Just because you're not "into it" doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. It's a safe bet nearly every hobby of yours would be considered a waste of time by most people.
Fine. Don't create anything if it's so unprofitable.
As a matter of fact, I am creating digital things and plan to give them away for free. I also plan to ask for donations, because it has cost me considerably to create these things.
If this doesn't work, it may be simply because people don't like my work or didn't hear about it. But I do need to make back my initial costs to make more stuff, or I simply won't be able to afford it. All I'm saying is that consumers should consider this when they decide whether to get something free or pay for it. It may be in your self-interest to pay.
So I can go at 4:00 in the morning to a specific spot that I found after days of looking for the best place to take a photo and set up my camera (which cost thousands of dollars for the best results, which was an investment into a business selling art that some people might find enjoyable) so that I get the perfect sunrise shot, and someone wants to copy it because, hey, I still have the original, so it's all good!
Yes. And your "fans" who don't care to pay for your work are helping to convince you not to invest in creating that work anymore, since it obviously doesn't pay.
I don't understand why pirates don't understand this concept. People who spend money making things for you to consume need to get that money back. Otherwise they can't make any more things. How hard is that to grasp?
Let the purists have their purity, and let the pragmatists have their pragmatism. The nice part about technology is that both can coexist peacefully, ignoring a the artistic equivalent of "get off my lawn."
I agree with you as regards purely artistic photography. Plenty of the techniques there - fish-eye lenses, long or multiple exposures, colored lenses, etc - already distort reality for artistic purposes.
What I wonder is this: is there a way to take photos as reliable documentary evidence anymore? How can you prove that something has not been altered?
Also, by effectively forcing all the competitors to get doped in order to stay competitive, you're also effectively forcing everyone who wants to try out to do the same thing. On down the chain it goes. So essentially every kid with dreams of making it into the Olympics will be encouraged to resort to increasingly dangerous performance enhancements from the get-go.
Agreed. And even a flawed testing system sends a message that doping is a dishonorable way to win, even if it works. I may have to tell my teenage son someday that steroids are a bad idea. It would be a lot harder if all his sporting heroes openly admit that they do it, and if you have to do it to make the J.V. team.
Am I the only one who thinks this is no big deal? I use the internet every day, and I like having broadband, but low-level DSL serves me just fine.
Sure, I could get more entertainment out of a super-fast connection. But most of the economic impact the internet has on me wouldn't change. I don't need an uber-gigabit connection to order stuff on Amazon and do job searches.
Would there really be enough impact on our economy to justify government investment in broadband? Or should we just leave this one to supply and demand?
I still think this won't work, but you know what? It can't hurt to try. If you like this idea and want to gather some people and try it, go for it! If it produces a great game, maybe others will follow suit.
How do you deal with that risk? Well, first, you know who you gave your money to, and you have a contract with him, so if he doesn't actually deliver on the house, you can take his ass to court.
Second, you agree beforehand what you want out of the house, to a reasonable level of detail (e.g. you probably don't care what kind of bolts go in the walls, but you do care how big the rooms are), so that when the house is done, you can both see that it was built to spec.
Differences: when I hire a builder, I (with the help of the bank) can pay him for the project myself. I don't have to gather 1,000 other interested parties, who all need to agree on the blueprints.
Secondly, a new house can be an exact duplicate of an existing house and serve my needs perfectly. A new game is by definition unlike any existing game. All the gamers who sponsor it will want input on how it's made - game play, characters, artwork, plot, items, powers, you name it. It will be the ultimate "design by committee," and even if all the differences can be hammered out, it will require a LOT of work to form the final plan. Guess who just became an unpaid game developer? You did.
And how much detail do you give in your spec? If you don't give enough, and it's not what you expect, will you sue? If you detail every aspect, where's the fun for the developer? And where's the fun of discovery for the players, who already know the game inside and out by the time it's released?
And finally, even if you have a plan to solve all the problems above, you have to convince enough gamers, who won't pay for a product they can play right now, to pay for a product they can't play for a long time. Maybe the fun of participating in the creation will convince them, if that process doesn't disintegrate into flame wars. But if 10,000 geeks say "that's a great idea," how many will actually pony up the cash? 50? 100?
If you pull this off, you may change the industry. But you've got your work cut out.
But a lot of people aren't paying, and that's the problem. Developers are writing games and not being compensated for it, because this business model works poorly in a world where anyone can make their own copies instead of buying them through authorized channels.
So, you can move on to a business model that doesn't depend on stopping people from making their own copies (since we all know DRM doesn't work), or you can... do what? Pray for the problem to just go away?
