Actually - to use real numbers:
"The Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers (ALMR) estimates that at least 400 million mercury lamps are being disposed of annually as part of the municipal solid waste stream and only 20 percent of all mercury lamps are being recycled."
and
"All fluorescent lamps contain mercury. In fact, the standard fluorescent bulb has about 20 milligrams of mercury."
So - that means that about 8,000,000,000 milligrams or 17,637 pounds of mercury is being put into our environment in the United States.
Glad to know that as long as your interests are looked out for you don't give a shit about what happens to everyone else. That is such an extremely selfish attitude!
Also, for those of you guessing about how many bulbs there are in circulation:
"The Mercury from on fluorescent bulb can pollute 6000 gallons of water beyond safe levels for drinking" and
"The Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers (ALMR) estimates that at least 400 million mercury lamps are being disposed of annually as part of the municipal solid waste stream and only 20 percent of all mercury lamps are being recycled."
and
"All fluorescent lamps contain mercury. In fact, the standard fluorescent bulb has about 20 milligrams of mercury."
So - that means that about 8,000,000,000 milligrams or 17,637 pounds of mercury is being put into our environment in the United States. Not a trivial matter.
I am sorry but given your historical example I don't think you have given ample evidence for your point. You can't use opium in China as an example. Various drugs from poppies have been used around the world since the time of Mesopotamia, looking just at the Chinese 200 years ago is silly. Britain smuggled opium into China from India to make up their trade deficit from all the tea they were buying from the country (I guess you could say it is about drugs if you want to talk about banning anything with caffeine) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars). This wasn't about a free society making choices about opium - it was about politics and trading empires (like the the East India Company).
On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of societies that let people use drugs and didn't collapse because of them. For example, in the 18th century opium was wildly used in England and that certainly didn't "destroy the country." In fact some of the writings we consider classic probably exist only because of it (I would like to point out that I am not advocating drug usage just trying to make a point). Then there are western Native American populations that used peyote and didn't collapse because of drug usage. In many European countries there isn't a problem with underage drinking because it youngster grow with alcohol and learn how to be smart about it - there are therefore no cool points to be gained from being an idiot and chugging a six pack of some disgusting lite beer only to get knocked off your gord. I am sure there are more examples, I am just not able to come up with anymore now that we ourselves don't emulate (like they societies that provide us with coffee, chocolate, and tobacco).
While I don't advocate just willy-nilly letting all drugs be legal - I don't see why things like marijuana and peyote are illegal when tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and high fructose corn syrup are allowed. All of the later are also have negative impacts on our body, are addictive, and have high price (taxes for medicaid/loss of life/etc) society wide impacts and yet we allow them. People are going to make bad choices but in a free society we apparently have the right to do that. Why is it that we trust people to make wise decisions about alcohol but not other drugs? As the parent stated - tobacco is becoming less prevalent as society learns of its harmful effects and new nonaddicted generations make smarter decisions. I personally stay away from all "recreational drugs" and don't even really have much caffeine but I love chocolate and the occasional alcoholic beverage. I know it is bad for me but life isn't about just making sure you live the longest possible. It is about the enjoyment you have in the moments you live. As long as I do no harm to others I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to decide the cost/benefit ratio of drugs for myself.
Hell, if you even made the really god-awful stuff legal, like heroin and meth, but mandated how it was used (say required people to go to specific places with clean needles (which might cut down on AIDS and etc.), to be contained while doing it, to sign a release form of some sort saying they understand that doing this means they may die, maybe make them watch a stupid graphic video like they do anymore with driving, or if you really want to go wild make them prove they can financially support their habit)... isn't there at least some chance that it might make a positive difference? You could also take some of the costs of drugs off of society as a whole - if insurance companies can charge higher for smoking, don't you think it would be nice if they could for other drugs that we have no way of reporting now? Let the people who use drugs be made more fully accountable for the consequences instead of society.
I don't think the parent is advocating a head in the sand approach at all... I think it looks at the political and other realities of society. Why spend tax dollars fighting drugs when we could get taxes from people selling them? If n
Thank goodness someone said it! It drives me nuts when people in the music or movie industry assume that a pirated movie or song equals a movie or song that someone didn't buy. This simply isn't the case. I imagine that a lot, perhaps even most, of the time that the people pirating stuff wouldn't own it if they couldn't pirate it. In other words zero (people who would have bought it) minus zero (sold because of pirating) equals zero net sales. I believe that there are no, or very few, lost sales. Now this is obviously overstating the case, as there is probably some small factor in each of those categories that isn't actually a zero... but until the industry does a study that can prove what this percentage is in some scientific way I refuse to worry about it and I am going to be grumpy about my tax money wasting time trying to enforce it. Use it on education or fixing the crappy roads around here instead - guarantee it will benefit more people in the long run that way.
