Re:To advance, correct errors rather than drag it.
on
The Future of the PSP
·
· Score: 1
Aren't you the one that came out with those $99/$14 figures? Shouldn't it be your responsibility to prove the economic viability/real world basis for such numbers?
"He does not have the author's support in selling copies (no book-signing tour, no live gigs, no nothing), no advantage in production (printing and distribution costs are the same whether or not you are the author) and he still has to out-sell the author by a 10 000-to-1 margin.
The author wants his book distributed in a certain format, let's say hardcover. Barnes and Noble purchases a single hardcover and begins printing paperback editions and/or digital copies that the author did not want his work published in. Without copyright, this is completely legal and since Barnes and Noble owns the distribution chain, they'll have no problem outselling him. In fact, they can choose not to carry the author's release so there's really no competition in many areas.
"Well, we actually know what happens since not only do several authors give away their books for free (Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, to name but a few) as does several bands and record companies."
You can't cite a niche of the market and say it will apply to the whole. That's not good statistical analysis, "we" do not know how it will work.
"You pre-suppose that it is not the norm today that author's have day jobs."
No I do not. I do pre-suppose that authors supplement their income with secondary jobs but they do earn money on the writing they do. My worst case scenario takes that away and so there's no incentive for them to continue.
"There is simply no reason to assume that people create things only because they may sell a copy some day."
I never made that assumption. I do believe that it is in society's best interests to allow the author some control over work after the sale though.
I would appreciate a more respectful tone in any further replies.
"If the reason is to create artificial scarcity in an effort to maintain a certain type of private monopoly, I see no societal use for copyrights whatsoever."
If an author creates a work that is read by tens of thousands but only actually sold it to 1 person, who then copied it and profited, that author will not continue to have the time to write other works because he'll need to have another job to pay the bills. Do you not see it that way?
You actually believe there's no benefit whatsoever to copyright? I haven't heard this a lot. Most people want to see copyright reformed - with reasonable limits on exclusivity before the content enters the public domain. Is it your opinion that copyright just shouldn't exist? And if that is the case, do you also see no value whatsoever in what copyright offers?
"I'm so sorry, am I missing something here? Because "pretty damn gorgeous" is not how I'd describe these machines."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Arguing over whether these machines are good looking or not is a foolish use of time. You're never going to change anyone's opinion.
""Treading on someone else's memories and goodwill to make a buck" is even better."
That statement, on the other hand, is spot on and summarizes the whole thing.
"Calling me paranoid doesn't mean that tech companies are philanthropic. They exist to make a profit."
I believe his main point was that competition for employees will prevent this from becoming a real problem. You might want to get an adjustment to your medications - you went from 0 to asshole pretty quickly there.
I'd also like to add that while one may be able to get a job in the IT industry without a degree, a college degree (regardless of the subject matter and especially if it is a BS), is good future-proofing for a career change later in life. There are many jobs that require a college degree to even get your foot in the door.
"My comment was aimed at the headline - I wouldn't have had a problem with "Dead after 66 years" or some other wording more appropriate for a fictional character."
Incorrect.
Your comment was aimed at the person responsible for the headline. I think you're stupid but I don't think you're so stupid that you would address conversations to headlines in stories. But then again...you did think Captain America was a real person.
Did you escape from Arkham Asylum? [For the record: fictional construct as well.]
Hey - you're the one arguing that they should have cited his real age rather than the date of first appearance [which is standard operating procedure for fictional characters].
He's actually a fictional character - not a real guy. When a newspaper runs a "happy birthday" column for Mickey Mouse, they tend to calculate his age based on his first appearance - not his first appearance plus how old they think he was in his first appearance.
"There is value in a college education where there is a need to be educated, but not all people will benefit from the four years (or more) dedicated to obtaining a degree. Those energies might be better spent going straight to the task, if they have the skills and the mind for the task. This is why I think college is not for everyone, and going to college JUST to get the degree, regardless of your circumstances and frame of mind, is worthless in some cases."
I disagree. I believe that spending 4 years of one's life entirely focused on learning at the college level, surrounded by other individuals who are also invested in learning for the sake of learning will make anyone a better person.
"Sorry, I should have kept specifying that I was referring to people going into CS, which was the original topic at hand."
And this is the crux of the matter. You think a college degree is job training - that is why you don't understand the value of a college degree. It's a shame you couldn't leave the insults behind and listen to a single thing I have said to you.
"Must have missed that part about investing the money you would have otherwise spent on your college education while working an average paying job, and earning almost $1,000,000 more than your average college grad from a public college over the course of 40 years."
You honestly don't see the flaw in that equation?
"No, my point was, and always has been, a college degree isn't necessary for someone to succeed in a lot of tech jobs."
No one has ever argued this point. The point I am making is that getting a college degree is good and those who say that college degrees are worthless (like yourself) don't understand what they are about.
I am sorry this conversation has gotten to this point. My entire thesis was that there is value in college, beyond job training or monetary gains - regardless of the subject matter studied. I am sorry this has gotten so off track.
