $400 HD player at all, let alone two. But that's just my opinion.
The boneheaded article (and summary) is telling people who want HD to sit on the sidelines until the battle is over. Which is almost completely irrational, as Seumas has clearly pointed out. There are many reasons why individuals may rationally choose not to buy a player now: they're still expensive, they aren't easily ripped, you don't care about the higher resolution.... But the irrational fear of obsolescence is not one of them.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering. It's pretty clear you're not reading, let alone understanding the guy's point.
Does it matter to us which is bigger? I think you're asking the wrong questions here.
In some cases it may be more profitable for a company to do the right thing, but your logic is giving them the moral high ground to take whichever actions are most profitable even when they are ethically and morally in the wrong. If your argument were correct then we wouldn't need discrimination laws either.
So wouldn't making such corporate behavior actionable (i.e. allowing the fired employee to sue and win under certain circumstances) be a more unambiguous option? Assuming that society can agree that firing an employee for personal activity is wrong, of course.
In any event, instead of "Our job is to make them aware the answer to #2 is even greater." shouldn't it be "Our job is to make sure the answer to #2 is even greater."
Your situation is completely different. Responding to customers or co-workers with your personal home page is unprofessional. If your name and profession can identify you and someone happens to look for and find your home page (or blog) on their own then your company and its customers have no right to complain.
But, that's not how it works. This is a discussion board and you aren't voting for this suggestion in any real way, so if you choose to not have an open mind then I couldn't care less.
The burden is upon each of us to weigh the ideas and come to our own conclusions. You have not made any concrete statements or suggestions so you feel that you have nothing to prove, but in reality that just means you have added zero value to the discussion. Your responses can be summed up as "There are reasons why your idea may not be practical." Thanks, that helps. All economics aside, one big thing you've got to take into consideration is that you're saying we ought to force people to make choices that they wouldn't normally make. You can't just discard people's free will so lightly - there had better be a really convincing reason to do so, and it's up to you, the person proposing that we restrict people's free will, to show it! In addition to demonstrating why you think restricting everyone's economic freedom is OK, you've got to compare the costs of regulating versus the costs of not regulating. And since you're the one proposing that regulation of pickles (or lightbulbs) is a "good idea," then you're the one who has to show that it's better than what we're doing right now, which is allowing people to buy whatever pickles or lightbulbs they want. Since you are so into "proof", how about you demonstrate why this approach will not work, rather than just throwing out vague (and obvious) concerns like "Look, the idea of regulation is not always "bad," but it's also not always the best solution."
That would have been a fantastic response if my suggestion had been "regulation is always better" instead of "we should consider adding regulation."
How about putting some real effort into this discussion, rather than taking the easy (and pointless) role of devil's advocate. Are you saying that putting some regulations on light bulbs (or pickles) is a bad idea and will be less efficient than the current method? If so, are you willing to prove it?
Are you saying that taxes (e.g. alcohol, gas,
You took issue with nebosuke's original proposal of "well-informed specialists" which I was supporting. So what is your alternative?
1) Are you saying that the current system works? I.e. that well-informed consumers are making the proper choices now and that the $3 pickles are not being bought?
2) If not, are you saying that someone (presumably not a government agency) should educate those consumers? If so, please prove how this is economically feasible.
3) Are you saying that there are in reality no pickle companies that unfairly externalize costs, i.e. that all companies should do whatever they can to keep their costs down? Therefore consumers should always buy the lowest priced good (assuming same quality)?
4) Are you saying that some companies do act against the public good, but it is just not worth the time for the consumer (or the government) to be concerned with it?
Those are the only logical positions I can see anyone having, but if you have anything else please state it clearly (and show your work, of course). All I've seen from you is "maybe, maybe, maybe" and no real suggestions or even definitive statements about how things currently work.
Simply put, I don't see how your stated positions (vague as they are) are at all consistent and jibe with current reality.
So... "Some," is your answer to that one.
You're right, the real answer is 15,374, but I was just being a dick.
Of course, there are no specific answers because the problem hasn't been worked out fully and it will be constantly evolving. Your approach seems to be that you should never make any change unless all problems are worked out in advance and every eventuality accounted for. I.e. you propose we never do anything. Can you honestly suggest one significant change to me that supports all the criteria that you expect of me?
How about instead we take this more sensible approach. We both agree on something that is a "nice idea" and we both try to figure out if there are any flaws that completely break it (or make it worse than the current system). Do you have any reason to believe that the number of experts is too high, well then why don't we together (i.e. all of society) pursue the idea a little further rather than declaring it dead without further review?
I think the rest of this discussion will be pointless, but I'll address one of your nitpicking points just to show how it works.
What if the cost of "specialists" and their support bureaucracy needed to enforce correct behavior in the pickle industry (which they will have to support through taxes) ends up putting half the pickle companies out of business?
What if? Okay, is your point that no business should ever be regulated? Should the USDA not inspect meat packing plants, should the FDA not approve new drugs? How about we address the big issues first and work our way down? Clearly there will be a point where costs outweigh the benefits and we would stop there. But arguably if that point is reached than the economic (and environmental, etc.) consequences are negligible. If we can't afford to have one guy keeping the pickle business fair, then I'm willing to let it slide.