If you visit China people there regularly shit in a hole in the ground and that is a lot of people to ignore. And being camper/climber I must say that shitting in a hole, while not being great, isn't all that bad (not that I want society doing it on a large scale). I have personally gotten mild food poisoning twice and knew a girl in high school who was in the hospital for most of a semester because of it. Think of all the scares we have had recently - remember spinach? My best friend has been out of work for a year and had to move back in with her parents because of fibromyalga - sure they have a name for but they don't know what causes it or how to treat it. She has even been to Duke and they can't exactly figure out what is wrong with her. I haven't had a family die in a construction accident but my grandfather is slowly dieing of asbestos. I think that a lot of people are in denial about the effect of industrialization and how much it has made our lives. I think that free time is a great way to look at work vs. pleasure. How long do I have to work to be able to support myself? Working less = better. It is certainly better than the GDP which is what we use today.
So, what you say is true of the upper-middle and upper class of the first world countries. But are we any happier? Do we have more free time? Is the quality of our lives any better? Do we have meaningful connections with the world around us?
I took an anthropology class as an elective in college. Do you know that members of hunter gatherer societies had more free time than the average person today? I often sit in traffic and wonder why the hell I am going to work that I would rather not go to so that I can pay for all the materialistic crap in my life. I wish that society offered meaningful alternatives.
I would also argue with the affordable and available medicine. If you can't afford health insurance in the US today you are screwed. Hell, even with a lot of insurance companies if you have any sort of medical problem you are going to pay an arm and a leg. I think that medical availability was much more egalitarian even 100 years ago than it is now. In fact I think that all we have done with technology is make the gap between the haves and the have nots increasingly wide. And the haves often do so at the expense of the have nots. We have not eliminated slavery and poverty world wide - we haven't even eliminated it in our own country! I feel that what you say shows a lack of understanding of people outside your own social group.
Why does everyone assume that when mom and pop music stores close it is because of pirating but with any other type of mom and pop it is because the big superstores (Walmart, etc.) did them out of business? I loved the small bookstores that used to be around town - now I have Barnes and Noble or Books-A-Million, I don't blame that on book pirating.
I think that there is a flaw in your logic. You state that "they obviously can't make a profit" I don't think that anyone in the industry has ever argued that they aren't making a profit - they are saying that it hurts their profit. The problem is that it is hard to prove how much with statistics.
Do these artists have a right to be upset about downloading? Maybe... (I dabble in writing and I would be thrilled to have people interested enough in my work to go to the effort doing something illegal). But is it really smart to start suing people - your potential customers? People who obviously are interested in your work? It seems to me that this indicates you really don't understand what consumers want and that is a big problem for a company to have, let alone an entire industry. I don't have a problem with the ethics involved in the situation - what I have is a problem with the business sense of these people. I also have a problem with an industry demanding that my middle-class tax dollar ought to go to protecting the profit of executive big-wigs that have several more zeros at the end of their paycheck than I do (trust me - they aren't worried about protecting the little people under them when they are lobbying, they will cut the low end jobs before they start cutting their own paychecks).
I posted earlier about a great article I read on Baen's website. They are a book publisher and with the advent of book piracy and e-books they are starting to face some of the same issues. Rather than freaking out and worrying about the sky falling they have embraced technology and put books up for free on the site. Their argument is that increasing exposure will increase profits - and the actually have some statistics listed to prove it.
For example: "Or take author Mercedes Lackey, who occupies entire shelves in stores and libraries. 15 years ago she published a series of books with "Arrows" in the title; she's been getting royalties ever since. However, one royalty period after putting the first "Arrow" book on Eric Flint's "Baen Free Library" site, she received over triple the normal royalty. In fact, payment on all her old titles increased, suddenly and significantly, with the only change being the availability of that one free book. I don't know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that dates back to 1965, I'd be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise."
You wanted proof of a smaller company using free exposure and the internet to their advantage to compete with larger market forces, there it is. Baen has business smarts.
There is a great article posted on Baen's site about media pirating. It basically says anything I could possibly say but better. It comments on how badly the situation has been handled, how most artists should love the free exposure, and also states that the consumer and tax dollar should not be responsible for the music industry. If you are interested, it is part of the Prime Palaver
by Eric Flint. Go to http://www.baen.com/library/ and the link is on left side of page - the article is #11 in the series (dated 9/16/2002 which shows that this is no new thing).
