Health care costs in the US can have the same effect on the population as a tax even though it does not get go through the government. The goal should be to lower the healthcare cost per person, not squabble about who is paying.
The Netflix API does not let you create a player. As far as I know Netflix built the player for every device (Ipad, Playstation, Blueray...). If they did not build the player for a device they had to give the device manufacturer a secret API that I am not aware of.
Also, for the curious, their player is all HTML5 driven. They basically compile a browser for each device and build the UI with HTML5.
This is an interesting possible future. If all things are built from the same raw substance the supplier of that substance will be incredible wealthy and powerful. A new Carnegie in a global economy.
The next lower level of wealth will be the digital rights owners of commodity items. The rights owner of 'Shovel' will start a dynasty that will last for hundreds of years. They could potentially be powerful enough to extend copyright laws forever so that they continue to collect rent on the shovel.
Exactly. So what we are thrashing out with digital rights right now sets up for the kind of future when physical goods are more about the design licenses and rights to manufacture.
Thinking in those terms, we cannot actually discount the role that digital rights management plays. What makes DRM unfair and oppressive has a bit to do with who holds enforcement powers. If the seller also manages the DRM servers, then it holds all the power and can do whatever it wants. If the seller disappears, your access disappears.
In their example, you would have bitcoin signed three way: a seller, a buyer, and a mutually-agreed-upon arbitrator. Two sides of a party can complete the transaction. If both seller and buyer agrees, then the bitcoin's ownership transfers over. If there is a disagreement, they can talk to the arbitrator.
The article also talks about other examples, for example, using technology like Bitcoin to sign a loan agreement on a car with the car as a collateral. As long as the owner is making payments for the length of the loan, the car is accessible. When the payments are in arrears, the car is not repossessed; it is locked out remotely. It will be unlocked automatically by digital contract when payment resumes. It also means you can digitally sign over the contract to someone else -- effectively, selling to someone else the rights to use the car if they can get the payments back up and running again.
Something like that would work with digital goods. I can say, hold a contract specified in a Bitcoin-like token to a book. I have the right to loan it out the book to any number of people, but I can only loan it out once. If I loan it, I register via the same p2p mechanism that such a person has the right to read it. When I want it back, I can get the book back, or have the access rights automatically expire.
It doesn't keep pirates from it. If you can read the book, you have access to the raw data, and you can pirate it. Like any social agreements, it depends on that most people will abide by this. It's an iteration on the kind of strong property laws that allows entrepreneurialism to flourish in America.
I can have something similar in a world of powerful microfabs. I purchase manufacturing rights of a design, and it is registered publicly via a p2p mechanism that is not controlled by any private interest. If I purchased the right to manufacturing 100 units, I can split it off and sell or transfer 50 manufacturing rights to someone else. If I wanted to make derivative work, I'd get a separate derivative works license, also registered via a p2p contract system.
Further, I would essentially be paying the designer the perceived value of the good, while decoupling that with the material cost to manufacture such a good. I can choose to purchase additional raw material to feed into the microfab, or I can choose to recycle something I want to get rid of, break it down into its component parts, and make this new thing that I want.
And if I didn't want to pay the perceived value, I find or develop an Open Source version.
Your comments about "A new Carnegie in a global economy" -- that is the premise for Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age. Personally, I think it is far more interesting not to control and be the sole supplier of the raw substance. Why do you want to control it? To be wealthy and powerful. Why do you want to be wealthy and powerful? That gets into some really interesting discussions.
I think an easy way to improve the health care industry would be to quadruple the number of urgent cares and keep them all open 24 hours a day. Financially the system encourages urgent care use, but they are often tough to access. Many times in the middle of the night we have to consider taking a child to the ER or just waiting until morning.
I don't know if this would improve general health, but it sure would make me feel like I am getting more for what I pay.
<<Your last two comments may be the stupidest things I have ever heard>>
Damn! Do you guys even read the comments before typing out these pithy replies?
The guy(LatterJohn) clearly said he is coming from the OPs son's perspective. That means he had the same issues OP's kid has. In my dictionary that means he has more knowledge about this stuff than you(unless you too are autistic). He is just telling what it's like being somebody with autism/aspy from his personal experience and you are calling it "stupid"? This is exactly what is wrong with "normal" people like you, who try to model "not-normal" people with your "normal" context of life!
Next you will say man never landed on moon. Move on!
I do see that JohnLatter/LatterJohn/<blah> has created multiple accounts to post. But that doesn't make me as a sock-puppet account. It actually makes me believe that he indeed has some issues.
Just because he has a different POV(and that coming from living with something similar, at-least as per his post), it doesn't make it right for folks to simply deflect it as "stupid". Things like autism/aspy are something that needs a lot more to be studied upon and folks like us can not view those folks through the same lens of "common world" as we know it. They are different and unfortunate thing is most of the time they can't really explain to me and you what that "difference" is. We force them to be like us and when they rebel we call them stupid and what not and there by pushing those folks to a corner. One fine day they explode out of all that frustration and everyone jumps up and down. That is the sad part!
No, it's obvious. I won't disclose to you why it is obvious it is you, it's not the name. It's really sad; any intelligent person can see that it is you posting several times echoing your own position.