So you propose a "pay up front for someone to make games" solution, which only makes the problem worse. Essentially gamers would have to pay someone who SAYS they will make a game. Assuming they aren't scamming, it will take years and might suck.
How is this better than paying AFTER the fact to reward someone whose work ALREADY pleases you and encourage them to make more? AKA "the current system?"
I think a more realistic solution is this: developers make games. Some people pay, some people pirate. Developers adjust their development budgets accordingly. Gamers get exactly the output that they're willing to pay for. The end.
We might need a novel system of middlemen to pick the wheat from the chaff, or a new payment model to allow millions of individual gamers to fund development rather than a handful of investors, but there's no reason to think selling copies is the only way to make money.
In the current system, gamers get to see the finished product before paying for it, and reward the creators based on their results.
You want to replace that with a system where "middlemen" decide what's good on gamers' behalf, and gamers pay for games sight-unseen in hopes that they'll be good?
If you won't pay for a game that you A) can play right now and B) already know you like, why would you pay for a game that A) won't exist for months and B) might suck?
At the same time you're ignoring that money and convenience are intimately connected with life, and quality of life, at least in today's world... I'm curious which you support in the specific situation of China.
Now you're asking a huge question at the soul of politics. I think most people acknowledge that it's not either/or here either - if you only do welfare, everyone stays poor; if you only focus on the economy, the rich trample the poor. I don't have a good answer to that question because 1) I know very little about China and 2) I'm just not that wise.
You're right that money and convenience are related to life; there could come a point at which spending more money to, for example, keep a terminally ill patient alive, when that money could be used for helping others, would be unjust. Once again, that's a very difficult question to determine, and I wouldn't pretend to have the definite answer.
All I'm trying to argue against here is the idea that some people are genetically inferior and should be actively weeded out. I don't want any government to have the power to make that decision. Nor do I think that genetic fitness is even a good measure of "utility." I would have died of various illnesses as a child without modern medicine (though I am very healthy now). Am I inferior and a burden to society? Should I be killed or forcibly sterilized? Could you be next?
Eugenics, from what little I know of history, has often started with a nice vision of "pure genes" and led to cruelty. Even in the U.S.: based on memories of school, I just Googled this article.
Once again, there is some valid reasoning behind your "trolley car" choice. I'm not trying to dispute that.
What I'm saying is that there's a big difference between "two people/groups are in immediate, deadly danger and only one can be saved" and "we as a society think this group is useless, therefore let's starve or sterilize them."
The first is a choice that must be made. The latter values money and convenience over human life.
Still, I think we're seeing it more and more today, that the gene pool really does need some chlorine.
And how would you apply it? Chlorine gas?
I mean, look at the increasing rate of autistic and other damaged kids coming out these days. I kinda think it has to do with some of the extreme measures we're taking on some lives today. Sounds cruel, but, nature really does try to allow for weeding out of the weak and damaged to keep the species healthy.
Might it also have to do with women giving birth later in life, changes in food additives, or any number of other issues?
I agree that it's unfortunate for someone to be born with a disability. I do not agree that the child's life is therefore worthless.
Nature doesn't "try" to do anything. In nature, birth defects often result in death. The fact that some people die without our intervention is not an argument that we should not intervene, it simply raises the question.
I would argue that human lives have intrinsic value. If not, and if we measure a life's value by its "utility" to others, we get a very subjective standard. Whoever decides how to judge the value of a life becomes a de facto dictator, and can decide who lives or dies according to their own selfish interests. I do not want to live in such a world.
In examples like the trolley car, where it is a clear life and death choice, I think it's acceptable to value the group over one person.
Those kinds of situations are unusual, however. When you say something like "people with such-and-such genetic problem won't get medical care because they're a burden to society," you're placing the economic gain of the group over the very life of the individual. That is unacceptable. If you would do that, why not bring back slavery? It would benefit all the shareholders of your company to get free labor out of a few individuals.
If the rights of an individual can be discarded, the strong will dominate the weak. One of the main purposes of government is to guard against this.
"However, catering to the sickly weakens our gene pool."
I hate to break it to you, but eugenics has long fallen out of fashion among civilized folk.
And whether it's out of fashion or not, it's sick.
Individuals' lives have value independent of their "utility" to society. Discarding individuals in the name of humanity is the way of dictators; that sort of "kindness" is always the strong crushing the weak under noble pretenses.
Why should we get off gas/oil while there is still over a century of use left?
Why should I start saving for retirement now when I've still got 40 years before I retire?