Incidentally - it is posted as part of the comments for their free library. That's right free. You don't even have to register. Is there anything better than a FREE BOOK? They have over 60 titles from some big name sci-fi and fantasy authors available to read online 'cause they practice what they preach. A perfect example of how giving people a chance to experiment with new authors (or musicians) will actually increase your sales.
I am just curious about what kind of Mom and Pop stores you have had experience with? I don't know a single local store holder (and I have four such people in my family and shop at several others where I have become friends with the owners and talk to them about their business vs how things are going with mine/family members/etc.) that is rolling in the dough. From my personal experience, you run a small local business because you love what you do. You put in extremely long hours and you do a *lot* of work. If you are lucky, then you can make enough to support your family. Of course, the more big chain stores like Walmart come into the community the harder it is for the smaller stores.
If you think that monetarily supporting a store is fairly well documented for treating its employees poorly, being anti-union, and exporting work out of the country to others where the workers conditions are atrocious (think back to the days when the company you worked for owned your housing and the stores that you bought your supplies at) is doing society a favor - then you and I have a different idea of what makes society better. In the short term, shopping at Walmart might be cheaper for you, but in the long run the cost/benefit analysis for the community will not come out positively. I am tired of people and governments thinking only in the short term. Heaven forbid we plan ahead even a year or two, much less ten or twenty...
Walmart also helps to create and sustain the paradigm that creates those "poorer folk" that you mention. I don't have the time or the patience to give you an economics lesson. Please, please educate yourself. If you want some "edutainment" there is video Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices that lays everything out in an easy to understand manner that won't require a lot of background understanding.
They told me if I wanted to "play around with it" they would let me but that I wouldn't be allowed to compete (which is still illegal if there is no girls area they are supposed to let you compete against the guys) because there were no other girls in my district. Funny thing was that there were no other guys pole vaulting in the district either - the boys team went straight to regionals. (I ran cross country with some of the pole vaulters so I found that little fact out - those guys also said that there would be girls for me to compete against at those levels.) I decided I didn't want to deal with patronizing and antagonistic coaches and joined a different after school group.
Let's go back to the original argument - you said:
"...women outnumber men by far in nursing, education and womens' studies yet nobody makes a peep about the inequities involved (or outright discrimination)."
To which I replied:
"Actually you are wrong - at least as far as the education field goes. In many parts of the country they are really trying to recruit male teachers..."
Your response to this went something to the point of but not at the college level. I said that such programs aren't needed at the college level because male professors aren't a significant minority there like they are in elementary schools and are in fact generally a majority. You slammed my statistics and then provided your own which prove the exact same thing.
The article I quoted to you was specifically about the way people perceive the issue of gender biases in school. It included such "mysandric fluff" (which you should have spelled misandric btw - if you are going to try to use the term at least spell it right) because that is how some people perceive the issue. Some people study what people think. Since you claim to have taken some BA type courses - you should understand this. Just because it studies such things does not mean that it is in itself misandric. And yes, I did know those articles were there I just didn't have a problem with them because of how they were being used - as published examples of other's views. BTW - in case you missed the fact - the article was written by a man and was about reverse discrimination against boys - why the hell are you asking if I read it? You obviously didn't. (http://www.sadker.org/primer.htm)
I refuse to continue this discussion any further because what I said has been backed up with several different examples of statistics - including your own. It is a stupid argument to begin with and I was stupid for getting sucked into having it with you. I am not going to raise my blood pressure any further by dealing with people who want to argue the points of an argument instead of looking at the main issues that were under discussion (and have already been proved at this point).
Not those - these from 2000 and 1999 -
"Four out of five full professors are males, more male professors (72%) are awarded tenure than female professors (52%), and for the last 30 years, full time male professors have consistently earned more than their female peers." From: United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Ok - now that I have cooled down from how you have twisted around my statistics - I would like to point out two things. The first is that when you are talking about how people perceive an issue - you include articels like "Why I hate men" along with your hard core statistics. I didn't qoute a fluff article to you. Secondly - YOUR OWN STATISTICS PROVE MY POINT. This whole discussion was about the reason that there aren't people recruting for male professors at the college/university level like there are the other levels. Your own statistcis point out that there are more men at that level!!!!! So why should they be specifically recruited for - it isn't needed...
