I'll agree with you if you can provide a single example of a way for a textbook author to earn a living on his writing without selling his textbooks.
Easy enough: textbook authors can earn a living by charging directly for their labor. Don't write another book until someone (or a group of someones) agrees to pay a fair price for the time you spend writing it. If everyone does this, then anyone who wants a new book will have no choice but to pay someone to write it.
Glad to know that we agree now!
BTW, you might be wondering who exactly is going to pay. Normally I'd say "the people who benefit from the service", which in the case of writing textbooks might be students, teachers, and/or businesses who want to hire educated graduates. But since we're talking about education, taxpayer funding is another viable option: We The People have already decided that education is something worth spending our tax dollars on, so paying for writer-hours in addition to teacher-hours isn't much of a change.
yeah, people should totally just skip the "write books" thing, and just teach/tutor instead, since then they can get paid at the time they do it. Books are useless.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think books are fine, even though the business model that most authors employ is built on an illusion that's been shattered by technological advances. I'd rather see a model where authors are paid to write, and then their works are free for everyone to read.
But if you'd rather pay someone to tutor you than contribute to the writing of a new textbook, who am I to stop you?
Also, from now on I'm going to fly my favorite musicians over to my house and pay them for a song or two whenever I want to listen to them.
Fair enough. Again, if you'd rather do that than pay directly for the production of new recorded music, I won't object.
His legal right to control the fate of his work is derived from the moral right.
Perhaps you think so. I, on the other hand, believe there is no such moral right, and his legal right is derived from the Constitution.
Yes, and that's wrong, because we'd rather he worked for free, and fed himself and his family with free beets grown (for free) by somebody else -- in the community. Money is the root of all evil...
Aww, what a cute little strawman!
I'm not asking him to work for free, and I don't see anyone else in this thread asking him to work for free either. If his labor as a technical writer is valuable, then people will be willing to pay him directly for it -- the same way billions of other people get paid directly for their labor, without needing any complicated royalty schemes, government-granted monopolies, or veto powers over other people's speech.
...is to charge for writing works that don't already exist.
Of course, it's a little too late for this particular textbook. But next time, instead of doing all the work of writing a book and then looking for buyers, do it the other way around. Identify a group of customers who would benefit from the book's existence (teachers, students, businesses that want to hire the graduates, etc.) and get them to pay for it.
All authors -- be they literature writers, musicians, programmers, or scientists -- need copyright just about equally.
That's correct. None of them need it at all.
This is not about a "business model". It is about the concept of Intellectual Property, which, in itself, does not have much to do with "business".
In the context of this thread, it most certainly does. The submitter has chosen to employ the "write first, ask for money later" business model, which depends on copyright, and the difficulty of enforcing copyright is what led him to Ask Slashdot. He's not asserting some moral right to control the flow of information, he's just trying to get paid.
If there's no financial motivation to write an educational book, who is going to do it? Are the best and brightest minds going to take time off from their paid jobs to write a book that isn't going to produce any income?
"Textbooks [that have already been written] should be free" != "there should be no financial incentive for writing textbooks".
It's a fallacy to assume that the only way for authors to earn a living is to charge for copies of works they've already written.
Cute, but the glaringly obvious difference you're ignoring is that cars have a high marginal cost: every additional car on the road represents an additional investment of raw material and manufacturing labor. You can't just look at someone else's car and quickly make your own for free.
If we ever manage to invent Star Trek-like replicators that can produce cars at virtually no cost, then it'll be sensible to make analogies between free cars and free digital media.
Let's see the "I don't believe in imaginary property" crowd come out with their memes â" and see them getting a new one ripped out by people, who finally realize, that Intellectual Property is not just about stealing other people's MP3-recordings.
Or perhaps your ilk will be ripped a new one by people who realize that authors don't need copyright any more than musicians or any other artists.
The business model of "write/record first, ask for money later" is fundamentally flawed no matter who tries to practice it.