"The whole arguement is over the value of a college degree. You think they have value for someone going into CS, I am not of the same opinion. The the issue of income vs degree was raised by the person who you replied to originally, after stating that you do not need a degree in CS to be successful in an IT related field."
Okay - so you think they hold no value for someone going into CS. Then why was your original point that college degrees were not right for everyone? You stated that a college degree did not hold any value for you. Now, you're saying they hold no value for "someone" [anyone] going into CS. It's funny how I've gotten you to reveal your true thoughts on college degrees. You kept saying, "Oh, it just wasn't right for me." but now it's obvious that you are bitter that you couldn't get yourself through college and hate all those who could. What a shame.
"So, going by statistics, it's still not a safe bet. That margin (averages) of income isn't that impressive. Here are a few more articles for your reading pleasure:"
$51,110 vs. $29,337; over 40 years, half a million dollars difference? Yeah, not that impressive.
Now that I've revealed that your original message of college degrees aren't for everyone was a lie and that you just hate those with college degrees and I've proven that college degrees do have value from a purely monetary point, I think that I have made my argument. It's a shame that you couldn't listen to a single thing I said. My whole point was that spending 4 years of your life focused solely on education is a good thing. People should pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake with no outside distractions of a job or a family. It makes better people. Furthermore, those without college degrees can make great employees but some employers will discriminate against them and they may have a tougher time getting that initial foot in the door. Finally, in my child was wondering whether he or she should go to college or just get a job directly out of high school - I would push them towards college. There will be plenty of time to work later in their life. College is an excellent experience for people.
Your point was: you didn't like college and now hate everyone who holds a college degree.
Your high school opinion vs. my masters opinion. Mine's better.
"I have family at this same university, one earning his BS in Mathmatics, the other is back for his PhD in Chemical Engineering. So, no, not a two-year community college. In fact, I don't remember seeing any two-year colleges in the Big Ten, the last time I looked. That clue was specifically given to narrow the type of college I was referring to originally, and was completely lost on your well educated, degree holding mind. *golf clap*"
Yes, I think you are lying. I think you couldn't cut it at a community college.
"You are equating success with money earned, which is only one measurement of one type of success. I see things differently. So, you have claimed otherwise, and I will continue to refute this as long as you keep saying it."
Please quote one of my posts where I said one without a degree could not be successful. Or, better yet, quote where I said that success was only measured through money. I never made either of those points.
"Statistically speaking, you might be right."
Statistically speaking, I am right. Look it up.
"But since I don't know your work history or income history, and you don't know mine, you'd be making a pretty silly bet. I would also be stupid to make the counter-bet against you, since I know nothing of your history."
I am quite comfortable putting my salary up against yours. Your inability to argue in any sort of reasonable manner and follow a thread of actual discussion (instead of continuing to make up things I said in your head) tells me all I need to know about you. You are beneath me in any measure of quality.
That's an excellent question. Why do you keep saying that people without college degrees can be successful when no one has claimed otherwise?
"The connection between the two bits of info about the university I was talking about will yield an answer to the quality of that university (once you find out the name). But, amazing as your powers of deduction are, you've failed to put that together yourself."
That's interesting. You went to your local community college and couldn't handle it then, right?
"
Some of those with college degrees make more money than those without. Some people who buy lotto tickets end up with more money than those without. My example is not limited to a small group of people either, and there are some very rich and well known individuals without degrees that might tell you the same."
On average, those with college degrees make more than those without. Statistically speaking, over the course of my lifetime, I will make more money than you. [Pretty safe bet considering I hold a MS and you hold nothing.]
"One does not have to "hack it" in college in order to succeed in real life. You and I measure success differently."
For the 2nd time, no one ever made that claim. It's great that you can prop that strawman up but enough already.
"You want to throw statistics at me, and then brush aside my indication of the size of the university I attended and then worked for? It would not be difficult to figure out which of the universities I am speaking of, if you cared at all about."
There is no connection between enrollment and quality of the school. Bringing that point up rather than simply saying what college you're talking about shows that you're lying and also don't understand how colleges are ranked.
And again, those with college degrees make more money than those without. Therefore, regardless of your opinion, there is value in a college degree that is proven beyond your single anecdotal example.
"Of course, had you actually read the bit where I stated that I thought college degrees were like expensive certs, "in my eyes", you'd have realized I was yet again stating an opinion. Again, from my perspective."
"I hold no contempt for people who have degrees."
You showed contempt when you said that you viewed ["in your eyes"] college degrees as nothing more than expensive certifications.
"For some people, there is NO value in a college degree."
Sounds like you chose to take the easy way because you couldn't handle college. And even if you wouldn't have gotten anything out of college other than a piece of paper, statistics will tell you that those with college degrees make more than those without. Check the facts. Thus, college degrees have value over not holding a college degree and I have proven your precious opinion wrong. That's right.
"And, the college I attended and later worked for has an annual attendance of over 36,000 people, so it's fairly well known (it's in the Big 10)."
That's great - because when I think of excellent institutions, I always just wonder how many students are there. You've got no logic and no ability to argue a point. No wonder you couldn't hack it in college.