Sheesh - I did preface that with "In my personal experience" and "50-75%." I didn't ever say everyone. I have met some really great geeks - and it sounds like you might be one of them since you seem to think that girls should be respected for their skill. I was pointing out that quite a few people aren't like that though...
Sigh - that was the first study I found - here are more recent ones, like I said though - think back to your own experiences:
From a 2000 article: "[Male] dominance is still strong in particular fields, such as college-level teaching. Today's professors continue to be mostly men. According to a recent AAUP survey, 39 percent of undergraduate faculty in the U.S. are women -- well shy of the 58 percent female student population."
http://www.virtuallyadvising.com/content/wic/02stu dentbody.shtml
"Four out of five full professors are males, more male professors (72%) are awarded tenure than female professors (52%), and for the last 30 years, full time male professors have consistently earned more than their female peers."
From: United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
As I said before, I am not arguing affirmative action. I simply disagree with your opinion that all a women needs to be respected in the field is skill - THAT is what I think is unfair. I have seen plenty of instances where skill isn't enough. In my personal experience, about 50% to 75% of geek guys put women into two categories. The first is the cute fluffy bunny category. If a girl is at all caring about all those "typical girly things" (that make the geek guy all uncomfortable) then she gets put into the social butterfly crowd. The second category is the "one of the guys crowd." These are the girls that the guy geeks don't have to go outside of their own experiences to relate to. Most guy geeks do the on/off - 0/1 - black/white thing with women. There is no inbetween - you are either a bit of fluff or one of the guys. Either way - the women isn't respected for what she is. A social butterfly isn't respected for her mind at all (for example, I say something intelligent they ask where I read it, couldn't have come up with it on my own) and one-of-guys isn't really considered a female being and is certainly not considered datable (which used to annoy me but I actually think might not be a bad thing now...). Why is it that science nerds can agree that biodiversity is a pretty good thing but you ask computer geeks to try to relate to people who are different than they are and they start yelling about how unfair it is? Heaven forbid these types try to understand any view point other than their own. Imagine how much more usable and useful programs would be to the person using them if the programmer could come out of their own experience and try to understand the person they are programming for...
How is that any different from now? People with no options under the FDA are already going elsewhere - accupunture, hands-on healing, herbalists, etc. and as with doctors - there are going to be unscrupulous people in these fields. If I were to find out I had some sort of disease (and was going to die a horrible painful death) that didn't have a cure under the FDA - I would much prefer talking to my doctor with whom I am already established (so trust really isn't an issue to the current argument) to see what non-FDA experimental medications might be available than going to an accupunturist. (But then again - I hate needles...) Desperate means just that - desperate, they are going to find some other option - If I fell into that category I would prefer to have the widest range possible personally.
My best friend in highschool had colon cancer - she participated in one of the studies we have been talking about. Turns out the drug the study was testing pretty much worked. Too bad for her she got the placebo. Treating the cancer basically took away a year of her life. I don't necessarily agree that people should be allowed to try whatever they want but I really do wish that the drug that study was testing had made it to the market sooner. I have to wonder how many people who are in an even worse situation and end up dying painful deaths could have been saved or at least been allowed to have a more useful death if they had been allowed to take "experimental" drugs...
Ummm - that would be because such programs aren't needed at the university level. I want you to think about how many of your teachers - real live tenured ones here, not GAs and what not - during your post-high school education were male, now do the same excercise and think of the number were female. Now compare the two numbers. (Sorry for making the assumption that you went to University, I apologize if I am wrong.)
Need more proof, in a National Study of Postsecondary Faculty:
"There were several differences between male and female faculty members in the levels of faculty outcomes such as salary, tenure, and rank. Female full-time faculty averaged lower salaries than male faculty by about $10,000 [...] They were also less likely to be tenured (42 vs. 66 percent) or to be full professors (15 vs. 39 percent)."
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_2/2_2/q4 -4.asp#H1
I think that attitude is a little unfair personally. I shouldn't have to demand respect or work harder to get it just because I am a girl. Why should I have to be "a special type of girl" to work in your field?
BTW - it isn't a matter of "promoting any sort of artificial advancement" it is a matter of removing artificial barriers to women entering the field. And listen to yourself - you don't think that there are artificial barriers in the field that need to be taken down when you refer to it as "an all-male field"? Attitudes like yours are part of the problem...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually - to use real numbers:
"The Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers (ALMR) estimates that at least 400 million mercury lamps are being disposed of annually as part of the municipal solid waste stream and only 20 percent of all mercury lamps are being recycled."
and
"All fluorescent lamps contain mercury. In fact, the standard fluorescent bulb has about 20 milligrams of mercury."