IANAL but I really don't think whether you used an "audio" CD makes any difference whatsoever, since the two are functionally identical. The act says that the tax will be added and it says that you can make personal copies, it doesn't say "the consumer shall be required to put audio only on discs marked for the purpose".
I think it does matter. The act says you can make personal copies if you make them with a "digital audio recording device".
The act also defines "digital audio recording device" and states that no one may import, manufacture, or distribute such a device unless it conforms to SCMS or an equivalent copy-protection system, and that is where the "audio CD" media comes in.
If you make a copy of a CD using a device that doesn't enforce the copy protection bits and doesn't require you to use media for which a royalty has been paid, then either it isn't a "digital audio recording device" and you aren't protected, or the device was distributed illegally. The CD burner in your computer is not a "digital audio recording device" unless it was "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of... making a digital audio copied recording for private use".
(The act also covers "digital audio recording media", which has similar restrictions. "Audio CD" media fits the definition; regular CD-R media doesn't.)
I have the choice to pay X dollars and get a new book, or pay zero dollars and let someone else pay and get a new book anyway when it turns up on the torrents.
Hmm, which do you think I'm going to do?
That depends on how much you care about the book.
If you don't really care whether or not it ever gets written, then you'll wait for someone else to pay. Maybe no one will, and you'll never be able to read the book, but that's a risk you're evidently willing to take.
If you do care, you'll pay.
This system works. Look at the millions of dollars political candidates are able to raise, through lots of small donations, even though everyone knows they don't really have to contribute because there are lots of other people who'll take their place. People contribute when the outcome is important to them (and when they have an thermometer graph to remind them how close they are to meeting the goal).
You do get freetards on Slashdot, and I agree that demanding people work without renumeration is not a reasonable proposition.
It's such an absurd proposition that no one bothers with it. Frankly, in all my years here, I don't think I've ever seen anyone demanding that people work without remuneration -- that idea exists only as a strawman to be knocked down.
Why? Because you think it would be nice if the world worked this way?
Because the demand for good books, good music, and interesting movies isn't going away. If the only way to get those things is to pay an artist to make them, then artists will get paid.
The reality for many writers is that income streams are small and intermittent, and having one's work freely available on line for zero cost really does reduce income.
Only if one is stuck in the mindset that income can only result from selling copies. Move beyond that, and you'll realize that piracy isn't really a problem. It's your labor that matters; what people do with the fruits of that labor is irrelevant.
But just because I wrote something doesn't mean you have my permission to copy it. And just because you feel that books should be able to be copied doesn't mean I feel the same way... so why should your view trump mine?
Because your view requires that you be given veto power over his speech. His view, on the other hand, doesn't require anything from you. I say let's go with the view that results in more freedom, not less.
In other words... if I write a book and don't want it freely copied, I think I should be allowed to have that right. The right to forbid it from being copied.
I don't think you should. If I want to use my own scanner to make a digital representation of a few hundred pieces of paper than I own, then I should be allowed to have that right. And if I want to use email, FTP, P2P, or whatever else to distribute the file that came out of my scanner, I ought to have that right as well.
You don't own my papers, my scanner, or my computer, so what gives you the right to tell me what to do with them?
You seem to be using the continuum fallacy [wikipedia.org].
No, you've either misunderstood the continuum fallacy or misread my comments. I'm not saying "no one can be incapable of doing activity X because there are varying degrees of capability". That would be the continuum fallacy.
What I'm saying is that even if many (or most) members of a group are incapable, that doesn't justify discrimination against the remaining members. Even if most women can't lift the loads expected of a firefighter, that's no reason to reject the ones who can. And even if most 12 year olds couldn't pass a driving test, that's no reason to reject the ones who could.
According to your reasoning: in order to be non-sexist people would have to allow women the same chances that men have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently, right? Simply swapping prejudices and following the same line of reasoning suggests that: in order to be non-ageist people would have to allow newborns the same chances that adults have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently.
Yes, that's correct, unless we can come up with medical proof that all members of an age group are incapable (which I suspect would be pretty easy if we're talking about newborns).