"I love it how some people get so worked up over something so trivial."
How fascinating!
"Eh? I was just restating my original thoughts on the matter, that's all."
Your "thoughts" had nothing to do whatsoever with what was being discussed. No one was claiming that people without college degrees cannot survive. Let's examine your argument. You were originally making the claim that college degrees aren't for everyone - the obvious conclusion is that you think they are for some people. But then you go on to say that all a college degree is is an expensive certificate. Not only does this show that you don't understand the mission of a good college (I'm guessing your experience was not at a top-level school) but it also shows that you are the one that holds contempt for those who hold college degrees. I made the point that there is value in a college degree; spending 4 years of your life focusing on education in a model where education for the sake of education is the goal is valuable. I am surprised you can't understand this.
"You do NOT have to have a degree to be successful."
I never even made close to making that claim so I don't see why you're refuting it. Of course, stupid me - I have both a BS and MS in Computer Science so perhaps I'm just too stupid to understand your advanced debating techniques.
"You can do all this for a few hundred dollars worth of old equipment on eBay and a few hundred dollars worth of books as well. School is for chumps, or PhDs..."
If you think all that comes out of a classic CS degree is what you can pick up from internet faqs, then you don't understand what college is for. I am sorry that you are so short-sighted. I can recognized the value of both a college degree and the hands-on-experience gained from researching things yourself and/or being on the job. I would not hire you - not because you don't have a college degree - but because you are can't properly analyze the situation because you don't want to admit the definiciency in yourself.
Yeah, because programmers discuss technical details with the marketing department all the time - especially on a game developed by SOJ and marketed in the U.S. by SOA. Right...
"I'm sure it's rooted into some fancy programming through."
I'm sure no one from marketing had any idea if Sonic used any different technology than any other game. So now we're both sure - but I'm right.
Why are your watching habits in aggregate with all other users of value to you? What do you think would happen if you used Tivo and your viewing habits were included in the data?
"No, your cable bill only pays for "some" content. Advertising pays for the rest. Which is exactly what I said. Go back and try to read the post for comprehension this time..."
Reading comprehension? You want to talk about reading comprehension? Okay - go back to my original post and tell me where I said that my cable bill paid for "ALL" content that I get. Please, I'll wait.
Language is what separates us from apes. You appear to lack some needed skills. Go back to the trees.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't you the one that came out with those $99/$14 figures? Shouldn't it be your responsibility to prove the economic viability/real world basis for such numbers?
Don't underestimate the draw of nostalgia. If DNF comes out, I expect that sales will be brisk. [Even if it's a stinker, I think it will still sell.]
I would appreciate a more respectful tone in any further replies.
You actually believe there's no benefit whatsoever to copyright? I haven't heard this a lot. Most people want to see copyright reformed - with reasonable limits on exclusivity before the content enters the public domain. Is it your opinion that copyright just shouldn't exist? And if that is the case, do you also see no value whatsoever in what copyright offers?
I'd also like to add that while one may be able to get a job in the IT industry without a degree, a college degree (regardless of the subject matter and especially if it is a BS), is good future-proofing for a career change later in life. There are many jobs that require a college degree to even get your foot in the door.
Your comment was aimed at the person responsible for the headline. I think you're stupid but I don't think you're so stupid that you would address conversations to headlines in stories. But then again...you did think Captain America was a real person.
Did you escape from Arkham Asylum? [For the record: fictional construct as well.]
Hey - you're the one arguing that they should have cited his real age rather than the date of first appearance [which is standard operating procedure for fictional characters].
He's actually a fictional character - not a real guy. When a newspaper runs a "happy birthday" column for Mickey Mouse, they tend to calculate his age based on his first appearance - not his first appearance plus how old they think he was in his first appearance.
I am sorry this conversation has gotten to this point. My entire thesis was that there is value in college, beyond job training or monetary gains - regardless of the subject matter studied. I am sorry this has gotten so off track.
Now that I've revealed that your original message of college degrees aren't for everyone was a lie and that you just hate those with college degrees and I've proven that college degrees do have value from a purely monetary point, I think that I have made my argument. It's a shame that you couldn't listen to a single thing I said. My whole point was that spending 4 years of your life focused solely on education is a good thing. People should pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake with no outside distractions of a job or a family. It makes better people. Furthermore, those without college degrees can make great employees but some employers will discriminate against them and they may have a tougher time getting that initial foot in the door. Finally, in my child was wondering whether he or she should go to college or just get a job directly out of high school - I would push them towards college. There will be plenty of time to work later in their life. College is an excellent experience for people.
Your point was: you didn't like college and now hate everyone who holds a college degree.
Your high school opinion vs. my masters opinion. Mine's better.
And again, those with college degrees make more money than those without. Therefore, regardless of your opinion, there is value in a college degree that is proven beyond your single anecdotal example.
And yes, I earn a six figure income.
Yeah pal - nice attempt to shift the argument.
Language is what separates us from apes. You appear to lack some needed skills. Go back to the trees.