So - that means that about 8,000,000,000 milligrams or 17,637 pounds of mercury is being put into our environment in the United States.
(statistics from: http://www.scdhec.gov/brap/forms/flo_lamps.pdf)
Glad to know that as long as your interests are looked out for you don't give a shit about what happens to everyone else. That is such an extremely selfish attitude!
You are supposed to recycle them! Look for a someone who does it in your area.
l
Here are some places to look for more information:
http://www.lightbulbrecycling.com/regulations.htm
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/
http://www.scdhec.gov/brap/forms/flo_lamps.pdf
Also, for those of you guessing about how many bulbs there are in circulation:
"The Mercury from on fluorescent bulb can pollute 6000 gallons of water beyond safe levels for drinking"
and
"The Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers (ALMR) estimates that at least 400 million mercury lamps are being disposed of annually as part of the municipal solid waste stream and only 20 percent of all mercury lamps are being recycled."
and
"All fluorescent lamps contain mercury. In fact, the standard fluorescent bulb has about 20 milligrams of mercury."
So - that means that about 8,000,000,000 milligrams or 17,637 pounds of mercury is being put into our environment in the United States. Not a trivial matter.
I am sorry but given your historical example I don't think you have given ample evidence for your point. You can't use opium in China as an example. Various drugs from poppies have been used around the world since the time of Mesopotamia, looking just at the Chinese 200 years ago is silly. Britain smuggled opium into China from India to make up their trade deficit from all the tea they were buying from the country (I guess you could say it is about drugs if you want to talk about banning anything with caffeine) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars). This wasn't about a free society making choices about opium - it was about politics and trading empires (like the the East India Company).
On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of societies that let people use drugs and didn't collapse because of them. For example, in the 18th century opium was wildly used in England and that certainly didn't "destroy the country." In fact some of the writings we consider classic probably exist only because of it (I would like to point out that I am not advocating drug usage just trying to make a point). Then there are western Native American populations that used peyote and didn't collapse because of drug usage. In many European countries there isn't a problem with underage drinking because it youngster grow with alcohol and learn how to be smart about it - there are therefore no cool points to be gained from being an idiot and chugging a six pack of some disgusting lite beer only to get knocked off your gord. I am sure there are more examples, I am just not able to come up with anymore now that we ourselves don't emulate (like they societies that provide us with coffee, chocolate, and tobacco).
While I don't advocate just willy-nilly letting all drugs be legal - I don't see why things like marijuana and peyote are illegal when tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and high fructose corn syrup are allowed. All of the later are also have negative impacts on our body, are addictive, and have high price (taxes for medicaid/loss of life/etc) society wide impacts and yet we allow them. People are going to make bad choices but in a free society we apparently have the right to do that. Why is it that we trust people to make wise decisions about alcohol but not other drugs? As the parent stated - tobacco is becoming less prevalent as society learns of its harmful effects and new nonaddicted generations make smarter decisions. I personally stay away from all "recreational drugs" and don't even really have much caffeine but I love chocolate and the occasional alcoholic beverage. I know it is bad for me but life isn't about just making sure you live the longest possible. It is about the enjoyment you have in the moments you live. As long as I do no harm to others I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to decide the cost/benefit ratio of drugs for myself.
Hell, if you even made the really god-awful stuff legal, like heroin and meth, but mandated how it was used (say required people to go to specific places with clean needles (which might cut down on AIDS and etc.), to be contained while doing it, to sign a release form of some sort saying they understand that doing this means they may die, maybe make them watch a stupid graphic video like they do anymore with driving, or if you really want to go wild make them prove they can financially support their habit)... isn't there at least some chance that it might make a positive difference? You could also take some of the costs of drugs off of society as a whole - if insurance companies can charge higher for smoking, don't you think it would be nice if they could for other drugs that we have no way of reporting now? Let the people who use drugs be made more fully accountable for the consequences instead of society.
I don't think the parent is advocating a head in the sand approach at all... I think it looks at the political and other realities of society. Why spend tax dollars fighting drugs when we could get taxes from people selling them? If n
Thank goodness someone said it! It drives me nuts when people in the music or movie industry assume that a pirated movie or song equals a movie or song that someone didn't buy. This simply isn't the case. I imagine that a lot, perhaps even most, of the time that the people pirating stuff wouldn't own it if they couldn't pirate it. In other words zero (people who would have bought it) minus zero (sold because of pirating) equals zero net sales. I believe that there are no, or very few, lost sales. Now this is obviously overstating the case, as there is probably some small factor in each of those categories that isn't actually a zero... but until the industry does a study that can prove what this percentage is in some scientific way I refuse to worry about it and I am going to be grumpy about my tax money wasting time trying to enforce it. Use it on education or fixing the crappy roads around here instead - guarantee it will benefit more people in the long run that way.