But obtaining that individual data is hardly a burden. It doesn't take much effort to look at a newborn and realize that this individual is not going to be able to drive a car or fill out a ballot, when he can't read, speak, stand up, or focus on distant objects.
["There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age."] That's exactly my point.
So then, you agree that all age restrictions should be abolished, and we should judge people based on their capacity as individuals instead? Glad to hear it.
Another difference is that racism is based on incorrect beliefs about different races, and 'ageism' (the way you're using the word) is based on factual information - children really are different than adults in relevant ways.
There is no factual information saying that all 18 year olds are capable of activity X and all 17 year olds are incapable; biology doesn't work that way. Ageism takes statistical generalizations ("more 18 year olds than 17 year olds are capable of activity X") and incorrectly applies them to individuals.
I also understand that the specific ages our system uses are somewhat arbitrary and should be open to debate. But that doesn't mean that laws (or rules) that treat people differently based on actual differences is morally equivalent to those that treat people differently based on non-existent differences.
The problem is, these laws and rules don't "treat people differently based on actual differences". They treat people differently based on age, which may or may not correlate with actual differences.
As an analogy, consider a fire department that refuses to hire women. They might say that it's a valid form of discrimination, because firefighters need to carry heavy loads, and women tend to be weaker than men: there's an "actual difference" between the sexes. But any particular woman may or may not be weaker than any particular man. It would be unjust for the department to discriminate based on sex, when what really matters is physical strength, which varies from one individual to another.
Likewise, it's unjust to discriminate based on age when what really matters is some other trait that's loosely correlated with age. The DMV can directly observe driving ability, and restaurant owners can directly observe a person's ability to avoid making a scene; they don't need to ask anyone's age.
Unless you treat newborn infants and full-grown adults in exactly identical ways you're 'ageist' as well.
No, that's ridiculous. I don't have to treat newborns as adults in order to be anti-ageist, any more than the fire department has to hire 90 lb women who can't lift an axe in order to be anti-sexist.
I just have to base my differential treatment on individual traits rather than age-based generalizations. There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age.
kids are NOISY. If you want it rephrased that only well behaved and quiet kids are allowed then fine.
You're close, but not quite there yet. Try this: "only well behaved and quiet people are allowed". It doesn't matter how old they are. If they're making a scene, then kick them out; if not, then let them stay.
But far easier to just to set an age limit.
Yup, just like it's far easier to ban all black people from the movie theater -- after all, some of them are noisy too, at least according to stand-up comics.
Just like it's easier to lock up anyone accused of a crime -- after all, most of them end up being convicted, so why not save the hassle and expense of a trial for the few who are innocent?
Because it would be barbaric, that's why. People deserve to be treated as individuals, not faceless members of a group. Even if 99 out of 100 kids couldn't control themselves in a restaurant, it would still be unjust to ban the last one because of his age... but in real life, the odds aren't nearly that slanted.
Typical slashdot poster, always arguing that anyone who runs a business is being evil...
I said nothing of the sort, and you know it.
Anyone who practices unfair discrimination is being evil, but most people who run a business manage to avoid doing that.
I guess we should let adults buy hardcore porn and drink neat vodka too, whilst playing with machine-guns, because the minute you complete your 18th orbit of the sun you become A PARAGON OF RATIONALITY no matter who you are or how much you've been drinking.
I just googled the phrase "U.S. post office asks for bailout" and found story-after-story of the USPS asking Congress for additional funds.
No doubt, but many of those are referencing the same recent request, which has not been granted. (Even if it had: does that mean every other company we've bailed out is no longer private?)
One article states they lost nearly 3000 million dollars in 2008. Not exactly what I call a "good example" of government efficiency in action, and just further proof why I do not want the government running companies.
Uh huh... because other private companies have never lost billions. Especially during the past couple years.
The point is, they're not losing our money. The USPS is funded by postage sales, not taxes.