It will probably TAKE us 100 years to wean ourselves from oil. By the time it gets prohibitively expensive to extract or buy it, we want to have alternatives in place. That means investing and researching now - not when we reach a crisis point.
However the perceived cost of a "song" - especially in the information age where anything digital can be copied an amazing number of times for virtually no cost - is very close to zero. Therefore that's exactly what I am willing to pay for it. Sure, the band had to spend a few weeks writing the thing, and a lifetime learning to play their instruments properly - that's why they get to charge willing customers for concert performances.
Problem: ticket sales only work for bands with existing fans. CD sales work for bands who impress whoever happens to see them. How can a band become popular enough for the former if they can't even pay for their gas with the latter?
I think reasonable fans will realize that bands need money to buy equipment, drive to concerts, and make recordings. If you want to hear more music, you need to find a way to support it financially.
Furthermore, your argument of "if it's free to copy, it should be free to get" is absolutely destructive to the movie industry. Did you like "Iron Man?" How about "The Dark Knight?" How would movie studios pay for those multi-million-dollar productions if theaters were allowed to just download the movie from The Pirate Bay?
I don't think creative people have an inherent right to earn money from their work. But I do think that fans should realize that their money is what enables the creation of new music and movies. If you don't pay for your copy, the next original may not get made.
As an idealistic independent musician, I dream of staying indie, making free music for the fans and having the fans support me out of the goodness of their hearts. And maybe it can happen.
On the other hand, I just recorded an album (not released yet), and I value the producer/engineer's work tremendously. I would also be ecstatic to have someone take over many of my business/marketing tasks for me. It would be worth it to me to pay those people - not 90% of my income, but definitely some.
Assuming fans will continue to be willing to support the music they love, I can see the industry moving from "labels employ artists" to "artists employ a business staff." Those people would cease to be middlemen, but they wouldn't cease to be needed.
I have no opinion on carbon offsets because I haven't read up on the matter. And of course my "math" is not valid; my whole point is that there are NON-economic factors to consider.
Obviously by calling it a "remote part of the world," you intend to say "who cares if it's damaged or destroyed." Then you go back to saying "look at the economic benefits."
Fine. Let's assume jobs are created, everyone is rich, gas is free, etc. My point still stands: part of the price we paid for that scenario is the environmental cost. And when we have used all of the non-infinite oil we've extracted, we won't be able to re-create those natural areas.
If we want to pay a permanent price for a temporary gain, that's valid; we just need to understand what we're doing. And maybe it would be wiser to look ahead to the point when the gas WILL run out and start planning for that.
False. Despite what the media would have you think and what (some) women say - very few women are looking for a guy who is a girl. They want a guy.
I think you've got a point, though I would add that being perceptive of another person's needs and emotions makes one a good mate. Being overly emotional doesn't necessarily help.
My wife appreciates that I listen to her feelings, but she also appreciates that I will take action when she has a problem that needs solving - that's the protective, "masculine" side. I don't just cry with her about it.
If you want the phone company to give you a phone for a no-money-down (or $50-$100 down), then it should be structured as a loan and added on to your bill. If you end your service before the loan is repaid, you're on the hook for the balance of the loan - that's your termination fee. Those of us with old or fully paid for phones shouldn't be paying extra just because the phone company's pricing structure assumes everyone's phone is subsidized.
Exactly. I've heard people defend contract lock-in on the basis of subsidized phones; the best way to counter that is with transparency. Itemize the "phone loan" on the bill, and give lower rates to those who bring their own or have paid the phone off. It's the only fair way.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because my hobby is saving babies.
Solid gold babies.
As a matter of fact, I am creating digital things and plan to give them away for free. I also plan to ask for donations, because it has cost me considerably to create these things.
If this doesn't work, it may be simply because people don't like my work or didn't hear about it. But I do need to make back my initial costs to make more stuff, or I simply won't be able to afford it. All I'm saying is that consumers should consider this when they decide whether to get something free or pay for it. It may be in your self-interest to pay.
Really? Do they believe that reality itself isn't real, or just that what we perceive isn't the true reality? (I'm honestly asking.)
If it's the former, it doesn't make sense. How can the statement "nothing is true" be true?
Yes. And your "fans" who don't care to pay for your work are helping to convince you not to invest in creating that work anymore, since it obviously doesn't pay.
I don't understand why pirates don't understand this concept. People who spend money making things for you to consume need to get that money back. Otherwise they can't make any more things. How hard is that to grasp?