If you visit China people there regularly shit in a hole in the ground and that is a lot of people to ignore. And being camper/climber I must say that shitting in a hole, while not being great, isn't all that bad (not that I want society doing it on a large scale). I have personally gotten mild food poisoning twice and knew a girl in high school who was in the hospital for most of a semester because of it. Think of all the scares we have had recently - remember spinach? My best friend has been out of work for a year and had to move back in with her parents because of fibromyalga - sure they have a name for but they don't know what causes it or how to treat it. She has even been to Duke and they can't exactly figure out what is wrong with her. I haven't had a family die in a construction accident but my grandfather is slowly dieing of asbestos. I think that a lot of people are in denial about the effect of industrialization and how much it has made our lives. I think that free time is a great way to look at work vs. pleasure. How long do I have to work to be able to support myself? Working less = better. It is certainly better than the GDP which is what we use today.
So, what you say is true of the upper-middle and upper class of the first world countries. But are we any happier? Do we have more free time? Is the quality of our lives any better? Do we have meaningful connections with the world around us?
I took an anthropology class as an elective in college. Do you know that members of hunter gatherer societies had more free time than the average person today? I often sit in traffic and wonder why the hell I am going to work that I would rather not go to so that I can pay for all the materialistic crap in my life. I wish that society offered meaningful alternatives.
I would also argue with the affordable and available medicine. If you can't afford health insurance in the US today you are screwed. Hell, even with a lot of insurance companies if you have any sort of medical problem you are going to pay an arm and a leg. I think that medical availability was much more egalitarian even 100 years ago than it is now. In fact I think that all we have done with technology is make the gap between the haves and the have nots increasingly wide. And the haves often do so at the expense of the have nots. We have not eliminated slavery and poverty world wide - we haven't even eliminated it in our own country! I feel that what you say shows a lack of understanding of people outside your own social group.
Why does everyone assume that when mom and pop music stores close it is because of pirating but with any other type of mom and pop it is because the big superstores (Walmart, etc.) did them out of business? I loved the small bookstores that used to be around town - now I have Barnes and Noble or Books-A-Million, I don't blame that on book pirating.
I think that there is a flaw in your logic. You state that "they obviously can't make a profit" I don't think that anyone in the industry has ever argued that they aren't making a profit - they are saying that it hurts their profit. The problem is that it is hard to prove how much with statistics.
Do these artists have a right to be upset about downloading? Maybe... (I dabble in writing and I would be thrilled to have people interested enough in my work to go to the effort doing something illegal). But is it really smart to start suing people - your potential customers? People who obviously are interested in your work? It seems to me that this indicates you really don't understand what consumers want and that is a big problem for a company to have, let alone an entire industry. I don't have a problem with the ethics involved in the situation - what I have is a problem with the business sense of these people. I also have a problem with an industry demanding that my middle-class tax dollar ought to go to protecting the profit of executive big-wigs that have several more zeros at the end of their paycheck than I do (trust me - they aren't worried about protecting the little people under them when they are lobbying, they will cut the low end jobs before they start cutting their own paychecks).
I posted earlier about a great article I read on Baen's website. They are a book publisher and with the advent of book piracy and e-books they are starting to face some of the same issues. Rather than freaking out and worrying about the sky falling they have embraced technology and put books up for free on the site. Their argument is that increasing exposure will increase profits - and the actually have some statistics listed to prove it.
For example: "Or take author Mercedes Lackey, who occupies entire shelves in stores and libraries. 15 years ago she published a series of books with "Arrows" in the title; she's been getting royalties ever since. However, one royalty period after putting the first "Arrow" book on Eric Flint's "Baen Free Library" site, she received over triple the normal royalty. In fact, payment on all her old titles increased, suddenly and significantly, with the only change being the availability of that one free book. I don't know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that dates back to 1965, I'd be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise."
You wanted proof of a smaller company using free exposure and the internet to their advantage to compete with larger market forces, there it is. Baen has business smarts.
There is a great article posted on Baen's site about media pirating. It basically says anything I could possibly say but better. It comments on how badly the situation has been handled, how most artists should love the free exposure, and also states that the consumer and tax dollar should not be responsible for the music industry. If you are interested, it is part of the Prime Palaver by Eric Flint. Go to http://www.baen.com/library/ and the link is on left side of page - the article is #11 in the series (dated 9/16/2002 which shows that this is no new thing).