Oh yeah, to answer your question, I do send letters by FedEx if they are important (i.e. tax returns). It's faster and safer and I get proof-of-delivery.
Faster? Sure, if you don't mind paying 50 times as much as the USPS charges, you can get it there in one day instead of two or three. (Unless you want it delivered on Saturday, in which case you'll pay extra!)
Safer? Not really. The USPS has a lower failure rate when you consider the staggering volume of mail they move every day.
Proof of delivery? The USPS offers that as an extra service, and you'll still pay a lot less.
Well let's see. You claim the cost per text is zero. Obviously that's not true since maintenance plus electricity for the towers costs money, but it's obviously quite cheap. So anyway..... my cellphone provider charges just 1 cent per text. That's about cheap as a plan can get, since you can't charge less than a penny (half-pennys were discontinued a long time ago).
That's impressive. Who's your cell phone provider and what sort of package do you need to get that deal? The carriers I know of charge 15 to 20 cents per message (although you can get a discount on the first N messages with a package).
That was hiliarious. The U.S.P.S. is losing money year-after-year and only survives because of taxes drawn from out of our paychecks (see my previous post).
No, that's completely false. If someone told you that, they were lying.
"The Postal Service is a self-sufficient agency. The cost of postal operations, including the costs to extend service to an additional 1.2 million new deliveries in 2008, must be financed by the revenue generated from the sale of postal products and services." (link)
And when I have something important to ship, I definitely don't use the government company. Instead I go to one of the private companies because (1) they cost less (2) they don't lose stuff and (3) if they did it's insured for free (upto $100). Oh and (4) they are the only ones who offer overnight package service; the government does not.
And when you need to send a letter, return a warranty card, pay a bill... do you use FedEx or UPS? I sure hope not: it'd cost much, much more and probably be less reliable. Sending packages is one thing, but private companies simply cannot provide the same service as the USPS for regular mail.
I can't think of a single government company that is as efficiently-run as its commercial counterpart.
That's because you're deliberately ignoring the prime example.
I disagree. The retail cost is whatever the market will bear. This idea goes all the way back to John Smith, and is not necessarily tied to the actual cost of the good.
I think you mean Adam Smith, and I think you're misreading the GP. Cost != price. The retail price is whatever the market will bear, but the cost of providing SMS service is virtually zero.
You might call it a "ripoff" but it's a ripoff that customers *voluntarily* enter into. They could just as easily decide not to do texting (as I do).
It's awfully glib to say we shouldn't be upset about being ripped off just because we have a choice. In a free market, with healthy competition, the price of goods and services should fall to just above their actual cost. That obviously isn't happening with SMS: customers would like to pay less, but no one is offering SMS for less, even though it costs almost nothing to provide. Doesn't that suggest a market failure?
Anyway it could be worse. The cellphone company could be run by Congress (like Amtrak). In which case you wouldn't have a choice; instead they'd suck the money from your paycheck.
Or perhaps it could be run like the US Postal Service, in which case it would provide world-class service at a far lower price than any of its competitors. The USPS will carry a physical envelope from my doorstep to someone else's doorstep, thousands of miles away, for less than the price of 3 text messages.
(I'm not saying we should nationalize cellular companies - just pointing out that services set up by the government aren't inherently inefficient as you seem to be implying.)
This announcement is why there aren't more killer apps on the PSP. Where the piracy potential is high, game developers don't want to take the risk to make high budget games.
I suppose that's why there are no high budget games for Xbox 360, Wii, PS2, or PC.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree with you if you can provide a single example of a way for a textbook author to earn a living on his writing without selling his textbooks.
Easy enough: textbook authors can earn a living by charging directly for their labor. Don't write another book until someone (or a group of someones) agrees to pay a fair price for the time you spend writing it. If everyone does this, then anyone who wants a new book will have no choice but to pay someone to write it.
Glad to know that we agree now!
