From the first time I saw the ability to spray-paint "graffiti" on walls in Team Fortress Classic, I wondered when we would see in-game advertising in the virtual world the game created.
When I played later games of Half Life and saw soda and vending machines in the virtual world, I wondered why those virtual vending machines did not have real-life logos on them, and why money did not change hands to make it happen.
How many millions upon millions of people are in virtual gaming worlds every day? Why not have virtual product placement or advertisement in these games? I don't think it would have to detract from the gaming experience at all. In fact, it could add to the realism.
>Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says >people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.
Making money may not be a right, but it is one hell of a motivator. Perhaps the greatest motivator ever devised. Take away the motivation, and you will have a lot less of it.
>What the recording industry provides is not infinitely valuable, so DRM needn't be infinitely strong.
While it is true that the content is not infinitely valuable, the cost of having your DRM broken means the content becomes infinitely INvaluable. So DRM needs to be very strong because once it's broken, your product is worthless. As in, no one will be willing to pay money for it.
I do not disagree with anything in your post, but I wanted to say, it sucks.
I don't do facebook, or myspace, or linkedin, or any of those kinds of social networking web sites. I don't have long lost friends I'm waiting to get in touch with, and I don't need the virtual thrill of racking up a high count of "friends" or business contacts on some web site.
Christ! I thought I left behind all that popularity contest bullshit behind in high school!?!? I don't want to be hired based on how popular I am on some damn web site. I want to be judged based on my qualifications and a face-to-face interview.
Like I said, I'm sure you're right, but I think it sucks. Now I have to go get on Linkedin and go farm some awesome friends so I can appear popular to potential employers. It makes me feel dirty.
>(1) The portion of the US which has a mosquito problem is relatively small >vs the whole of the US due to climate. Meaning, that in the 1800's/early >1900's when the problem was solved, the states without significant swamps contributed money/labor to fixing the problem.
So the whole country pulled together to solve the problem. OK, why can't other countries do this, too?
>(2) During this point in history (again, industrial revolution era) the US >was awash in cash from industrialization. Quite simply, it wasn't a poor >country when we solved the problem.
So after the US established itself well enough to solve its mosquito problem, it did so. Why can't other countries do this, too?
>(3) Science. The US had the scientific background it needed to solve the >problem. Again, mostly in places in the north (think Yale/Cornell/Harvard >et al) which weren't affected by the problem.
This just makes is that much easier for others to follow the trail we have already blazed for them.
>When? I'm not gonna say everything's always been rich and amazing for >Americans, but I'd consider the US to have pretty much *always* been a >first-world nation, even for a time pre-independence.
My point here is that in terms of relative wealth, world standing, and technological capability, there are few nations on earth today that aren't at least as well off as we were back then.
If, over the course of 200 years from such a starting point, we were able to solve our mosquito problem, then it seems logical that other nations, starting from a similar point today, could also solve their mosquito problem in some 200 years, or even less, considering that the solution is already known.
>Conservatives think that everything bad that happens to someone, >everything, is their own fault and they should be able to fix it themselves.
This is not about _fault_. It's nobody's fault that they live in a place full of mosquitoes.
The point is that we figured out how to deal with the problem, and we set out to do it and we did it. There is no reason why other people can't do the same thing.
Our nation crawled out of its poverty over the course of some 200 years to the point where it was able to beat Malaria. Other people can, too, if they want to.
>Yes, before you were born, America was a poor country. You've inherited a rich one.
The point here is that America was a poor country, and it solved its mosquito problem. There is no reason why other people in other countries can't do the same thing.
Wasn't America once a poor country, too? Yet we overcame and solved our mosquito problem. I don't see why other nations can't develop themselves and solve their mosquito problems. It's not like they even have to invent the solution.
>Uh...kindness?
When we have money to spare we can indulge your sense of kindness.
>So, how exactly is a 3rd-world country supposed to do what we did, when >the costs (both political and monetary) of doing what we did have gone up so much?
We did it, there is nothing stopping others from doing the same. America was not always the rich kid on the block.
>The point that he demonstrated, rather well it seems, is that we in >the west find the idea of us being subjected to the risk of malaria extremely offensive.
And we found it so offensive that we did what it took to basically eliminate malaria from our society.
Why don't other societies do that, too? Why is it our job to do it for them?
>As a two time kidney transplant recipient myself, I know how hard it is to >live with organ failure. I met a guy who had gone through 3 liver transplants
A serious question:
With donation organs being the rarity that I've heard they are, and so many people I've heard are on waiting lists to get them, how does one successfully make the cut for 2 or even 3 organs?
I'm not sure that generational star travel is that...relevant? I'm not sure that's the right word.
While it would be interesting and perhaps comforting to know that humans have traveled to other stars, what good is it going to be and what meaning will it have for us if no one can speak to them or ever see them again except as a matter of historical record?
Our star colonies will be as exciting and meaningful to people today as we find reading about Columbus.
