No, I didn't account for that, but it would be additive anyway. Just add the salary for a judge in each jurisdiction to the base salary of a judge in Silicon Valley. Or, since they'll likely need to work there anyway (so the MAFIAA can ensure no one is looking away from the monitors), just multiply the salary by the number of jurisdictions. That's already 51 for the US (50 state + 1 federal competing sets of rules), and there are 207 countries (last I checked by the UN's standards) the potential increase in cost is more akin to a drunken dart game than a number worth discussing in jest.
I think accounting for other jurisdictions brings this little thought exercise from humorous hyperbole to the serious rigor of the reported losses to the industry (a factor of ~1000 larger) and I shan't be bothered to defend my method as being even remotely useful when it becomes more absurd than the method I am mocking.
But, for shitsngiggles, take your rounded off number ($40b) and add three zeros. $40,000,000,000,000. Now that is a budget request that takes some serious balls of steel. Someone find me Jon St. John!!!
I just finished writing up a facetious cost analysis for implementing the kind of screening everyone but Google might agree to were cost, privacy, and due process not an issue. It got to the point where writing the math out in LaTeX on my blog was easier, then it got to the point where it could stand on its own. Anyway, as far as I could reasonably figure, it would cost in the neighborhood of $36,829,468,840 per year to have live judges scrutinize every minute of new video uploaded to youtube. I had to make a few leaps of faith coming up with assumed values when it came to how long they look at and consider each video, but in the end it only made about an order of magnitude difference.
Copyright Lobby had decided to try to put on a pro-ACTA demonstration... but they needed to hire people to act as ACTA supporters
It shouldn't surprise anyone that a lobby backed by the MPAA would try hiring extras at a place so likely to both despise the effort and need the money. It's actually a rather fitting vignette of the overall global trend in IP law.
How are you? I haven't heard from you in quite a while. Most of your brethren appear to have moved on and now service the next generation by powering vehicles and co-gen plants. In other words, they have become useful again by participating in a larger scheme that benefits everyone by relinquishing their stake in a grand timeshare. So, please be useful. Please help out the newer generation. Please go die in a fire and take your ignorance with you.
It's not just the citations that matter. Though part of it may be more the simple matter of good PR, many of those seeking publication simply do not have an alternative that really stands out in their respective fields. Open science publications are great, but some form of cross promotion and some attention toward the minor detail of accumulating an active base of competent scientists needs to be tended to. It is high time for the open nature of the scientific method to be rid of the shackles of over presumptuous gatekeepers and flourish amid the unfettered confluence of discoveries being forgotten behind the tall walls of subscription fees.
Last I checked, I was paying ~$35 for 48 hours of "access" to each journal article I had to pay for outside of a university's bulk license (ya, even as a member of both AIChE and ACS). If you don't yet understand how asinine that is, it's comparable to paying $35 for 48 hours of access to every single web page on Wikipedia and a required user account associated with your real personal information. In fact, the comparison is quite apt as both pay-per-view journals and Wikipedia acquire and publish user content which has been refined under a process of peer review. Wikipedia's peer review may be a little more open and occurs after initial publication, but the principle is the same.
Ya, with companies like Elsevier supporting the skullduggery they have been lately... I need to get on with starting up my open science journal project.
This is why I (and most other lab dwellers I know) have switched over to other labware brands like Bomex. That way there's little confusion over the quality of the glass and a lower chance of having a piece of glass break in the middle of an experiment. You'd be surprised how often a piece of kitchenware can serve as a cheap piece of labware.
My first thought was "wow Paramount finally broke down and decided to tap into the collective creativity of college students." I mean, now that they've given in to the dark side and admitted they're stealing, we can have a real conversation! My guess is that the first thing on the agenda will be a Q&A about how to use contracts to obfuscate unconscionable business practices... and maybe a followup on successfully lying to clients and courts. I imagine the finale will be the lecture on how to purchase a senator (there's to many representatives to merit their price).
Oh, shit, I completely forgot to read the article. Damn, it looks like they just took aim at their feet again. And I had such a wonderful moment of brief recognition of (who was that again... ah, yes) Parmanut's public integrity.
/sarc
Honestly, it would be hilarious if they were filmed getting booed off the campus...
Re: Re: Re: Automating filtering
No, I didn't account for that, but it would be additive anyway. Just add the salary for a judge in each jurisdiction to the base salary of a judge in Silicon Valley. Or, since they'll likely need to work there anyway (so the MAFIAA can ensure no one is looking away from the monitors), just multiply the salary by the number of jurisdictions. That's already 51 for the US (50 state + 1 federal competing sets of rules), and there are 207 countries (last I checked by the UN's standards) the potential increase in cost is more akin to a drunken dart game than a number worth discussing in jest.