BTW, you might be wondering who exactly is going to pay. Normally I'd say "the people who benefit from the service", which in the case of writing textbooks might be students, teachers, and/or businesses who want to hire educated graduates. But since we're talking about education, taxpayer funding is another viable option: We The People have already decided that education is something worth spending our tax dollars on, so paying for writer-hours in addition to teacher-hours isn't much of a change.
yeah, people should totally just skip the "write books" thing, and just teach/tutor instead, since then they can get paid at the time they do it. Books are useless.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think books are fine, even though the business model that most authors employ is built on an illusion that's been shattered by technological advances. I'd rather see a model where authors are paid to write, and then their works are free for everyone to read.
But if you'd rather pay someone to tutor you than contribute to the writing of a new textbook, who am I to stop you?
Also, from now on I'm going to fly my favorite musicians over to my house and pay them for a song or two whenever I want to listen to them.
Fair enough. Again, if you'd rather do that than pay directly for the production of new recorded music, I won't object.
His legal right to control the fate of his work is derived from the moral right.
Perhaps you think so. I, on the other hand, believe there is no such moral right, and his legal right is derived from the Constitution.
Yes, and that's wrong, because we'd rather he worked for free, and fed himself and his family with free beets grown (for free) by somebody else -- in the community. Money is the root of all evil...
Aww, what a cute little strawman!
I'm not asking him to work for free, and I don't see anyone else in this thread asking him to work for free either. If his labor as a technical writer is valuable, then people will be willing to pay him directly for it -- the same way billions of other people get paid directly for their labor, without needing any complicated royalty schemes, government-granted monopolies, or veto powers over other people's speech.
...is to charge for writing works that don't already exist.
Of course, it's a little too late for this particular textbook. But next time, instead of doing all the work of writing a book and then looking for buyers, do it the other way around. Identify a group of customers who would benefit from the book's existence (teachers, students, businesses that want to hire the graduates, etc.) and get them to pay for it.
All authors -- be they literature writers, musicians, programmers, or scientists -- need copyright just about equally.
That's correct. None of them need it at all.
This is not about a "business model". It is about the concept of Intellectual Property, which, in itself, does not have much to do with "business".
In the context of this thread, it most certainly does. The submitter has chosen to employ the "write first, ask for money later" business model, which depends on copyright, and the difficulty of enforcing copyright is what led him to Ask Slashdot. He's not asserting some moral right to control the flow of information, he's just trying to get paid.
If there's no financial motivation to write an educational book, who is going to do it? Are the best and brightest minds going to take time off from their paid jobs to write a book that isn't going to produce any income?
"Textbooks [that have already been written] should be free" != "there should be no financial incentive for writing textbooks".
It's a fallacy to assume that the only way for authors to earn a living is to charge for copies of works they've already written.
Cute, but the glaringly obvious difference you're ignoring is that cars have a high marginal cost: every additional car on the road represents an additional investment of raw material and manufacturing labor. You can't just look at someone else's car and quickly make your own for free.
If we ever manage to invent Star Trek-like replicators that can produce cars at virtually no cost, then it'll be sensible to make analogies between free cars and free digital media.
Let's see the "I don't believe in imaginary property" crowd come out with their memes â" and see them getting a new one ripped out by people, who finally realize, that Intellectual Property is not just about stealing other people's MP3-recordings.
Or perhaps your ilk will be ripped a new one by people who realize that authors don't need copyright any more than musicians or any other artists.
The business model of "write/record first, ask for money later" is fundamentally flawed no matter who tries to practice it.
IANAL but I really don't think whether you used an "audio" CD makes any difference whatsoever, since the two are functionally identical. The act says that the tax will be added and it says that you can make personal copies, it doesn't say "the consumer shall be required to put audio only on discs marked for the purpose".
I think it does matter. The act says you can make personal copies if you make them with a "digital audio recording device".
The act also defines "digital audio recording device" and states that no one may import, manufacture, or distribute such a device unless it conforms to SCMS or an equivalent copy-protection system, and that is where the "audio CD" media comes in.