Incidentally - it is posted as part of the comments for their free library. That's right free. You don't even have to register. Is there anything better than a FREE BOOK? They have over 60 titles from some big name sci-fi and fantasy authors available to read online 'cause they practice what they preach. A perfect example of how giving people a chance to experiment with new authors (or musicians) will actually increase your sales.
I like having all my clocks set 5 minutes ahead - that would drive me crazy!
"relatively wealthy mom and pop"
I am just curious about what kind of Mom and Pop stores you have had experience with? I don't know a single local store holder (and I have four such people in my family and shop at several others where I have become friends with the owners and talk to them about their business vs how things are going with mine/family members/etc.) that is rolling in the dough. From my personal experience, you run a small local business because you love what you do. You put in extremely long hours and you do a *lot* of work. If you are lucky, then you can make enough to support your family. Of course, the more big chain stores like Walmart come into the community the harder it is for the smaller stores.
If you think that monetarily supporting a store is fairly well documented for treating its employees poorly, being anti-union, and exporting work out of the country to others where the workers conditions are atrocious (think back to the days when the company you worked for owned your housing and the stores that you bought your supplies at) is doing society a favor - then you and I have a different idea of what makes society better. In the short term, shopping at Walmart might be cheaper for you, but in the long run the cost/benefit analysis for the community will not come out positively. I am tired of people and governments thinking only in the short term. Heaven forbid we plan ahead even a year or two, much less ten or twenty...
Walmart also helps to create and sustain the paradigm that creates those "poorer folk" that you mention. I don't have the time or the patience to give you an economics lesson. Please, please educate yourself. If you want some "edutainment" there is video Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices that lays everything out in an easy to understand manner that won't require a lot of background understanding.
They told me if I wanted to "play around with it" they would let me but that I wouldn't be allowed to compete (which is still illegal if there is no girls area they are supposed to let you compete against the guys) because there were no other girls in my district. Funny thing was that there were no other guys pole vaulting in the district either - the boys team went straight to regionals. (I ran cross country with some of the pole vaulters so I found that little fact out - those guys also said that there would be girls for me to compete against at those levels.) I decided I didn't want to deal with patronizing and antagonistic coaches and joined a different after school group.
Let's go back to the original argument - you said:
"...women outnumber men by far in nursing, education and womens' studies yet nobody makes a peep about the inequities involved (or outright discrimination)."
To which I replied:
"Actually you are wrong - at least as far as the education field goes. In many parts of the country they are really trying to recruit male teachers..."
Your response to this went something to the point of but not at the college level. I said that such programs aren't needed at the college level because male professors aren't a significant minority there like they are in elementary schools and are in fact generally a majority. You slammed my statistics and then provided your own which prove the exact same thing.
The article I quoted to you was specifically about the way people perceive the issue of gender biases in school. It included such "mysandric fluff" (which you should have spelled misandric btw - if you are going to try to use the term at least spell it right) because that is how some people perceive the issue. Some people study what people think. Since you claim to have taken some BA type courses - you should understand this. Just because it studies such things does not mean that it is in itself misandric. And yes, I did know those articles were there I just didn't have a problem with them because of how they were being used - as published examples of other's views. BTW - in case you missed the fact - the article was written by a man and was about reverse discrimination against boys - why the hell are you asking if I read it? You obviously didn't. (http://www.sadker.org/primer.htm)
I refuse to continue this discussion any further because what I said has been backed up with several different examples of statistics - including your own. It is a stupid argument to begin with and I was stupid for getting sucked into having it with you. I am not going to raise my blood pressure any further by dealing with people who want to argue the points of an argument instead of looking at the main issues that were under discussion (and have already been proved at this point).
Not those - these from 2000 and 1999 - "Four out of five full professors are males, more male professors (72%) are awarded tenure than female professors (52%), and for the last 30 years, full time male professors have consistently earned more than their female peers." From: United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Ok - now that I have cooled down from how you have twisted around my statistics - I would like to point out two things. The first is that when you are talking about how people perceive an issue - you include articels like "Why I hate men" along with your hard core statistics. I didn't qoute a fluff article to you. Secondly - YOUR OWN STATISTICS PROVE MY POINT. This whole discussion was about the reason that there aren't people recruting for male professors at the college/university level like there are the other levels. Your own statistcis point out that there are more men at that level!!!!! So why should they be specifically recruited for - it isn't needed...