>How is your copy's value reduced to zero? Neither copy is of zero value at any point, >since either copy may be sold (legally or illegally) for real value.
Since copies can be obtained for free, while in theory either copy can be sold, as a practical matter no one will want to buy it for any meaningful sum. It's simple supply and demand. As supply trends towards infinity, price trends towards zero.
[b]Your value comes from the ability/"legal right" to distribute information, not from the information itself.[/b]
The value of any given item, at least in terms of/monetary/ value, is determined by supply and demand.
>Information by itself is invaluable, it's the withholding of information that can have a debt instead, are you following the basics here?
No, I have no idea what you meant by your last statement.
>If I were to create a glut of availability for your information (eg distribute it for free), >that would be violating your property rights - because you OWN the RIGHT to distribute >that information, see? Not because you own the information itself.
This is semantics from my point of view. Whether I own the rights to distribute the item or whether I own the item itself, when infinite copies are available for free no one will pay me either way.
>When it comes to a particular song the same effect comes into play. If I just steal the song, >I haven't hurt you. It's not until I start distributing that there is a problem.
Of course. I thought this is what we were talking about?
>But here the problem is confounded by the idea that leeching is bad, so your >social mores against leaching(eg, pay for what you get) lead you to DISTRIBUTE >the data as well!! The morality is really screwed up if you follow it around;) anyway, enjoy...
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>Your medical information is not your property just because you have the right to control it. >You have the right to control its dissemination to some small extent (you can prevent the public >from seeing it, sometimes, if they aren't very interested). That doesn't make it property. >That just means you have rights associated with it.
By your definition, it seems nothing can be viewed as property.
>Maybe there really is no FTL, and other alien races are as leery of sending out giant >seedships that they themselves can't ride in as we are, and are thus still hanging out in their home starsystem.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I just had to say. If there really is no FTL, it is probably one of the most depressing aspects of existence.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't hear it in the one video I listened to.
>Because no one buys DVDs now that CSS is trivial to bypass.
I know I don't.
From the first time I saw the ability to spray-paint "graffiti" on walls in Team Fortress Classic, I wondered when we would see in-game advertising in the virtual world the game created.
When I played later games of Half Life and saw soda and vending machines in the virtual world, I wondered why those virtual vending machines did not have real-life logos on them, and why money did not change hands to make it happen.
How many millions upon millions of people are in virtual gaming worlds every day? Why not have virtual product placement or advertisement in these games? I don't think it would have to detract from the gaming experience at all. In fact, it could add to the realism.
I should patent this idea and be rich. :)
>Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says
>people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.
Making money may not be a right, but it is one hell of a motivator. Perhaps the greatest motivator ever devised. Take away the motivation, and you will have a lot less of it.
>What the recording industry provides is not infinitely valuable, so DRM needn't be infinitely strong.
While it is true that the content is not infinitely valuable, the cost of having your DRM broken means the content becomes infinitely INvaluable. So DRM needs to be very strong because once it's broken, your product is worthless. As in, no one will be willing to pay money for it.
>So, I did it, but it's about as sincere as spooning with a hooker.
I feel ya, bro.
I do not disagree with anything in your post, but I wanted to say, it sucks.
I don't do facebook, or myspace, or linkedin, or any of those kinds of social networking web sites. I don't have long lost friends I'm waiting to get in touch with, and I don't need the virtual thrill of racking up a high count of "friends" or business contacts on some web site.
Christ! I thought I left behind all that popularity contest bullshit behind in high school!?!? I don't want to be hired based on how popular I am on some damn web site. I want to be judged based on my qualifications and a face-to-face interview.
Like I said, I'm sure you're right, but I think it sucks. Now I have to go get on Linkedin and go farm some awesome friends so I can appear popular to potential employers. It makes me feel dirty.
>How are you supposed to lift yourself up by the bootstraps without boots?
Step 1: Make boots.
>(1) The portion of the US which has a mosquito problem is relatively small
>vs the whole of the US due to climate. Meaning, that in the 1800's/early
>1900's when the problem was solved, the states without significant swamps contributed money/labor to fixing the problem.
So the whole country pulled together to solve the problem. OK, why can't other countries do this, too?
>(2) During this point in history (again, industrial revolution era) the US
>was awash in cash from industrialization. Quite simply, it wasn't a poor
>country when we solved the problem.
So after the US established itself well enough to solve its mosquito problem, it did so. Why can't other countries do this, too?
>(3) Science. The US had the scientific background it needed to solve the
>problem. Again, mostly in places in the north (think Yale/Cornell/Harvard
>et al) which weren't affected by the problem.
This just makes is that much easier for others to follow the trail we have already blazed for them.
>When? I'm not gonna say everything's always been rich and amazing for
>Americans, but I'd consider the US to have pretty much *always* been a
>first-world nation, even for a time pre-independence.
My point here is that in terms of relative wealth, world standing, and technological capability, there are few nations on earth today that aren't at least as well off as we were back then.