If you make a copy of a CD using a device that doesn't enforce the copy protection bits and doesn't require you to use media for which a royalty has been paid, then either it isn't a "digital audio recording device" and you aren't protected, or the device was distributed illegally. The CD burner in your computer is not a "digital audio recording device" unless it was "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of ... making a digital audio copied recording for private use".
(The act also covers "digital audio recording media", which has similar restrictions. "Audio CD" media fits the definition; regular CD-R media doesn't.)
There is a reason why apple has stupid limits on background apps, and push notifications, and etc, etc.
Except for their own apps, of course. Because Apple has never written a single line of buggy code, right?
Now if they could only allow user replaceable batteries.
There is a reason why the G1 has a replaceable battery. ;)
I have the choice to pay X dollars and get a new book, or pay zero dollars and let someone else pay and get a new book anyway when it turns up on the torrents.
Hmm, which do you think I'm going to do?
That depends on how much you care about the book.
If you don't really care whether or not it ever gets written, then you'll wait for someone else to pay. Maybe no one will, and you'll never be able to read the book, but that's a risk you're evidently willing to take.
If you do care, you'll pay.
This system works. Look at the millions of dollars political candidates are able to raise, through lots of small donations, even though everyone knows they don't really have to contribute because there are lots of other people who'll take their place. People contribute when the outcome is important to them (and when they have an thermometer graph to remind them how close they are to meeting the goal).
You do get freetards on Slashdot, and I agree that demanding people work without renumeration is not a reasonable proposition.
It's such an absurd proposition that no one bothers with it. Frankly, in all my years here, I don't think I've ever seen anyone demanding that people work without remuneration -- that idea exists only as a strawman to be knocked down.
Why? Because you think it would be nice if the world worked this way?
Because the demand for good books, good music, and interesting movies isn't going away. If the only way to get those things is to pay an artist to make them, then artists will get paid.
The reality for many writers is that income streams are small and intermittent, and having one's work freely available on line for zero cost really does reduce income.
Only if one is stuck in the mindset that income can only result from selling copies. Move beyond that, and you'll realize that piracy isn't really a problem. It's your labor that matters; what people do with the fruits of that labor is irrelevant.
But just because I wrote something doesn't mean you have my permission to copy it. And just because you feel that books should be able to be copied doesn't mean I feel the same way... so why should your view trump mine?
Because your view requires that you be given veto power over his speech. His view, on the other hand, doesn't require anything from you. I say let's go with the view that results in more freedom, not less.
In other words... if I write a book and don't want it freely copied, I think I should be allowed to have that right. The right to forbid it from being copied.
I don't think you should. If I want to use my own scanner to make a digital representation of a few hundred pieces of paper than I own, then I should be allowed to have that right. And if I want to use email, FTP, P2P, or whatever else to distribute the file that came out of my scanner, I ought to have that right as well.
You don't own my papers, my scanner, or my computer, so what gives you the right to tell me what to do with them?
Can you recommend one that doesn't cost more than 300 books?
Given that the GGP's comment was about how Usenet allowed him to collect hundreds of books for free...
No.
You seem to be using the continuum fallacy [wikipedia.org].
No, you've either misunderstood the continuum fallacy or misread my comments. I'm not saying "no one can be incapable of doing activity X because there are varying degrees of capability". That would be the continuum fallacy.
What I'm saying is that even if many (or most) members of a group are incapable, that doesn't justify discrimination against the remaining members. Even if most women can't lift the loads expected of a firefighter, that's no reason to reject the ones who can. And even if most 12 year olds couldn't pass a driving test, that's no reason to reject the ones who could.
According to your reasoning: in order to be non-sexist people would have to allow women the same chances that men have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently, right? Simply swapping prejudices and following the same line of reasoning suggests that: in order to be non-ageist people would have to allow newborns the same chances that adults have, and only after getting individual data can they be treated differently.
Yes, that's correct, unless we can come up with medical proof that all members of an age group are incapable (which I suspect would be pretty easy if we're talking about newborns).