I think accounting for other jurisdictions brings this little thought exercise from humorous hyperbole to the serious rigor of the reported losses to the industry (a factor of ~1000 larger) and I shan't be bothered to defend my method as being even remotely useful when it becomes more absurd than the method I am mocking.
But, for shitsngiggles, take your rounded off number ($40b) and add three zeros. $40,000,000,000,000. Now that is a budget request that takes some serious balls of steel. Someone find me Jon St. John!!!
Re: Spread the word
Ditto
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EASY!
NOOOO SOUP FOR YOU!
Re: Automating filtering
I just finished writing up a facetious cost analysis for implementing the kind of screening everyone but Google might agree to were cost, privacy, and due process not an issue. It got to the point where writing the math out in LaTeX on my blog was easier, then it got to the point where it could stand on its own. Anyway, as far as I could reasonably figure, it would cost in the neighborhood of $36,829,468,840 per year to have live judges scrutinize every minute of new video uploaded to youtube. I had to make a few leaps of faith coming up with assumed values when it came to how long they look at and consider each video, but in the end it only made about an order of magnitude difference.
Re: Re: Re: Wait a minute...
(untitled comment)
Re: Nominations
Muhahahahaha
Re:
You "might" be ignorant of how speculation is different from proscribed prerogatives.
Dear Chris Dodd
How are you? I haven't heard from you in quite a while. Most of your brethren appear to have moved on and now service the next generation by powering vehicles and co-gen plants. In other words, they have become useful again by participating in a larger scheme that benefits everyone by relinquishing their stake in a grand timeshare. So, please be useful. Please help out the newer generation. Please go die in a fire and take your ignorance with you.
Sincerely,
Earth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Just The Youngins
Troll Report 3/10 for improper use of a binary scale.
Re: Re: Re:
Kinda funny how that's worked out for him.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: hooray for open journals!
It's not just the citations that matter. Though part of it may be more the simple matter of good PR, many of those seeking publication simply do not have an alternative that really stands out in their respective fields. Open science publications are great, but some form of cross promotion and some attention toward the minor detail of accumulating an active base of competent scientists needs to be tended to. It is high time for the open nature of the scientific method to be rid of the shackles of over presumptuous gatekeepers and flourish amid the unfettered confluence of discoveries being forgotten behind the tall walls of subscription fees.
Last I checked, I was paying ~$35 for 48 hours of "access" to each journal article I had to pay for outside of a university's bulk license (ya, even as a member of both AIChE and ACS). If you don't yet understand how asinine that is, it's comparable to paying $35 for 48 hours of access to every single web page on Wikipedia and a required user account associated with your real personal information. In fact, the comparison is quite apt as both pay-per-view journals and Wikipedia acquire and publish user content which has been refined under a process of peer review. Wikipedia's peer review may be a little more open and occurs after initial publication, but the principle is the same.
(untitled comment)
Ya, with companies like Elsevier supporting the skullduggery they have been lately... I need to get on with starting up my open science journal project.
Clear Reasoning
There is consumer harm dammit! People are getting stuff for free! Can't anyone else see how that is ruining my shitty business???
/Google-competitor
(untitled comment)
They see him trollin', they hatin'...
All About Protecting Consumers
This is why I (and most other lab dwellers I know) have switched over to other labware brands like Bomex. That way there's little confusion over the quality of the glass and a lower chance of having a piece of glass break in the middle of an experiment. You'd be surprised how often a piece of kitchenware can serve as a cheap piece of labware.
/bacon-lance
Re:
Just ask Darth Vader: the studios never "recoup" their costs.
Hooray for Paramount!
My first thought was "wow Paramount finally broke down and decided to tap into the collective creativity of college students." I mean, now that they've given in to the dark side and admitted they're stealing, we can have a real conversation! My guess is that the first thing on the agenda will be a Q&A about how to use contracts to obfuscate unconscionable business practices... and maybe a followup on successfully lying to clients and courts. I imagine the finale will be the lecture on how to purchase a senator (there's to many representatives to merit their price).
Oh, shit, I completely forgot to read the article. Damn, it looks like they just took aim at their feet again. And I had such a wonderful moment of brief recognition of (who was that again... ah, yes) Parmanut's public integrity.
/sarc
Honestly, it would be hilarious if they were filmed getting booed off the campus...
Re:
.l.. (FUCK_YOU) ..l.
FTFY
/mature