I agree with you as regards purely artistic photography. Plenty of the techniques there - fish-eye lenses, long or multiple exposures, colored lenses, etc - already distort reality for artistic purposes.
What I wonder is this: is there a way to take photos as reliable documentary evidence anymore? How can you prove that something has not been altered?
This is where the line wrapped on my monitor. For a second I felt thought Slashdot was threatening me.
Agreed. And even a flawed testing system sends a message that doping is a dishonorable way to win, even if it works. I may have to tell my teenage son someday that steroids are a bad idea. It would be a lot harder if all his sporting heroes openly admit that they do it, and if you have to do it to make the J.V. team.
Am I the only one who thinks this is no big deal? I use the internet every day, and I like having broadband, but low-level DSL serves me just fine.
Sure, I could get more entertainment out of a super-fast connection. But most of the economic impact the internet has on me wouldn't change. I don't need an uber-gigabit connection to order stuff on Amazon and do job searches.
Would there really be enough impact on our economy to justify government investment in broadband? Or should we just leave this one to supply and demand?
I still think this won't work, but you know what? It can't hurt to try. If you like this idea and want to gather some people and try it, go for it! If it produces a great game, maybe others will follow suit.
Differences: when I hire a builder, I (with the help of the bank) can pay him for the project myself. I don't have to gather 1,000 other interested parties, who all need to agree on the blueprints.
Secondly, a new house can be an exact duplicate of an existing house and serve my needs perfectly. A new game is by definition unlike any existing game. All the gamers who sponsor it will want input on how it's made - game play, characters, artwork, plot, items, powers, you name it. It will be the ultimate "design by committee," and even if all the differences can be hammered out, it will require a LOT of work to form the final plan. Guess who just became an unpaid game developer? You did.
And how much detail do you give in your spec? If you don't give enough, and it's not what you expect, will you sue? If you detail every aspect, where's the fun for the developer? And where's the fun of discovery for the players, who already know the game inside and out by the time it's released?
And finally, even if you have a plan to solve all the problems above, you have to convince enough gamers, who won't pay for a product they can play right now, to pay for a product they can't play for a long time. Maybe the fun of participating in the creation will convince them, if that process doesn't disintegrate into flame wars. But if 10,000 geeks say "that's a great idea," how many will actually pony up the cash? 50? 100?
If you pull this off, you may change the industry. But you've got your work cut out.
So you propose a "pay up front for someone to make games" solution, which only makes the problem worse. Essentially gamers would have to pay someone who SAYS they will make a game. Assuming they aren't scamming, it will take years and might suck.
How is this better than paying AFTER the fact to reward someone whose work ALREADY pleases you and encourage them to make more? AKA "the current system?"
I think a more realistic solution is this: developers make games. Some people pay, some people pirate. Developers adjust their development budgets accordingly. Gamers get exactly the output that they're willing to pay for. The end.
Hey, I'm excited about Android, but that is one lousy video with illegible screen text and fuzzy icons.
In the current system, gamers get to see the finished product before paying for it, and reward the creators based on their results.
You want to replace that with a system where "middlemen" decide what's good on gamers' behalf, and gamers pay for games sight-unseen in hopes that they'll be good?
If you won't pay for a game that you A) can play right now and B) already know you like, why would you pay for a game that A) won't exist for months and B) might suck?
Why thank you. :)
Now you're asking a huge question at the soul of politics. I think most people acknowledge that it's not either/or here either - if you only do welfare, everyone stays poor; if you only focus on the economy, the rich trample the poor. I don't have a good answer to that question because 1) I know very little about China and 2) I'm just not that wise.
You're right that money and convenience are related to life; there could come a point at which spending more money to, for example, keep a terminally ill patient alive, when that money could be used for helping others, would be unjust. Once again, that's a very difficult question to determine, and I wouldn't pretend to have the definite answer.
All I'm trying to argue against here is the idea that some people are genetically inferior and should be actively weeded out. I don't want any government to have the power to make that decision. Nor do I think that genetic fitness is even a good measure of "utility." I would have died of various illnesses as a child without modern medicine (though I am very healthy now). Am I inferior and a burden to society? Should I be killed or forcibly sterilized? Could you be next?
Eugenics, from what little I know of history, has often started with a nice vision of "pure genes" and led to cruelty. Even in the U.S.: based on memories of school, I just Googled this article.
Once again, there is some valid reasoning behind your "trolley car" choice. I'm not trying to dispute that.
What I'm saying is that there's a big difference between "two people/groups are in immediate, deadly danger and only one can be saved" and "we as a society think this group is useless, therefore let's starve or sterilize them."