If, over the course of 200 years from such a starting point, we were able to solve our mosquito problem, then it seems logical that other nations, starting from a similar point today, could also solve their mosquito problem in some 200 years, or even less, considering that the solution is already known.
>Conservatives think that everything bad that happens to someone,
>everything, is their own fault and they should be able to fix it themselves.
This is not about _fault_. It's nobody's fault that they live in a place full of mosquitoes.
The point is that we figured out how to deal with the problem, and we set out to do it and we did it. There is no reason why other people can't do the same thing.
Our nation crawled out of its poverty over the course of some 200 years to the point where it was able to beat Malaria. Other people can, too, if they want to.
>Yes, before you were born, America was a poor country. You've inherited a rich one.
The point here is that America was a poor country, and it solved its mosquito problem. There is no reason why other people in other countries can't do the same thing.
>Uh...poverty?
Wasn't America once a poor country, too? Yet we overcame and solved our mosquito problem. I don't see why other nations can't develop themselves and solve their mosquito problems. It's not like they even have to invent the solution.
>Uh...kindness?
When we have money to spare we can indulge your sense of kindness.
>So, how exactly is a 3rd-world country supposed to do what we did, when
>the costs (both political and monetary) of doing what we did have gone up so much?
We did it, there is nothing stopping others from doing the same. America was not always the rich kid on the block.
I know we are in the minority here, but I agree with you.
If a person has done something that merits getting fingerprinted, then I have no problem with getting a record of their DNA pattern.
>If we want people to listen to us when we say "Don't drain swamps and don't use DDT"...
You won't find me telling other civilizations how to deal with their disease problems. If it was good enough for us, it's good enough for them.
>The point that he demonstrated, rather well it seems, is that we in
>the west find the idea of us being subjected to the risk of malaria extremely offensive.
And we found it so offensive that we did what it took to basically eliminate malaria from our society.
Why don't other societies do that, too? Why is it our job to do it for them?
What he did is akin to yelling fire in a theater. What if there had been a mass panicked mob trying to escape the theater?
>As a two time kidney transplant recipient myself, I know how hard it is to
>live with organ failure. I met a guy who had gone through 3 liver transplants
A serious question:
With donation organs being the rarity that I've heard they are, and so many people I've heard are on waiting lists to get them, how does one successfully make the cut for 2 or even 3 organs?
>But like you said, everyone you knew on the planet you left would be dead.
This is only slightly less depressing than the possibility of no interstellar travel at all.
I'm sorry you were unable to articulate your argument better.
I'm not sure that generational star travel is that...relevant? I'm not sure that's the right word.
While it would be interesting and perhaps comforting to know that humans have traveled to other stars, what good is it going to be and what meaning will it have for us if no one can speak to them or ever see them again except as a matter of historical record?
Our star colonies will be as exciting and meaningful to people today as we find reading about Columbus.
>It isn't lack of FTL that is holding us back, it's lack of energy.
Either way, we're fucked in practice, eh?
>How is your copy's value reduced to zero? Neither copy is of zero value at any point,
>since either copy may be sold (legally or illegally) for real value.
Since copies can be obtained for free, while in theory either copy can be sold, as a practical matter no one will want to buy it for any meaningful sum. It's simple supply and demand. As supply trends towards infinity, price trends towards zero.
[b]Your value comes from the ability/"legal right" to distribute information, not from the information itself.[/b]
The value of any given item, at least in terms of /monetary/ value, is determined by supply and demand.
>Information by itself is invaluable, it's the withholding of information that can have a debt instead, are you following the basics here?
No, I have no idea what you meant by your last statement.
>If I were to create a glut of availability for your information (eg distribute it for free),
>that would be violating your property rights - because you OWN the RIGHT to distribute
>that information, see? Not because you own the information itself.
This is semantics from my point of view. Whether I own the rights to distribute the item or whether I own the item itself, when infinite copies are available for free no one will pay me either way.
>When it comes to a particular song the same effect comes into play. If I just steal the song,
>I haven't hurt you. It's not until I start distributing that there is a problem.
Of course. I thought this is what we were talking about?
>But here the problem is confounded by the idea that leeching is bad, so your ;) anyway, enjoy...
>social mores against leaching(eg, pay for what you get) lead you to DISTRIBUTE
>the data as well!! The morality is really screwed up if you follow it around
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>Your medical information is not your property just because you have the right to control it.
>You have the right to control its dissemination to some small extent (you can prevent the public
>from seeing it, sometimes, if they aren't very interested). That doesn't make it property.
>That just means you have rights associated with it.
By your definition, it seems nothing can be viewed as property.
>Maybe there really is no FTL, and other alien races are as leery of sending out giant
>seedships that they themselves can't ride in as we are, and are thus still hanging out in their home starsystem.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I just had to say. If there really is no FTL, it is probably one of the most depressing aspects of existence.