But obtaining that individual data is hardly a burden. It doesn't take much effort to look at a newborn and realize that this individual is not going to be able to drive a car or fill out a ballot, when he can't read, speak, stand up, or focus on distant objects.
["There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age."]
That's exactly my point.
So then, you agree that all age restrictions should be abolished, and we should judge people based on their capacity as individuals instead? Glad to hear it.
Another difference is that racism is based on incorrect beliefs about different races, and 'ageism' (the way you're using the word) is based on factual information - children really are different than adults in relevant ways.
There is no factual information saying that all 18 year olds are capable of activity X and all 17 year olds are incapable; biology doesn't work that way. Ageism takes statistical generalizations ("more 18 year olds than 17 year olds are capable of activity X") and incorrectly applies them to individuals.
I also understand that the specific ages our system uses are somewhat arbitrary and should be open to debate. But that doesn't mean that laws (or rules) that treat people differently based on actual differences is morally equivalent to those that treat people differently based on non-existent differences.
The problem is, these laws and rules don't "treat people differently based on actual differences". They treat people differently based on age, which may or may not correlate with actual differences.
As an analogy, consider a fire department that refuses to hire women. They might say that it's a valid form of discrimination, because firefighters need to carry heavy loads, and women tend to be weaker than men: there's an "actual difference" between the sexes. But any particular woman may or may not be weaker than any particular man. It would be unjust for the department to discriminate based on sex, when what really matters is physical strength, which varies from one individual to another.
Likewise, it's unjust to discriminate based on age when what really matters is some other trait that's loosely correlated with age. The DMV can directly observe driving ability, and restaurant owners can directly observe a person's ability to avoid making a scene; they don't need to ask anyone's age.
Unless you treat newborn infants and full-grown adults in exactly identical ways you're 'ageist' as well.
No, that's ridiculous. I don't have to treat newborns as adults in order to be anti-ageist, any more than the fire department has to hire 90 lb women who can't lift an axe in order to be anti-sexist.
I just have to base my differential treatment on individual traits rather than age-based generalizations. There are enough actual, obvious differences between a newborn and an adult that we don't need to ask either of them their age.
Microsoft executives are "customers". They buy things!
You didn't think they meant "Microsoft's customers", did you? ;)
kids are NOISY. If you want it rephrased that only well behaved and quiet kids are allowed then fine.
You're close, but not quite there yet. Try this: "only well behaved and quiet people are allowed". It doesn't matter how old they are. If they're making a scene, then kick them out; if not, then let them stay.
But far easier to just to set an age limit.
Yup, just like it's far easier to ban all black people from the movie theater -- after all, some of them are noisy too, at least according to stand-up comics.
Just like it's easier to lock up anyone accused of a crime -- after all, most of them end up being convicted, so why not save the hassle and expense of a trial for the few who are innocent?
Because it would be barbaric, that's why. People deserve to be treated as individuals, not faceless members of a group. Even if 99 out of 100 kids couldn't control themselves in a restaurant, it would still be unjust to ban the last one because of his age... but in real life, the odds aren't nearly that slanted.
Typical slashdot poster, always arguing that anyone who runs a business is being evil...
I said nothing of the sort, and you know it.
Anyone who practices unfair discrimination is being evil, but most people who run a business manage to avoid doing that.
I guess we should let adults buy hardcore porn and drink neat vodka too, whilst playing with machine-guns, because the minute you complete your 18th orbit of the sun you become A PARAGON OF RATIONALITY no matter who you are or how much you've been drinking.
equally laughable.
I just googled the phrase "U.S. post office asks for bailout" and found story-after-story of the USPS asking Congress for additional funds.
No doubt, but many of those are referencing the same recent request, which has not been granted. (Even if it had: does that mean every other company we've bailed out is no longer private?)
One article states they lost nearly 3000 million dollars in 2008. Not exactly what I call a "good example" of government efficiency in action, and just further proof why I do not want the government running companies.
Uh huh... because other private companies have never lost billions. Especially during the past couple years.