The first is a choice that must be made. The latter values money and convenience over human life.
And how would you apply it? Chlorine gas?
Might it also have to do with women giving birth later in life, changes in food additives, or any number of other issues?
I agree that it's unfortunate for someone to be born with a disability. I do not agree that the child's life is therefore worthless.
Nature doesn't "try" to do anything. In nature, birth defects often result in death. The fact that some people die without our intervention is not an argument that we should not intervene, it simply raises the question.
I would argue that human lives have intrinsic value. If not, and if we measure a life's value by its "utility" to others, we get a very subjective standard. Whoever decides how to judge the value of a life becomes a de facto dictator, and can decide who lives or dies according to their own selfish interests. I do not want to live in such a world.
In examples like the trolley car, where it is a clear life and death choice, I think it's acceptable to value the group over one person.
Those kinds of situations are unusual, however. When you say something like "people with such-and-such genetic problem won't get medical care because they're a burden to society," you're placing the economic gain of the group over the very life of the individual. That is unacceptable. If you would do that, why not bring back slavery? It would benefit all the shareholders of your company to get free labor out of a few individuals.
If the rights of an individual can be discarded, the strong will dominate the weak. One of the main purposes of government is to guard against this.
And whether it's out of fashion or not, it's sick.
Individuals' lives have value independent of their "utility" to society. Discarding individuals in the name of humanity is the way of dictators; that sort of "kindness" is always the strong crushing the weak under noble pretenses.
Why should I start saving for retirement now when I've still got 40 years before I retire?
It will probably TAKE us 100 years to wean ourselves from oil. By the time it gets prohibitively expensive to extract or buy it, we want to have alternatives in place. That means investing and researching now - not when we reach a crisis point.
Problem: ticket sales only work for bands with existing fans. CD sales work for bands who impress whoever happens to see them. How can a band become popular enough for the former if they can't even pay for their gas with the latter?
I think reasonable fans will realize that bands need money to buy equipment, drive to concerts, and make recordings. If you want to hear more music, you need to find a way to support it financially.
Furthermore, your argument of "if it's free to copy, it should be free to get" is absolutely destructive to the movie industry. Did you like "Iron Man?" How about "The Dark Knight?" How would movie studios pay for those multi-million-dollar productions if theaters were allowed to just download the movie from The Pirate Bay?
I don't think creative people have an inherent right to earn money from their work. But I do think that fans should realize that their money is what enables the creation of new music and movies. If you don't pay for your copy, the next original may not get made.
As an idealistic independent musician, I dream of staying indie, making free music for the fans and having the fans support me out of the goodness of their hearts. And maybe it can happen.
On the other hand, I just recorded an album (not released yet), and I value the producer/engineer's work tremendously. I would also be ecstatic to have someone take over many of my business/marketing tasks for me. It would be worth it to me to pay those people - not 90% of my income, but definitely some.
Assuming fans will continue to be willing to support the music they love, I can see the industry moving from "labels employ artists" to "artists employ a business staff." Those people would cease to be middlemen, but they wouldn't cease to be needed.
I have no opinion on carbon offsets because I haven't read up on the matter. And of course my "math" is not valid; my whole point is that there are NON-economic factors to consider.
Obviously by calling it a "remote part of the world," you intend to say "who cares if it's damaged or destroyed." Then you go back to saying "look at the economic benefits."
Fine. Let's assume jobs are created, everyone is rich, gas is free, etc. My point still stands: part of the price we paid for that scenario is the environmental cost. And when we have used all of the non-infinite oil we've extracted, we won't be able to re-create those natural areas.
If we want to pay a permanent price for a temporary gain, that's valid; we just need to understand what we're doing. And maybe it would be wiser to look ahead to the point when the gas WILL run out and start planning for that.
If...
the price of oil = X dollars + (opening a wildlife area to drilling and damage)
...then we are not lowering the price of oil; we're just paying for some of the oil with financial resources and some with environmental resources.
The price of oil has still gone up.
I think you've got a point, though I would add that being perceptive of another person's needs and emotions makes one a good mate. Being overly emotional doesn't necessarily help.
My wife appreciates that I listen to her feelings, but she also appreciates that I will take action when she has a problem that needs solving - that's the protective, "masculine" side. I don't just cry with her about it.
...and that's what the SECOND camera is for.
Exactly. I've heard people defend contract lock-in on the basis of subsidized phones; the best way to counter that is with transparency. Itemize the "phone loan" on the bill, and give lower rates to those who bring their own or have paid the phone off. It's the only fair way.