I love how you ignore my Deparment of Education Stats...
Sheesh - I did preface that with "In my personal experience" and "50-75%." I didn't ever say everyone. I have met some really great geeks - and it sounds like you might be one of them since you seem to think that girls should be respected for their skill. I was pointing out that quite a few people aren't like that though...
Sigh - that was the first study I found - here are more recent ones, like I said though - think back to your own experiences:
u dentbody.shtml
From a 2000 article: "[Male] dominance is still strong in particular fields, such as college-level teaching. Today's professors continue to be mostly men. According to a recent AAUP survey, 39 percent of undergraduate faculty in the U.S. are women -- well shy of the 58 percent female student population." http://www.virtuallyadvising.com/content/wic/02st
"Four out of five full professors are males, more male professors (72%) are awarded tenure than female professors (52%), and for the last 30 years, full time male professors have consistently earned more than their female peers." From: United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
As I said before, I am not arguing affirmative action. I simply disagree with your opinion that all a women needs to be respected in the field is skill - THAT is what I think is unfair. I have seen plenty of instances where skill isn't enough. In my personal experience, about 50% to 75% of geek guys put women into two categories. The first is the cute fluffy bunny category. If a girl is at all caring about all those "typical girly things" (that make the geek guy all uncomfortable) then she gets put into the social butterfly crowd. The second category is the "one of the guys crowd." These are the girls that the guy geeks don't have to go outside of their own experiences to relate to. Most guy geeks do the on/off - 0/1 - black/white thing with women. There is no inbetween - you are either a bit of fluff or one of the guys. Either way - the women isn't respected for what she is. A social butterfly isn't respected for her mind at all (for example, I say something intelligent they ask where I read it, couldn't have come up with it on my own) and one-of-guys isn't really considered a female being and is certainly not considered datable (which used to annoy me but I actually think might not be a bad thing now...). Why is it that science nerds can agree that biodiversity is a pretty good thing but you ask computer geeks to try to relate to people who are different than they are and they start yelling about how unfair it is? Heaven forbid these types try to understand any view point other than their own. Imagine how much more usable and useful programs would be to the person using them if the programmer could come out of their own experience and try to understand the person they are programming for...
Great ignore all of my points that have evidence and tell me to go look up your evidence for you. I don't think so...
How is that any different from now? People with no options under the FDA are already going elsewhere - accupunture, hands-on healing, herbalists, etc. and as with doctors - there are going to be unscrupulous people in these fields. If I were to find out I had some sort of disease (and was going to die a horrible painful death) that didn't have a cure under the FDA - I would much prefer talking to my doctor with whom I am already established (so trust really isn't an issue to the current argument) to see what non-FDA experimental medications might be available than going to an accupunturist. (But then again - I hate needles...) Desperate means just that - desperate, they are going to find some other option - If I fell into that category I would prefer to have the widest range possible personally.
My best friend in highschool had colon cancer - she participated in one of the studies we have been talking about. Turns out the drug the study was testing pretty much worked. Too bad for her she got the placebo. Treating the cancer basically took away a year of her life. I don't necessarily agree that people should be allowed to try whatever they want but I really do wish that the drug that study was testing had made it to the market sooner. I have to wonder how many people who are in an even worse situation and end up dying painful deaths could have been saved or at least been allowed to have a more useful death if they had been allowed to take "experimental" drugs...
Ummm - that would be because such programs aren't needed at the university level. I want you to think about how many of your teachers - real live tenured ones here, not GAs and what not - during your post-high school education were male, now do the same excercise and think of the number were female. Now compare the two numbers. (Sorry for making the assumption that you went to University, I apologize if I am wrong.)
4 -4.asp#H1
Need more proof, in a National Study of Postsecondary Faculty: "There were several differences between male and female faculty members in the levels of faculty outcomes such as salary, tenure, and rank. Female full-time faculty averaged lower salaries than male faculty by about $10,000 [...] They were also less likely to be tenured (42 vs. 66 percent) or to be full professors (15 vs. 39 percent)." http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_2/2_2/q
I think that attitude is a little unfair personally. I shouldn't have to demand respect or work harder to get it just because I am a girl. Why should I have to be "a special type of girl" to work in your field?
BTW - it isn't a matter of "promoting any sort of artificial advancement" it is a matter of removing artificial barriers to women entering the field. And listen to yourself - you don't think that there are artificial barriers in the field that need to be taken down when you refer to it as "an all-male field"? Attitudes like yours are part of the problem...