The point is, they're not losing our money. The USPS is funded by postage sales, not taxes.
Oh yeah, to answer your question, I do send letters by FedEx if they are important (i.e. tax returns). It's faster and safer and I get proof-of-delivery.
Faster? Sure, if you don't mind paying 50 times as much as the USPS charges, you can get it there in one day instead of two or three. (Unless you want it delivered on Saturday, in which case you'll pay extra!)
Safer? Not really. The USPS has a lower failure rate when you consider the staggering volume of mail they move every day.
Proof of delivery? The USPS offers that as an extra service, and you'll still pay a lot less.
I have Verizon and pay $4/month for 400 txt messages...
That's $0.01/message.
Correction: that's $0.01 per message if you use exactly 400.
If you only use one, it's $4 per message.
And if you use more than 400, you pay an extra 20 cents for the 401st message (and each message after that).
Why is there no option to pay a reasonable per-message fee without having to commit to buy more messages than you actually use?
Well let's see. You claim the cost per text is zero. Obviously that's not true since maintenance plus electricity for the towers costs money, but it's obviously quite cheap. So anyway..... my cellphone provider charges just 1 cent per text. That's about cheap as a plan can get, since you can't charge less than a penny (half-pennys were discontinued a long time ago).
That's impressive. Who's your cell phone provider and what sort of package do you need to get that deal? The carriers I know of charge 15 to 20 cents per message (although you can get a discount on the first N messages with a package).
That was hiliarious. The U.S.P.S. is losing money year-after-year and only survives because of taxes drawn from out of our paychecks (see my previous post).
No, that's completely false. If someone told you that, they were lying.
"The Postal Service is a self-sufficient agency. The cost of postal operations, including the costs to extend service to an additional 1.2 million new deliveries in 2008, must be financed by the revenue generated from the sale of postal products and services." (link)
And when I have something important to ship, I definitely don't use the government company. Instead I go to one of the private companies because (1) they cost less (2) they don't lose stuff and (3) if they did it's insured for free (upto $100). Oh and (4) they are the only ones who offer overnight package service; the government does not.
And when you need to send a letter, return a warranty card, pay a bill... do you use FedEx or UPS? I sure hope not: it'd cost much, much more and probably be less reliable. Sending packages is one thing, but private companies simply cannot provide the same service as the USPS for regular mail.
I can't think of a single government company that is as efficiently-run as its commercial counterpart.
That's because you're deliberately ignoring the prime example.
I disagree. The retail cost is whatever the market will bear. This idea goes all the way back to John Smith, and is not necessarily tied to the actual cost of the good.
I think you mean Adam Smith, and I think you're misreading the GP. Cost != price. The retail price is whatever the market will bear, but the cost of providing SMS service is virtually zero.
You might call it a "ripoff" but it's a ripoff that customers *voluntarily* enter into. They could just as easily decide not to do texting (as I do).
It's awfully glib to say we shouldn't be upset about being ripped off just because we have a choice. In a free market, with healthy competition, the price of goods and services should fall to just above their actual cost. That obviously isn't happening with SMS: customers would like to pay less, but no one is offering SMS for less, even though it costs almost nothing to provide. Doesn't that suggest a market failure?
Anyway it could be worse.
The cellphone company could be run by Congress (like Amtrak).
In which case you wouldn't have a choice;
instead they'd suck the money from your paycheck.
Or perhaps it could be run like the US Postal Service, in which case it would provide world-class service at a far lower price than any of its competitors. The USPS will carry a physical envelope from my doorstep to someone else's doorstep, thousands of miles away, for less than the price of 3 text messages.
(I'm not saying we should nationalize cellular companies - just pointing out that services set up by the government aren't inherently inefficient as you seem to be implying.)
This announcement is why there aren't more killer apps on the PSP. Where the piracy potential is high, game developers don't want to take the risk to make high budget games.
I suppose that's why there are no high budget games for Xbox 360, Wii, PS2, or PC.