So, "encourage" means: If an individual doesn't do what you want, then you put them in jail, or take their money. In order to pay for it all, you force all participants to contribute unwillingly.
Uh, yeah. People contribute their fair share, is that a concept you're uncomfortable with? Would you also like to apply your idea to paying taxes? "What? Force people to pay taxes, even if they don't feel like it or they don't support our war in Iraq? Ridiculous!"
Coerce: to compel to an act or choice. You can call it whatever you want, but it's coercion.
I'm really concerned about your well-being. Do you feel "coerced" when they library asks you to kick in the 25 cents for your overdue book? Apparently so.
On the other hand, I think the economic analysis of crime and punishment works like this: The idea is to make the punishment severe enough that the vast majority of people would agree that the punishment is *not* worth the illegal behavior.
Yeah, how is that different from what I said?
I mean, think about it - if every time you littered, you knew that a cop would catch you you and you'd have to pay $500, would it *ever* be worth it? What if, every time someone committed murder, they *knew* that they would be caught, and sentenced to life in prison?
Except that your idea is pointless, impractical and stupid. Enforcement is not absolute, perfect and it is damn expensive, which is the whole point of setting a high enough penalty that the occasional, yes probabilistic, enforcement still acts as a substantial deterrent.
Your side-track here has added absolutely no value to the discussion.
And here's mine: Don't regulate the sales of lightbulbs. Let people make their own economic choices. Those who choose to purchase energy-efficient lightbulbs will do so. Those who don't, won't. If there's not an economic incentive to do so now, then maybe there will be someday. But until there's an actual, real incentive that causes people to change their everyday, responsible behavior, there's no reason to
Sigh.
It's not nitpicking to point out that your argument is complete hogwash. Let's see, we've got:
"This is not censorship, because it's not the government."
"Because if it were the government it would be illegal, and this is legal."
"If it were illegal, only then would it be censorship."
You really can't tell that what you've just said is circular reasoning, at best!? I wish you would point to the other sub-thread where this was discussed in more detail, because your summary of the argument is crap.
Which means that this is still censorship, just not illegal censorship. You haven't proven anything.
They will encourage people (and corporations) to make better choices by making some activities illegal and by imposing fines and taxes on others. Unless the choice is illegal, do you really think it's OK to forcibly coerce someone into making a choice that they normally wouldn't make? I would use the word "encourage" instead of "coerce", but yes, I think it is absolutely okay to do this. We do it today with cigarettes, alcohol, and many, many other activities. I may not always agree with the things that are encouraged or discouraged, but I'd be willing to let society as a whole decide this. The simple fact is that people making choices that you don't agree with does not automatically mean that they are wrong and that they need to be forced into making the same choices that you would make in that situation. This is the whole point. You force people to take responsibility for the externalized costs and then let them make their own decisions. Maybe it's worthwhile for me to take the risk of littering and getting a $100 fine, maybe it's not for you. If the fine is properly set (and the chance of getting caught non-zero) then we can both make the decision that's best for us and society does not suffer.
What's your alternative? If you don't punish litterers, because a handful of people don't feel it's wrong, then you end up with filthy streets and the majority suffers. If you make the penalty incredibly severe, then no one will litter, but you end up with grossly inefficient behavior that costs society in the long run.
I would say a panel of experts would have a much better estimate of the costs of "making a river sick" than you or I could. Another qualified panel would determine whether a company was using unfair labor practices (by whatever measure we, as a nation, decide) and impose additional penalties on those products (or suppliers).
Since their data and decisions would be publicly available you could certainly spend your time arguing with their determination and have it corrected for all consumers. Rather than the current method which is to have each individual consumer guess blindly and only a small percentage of them are even going to try.
And none of this prevents you from having your own pet issues and acting alone on them. I'm sure it would be quite futile, but it would at least make you feel better.
I read what he said about the article. I also read the part where he admitted selling Wiis online at an inflated price to boost his online store and pick up a small profit. The fact that he was pretty unsuccessful at it is the part that makes his decision so stupid (if it had worked out then it would just have been unethical).
The honest thing to do at this point would be to admit it was a boneheaded thing to do (which was probably exaggerated by the article), and promise to never make the same mistake again.
There's no reason that all the factors can't be captured in the price tag, so "religious capitalism" works and it doesn't require every consumer to understand the entire production chain.
For example, if a company is a gross polluter you charge them for it. Maybe it costs the "dirty" pickle maker 25 cents per jar for the pollution he causes so he has to raise his prices to make a profit. So his $3.25 jar is still more cost effective to society than the $3.50 alternative and the average customer doesn't have to know why.
Too late. Twenty years ago Palau was conned/bribed into building a power plant that could supply several times the amount of power they should have ever needed (and could never pay for).
So the owner's defense is that he's not that smart?
You know, being seen as a price gouger by your customers, threatening your relationship with a valuable supplier and looking like a douche on the internet, all to make only $375 dollars seemed like a good idea at the time. It did give his ebay store a higher profile, I'll give him that.