Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree with you entirely. Our government is not doing anything about this, regardless of party. I am glad that I stay away from cryptocurrencies. So for me, I use money as a way to help others, each month about $20, and I might up this to $30 cos of inflation.Our government isn't the most responsible and we've seen where their priorities are. It isn't with the citizens. Departures are underway but they aren't reporting it. Second passports are increasing and people are looking elsewhere. Recent crypto news will fuel the same.
We're entering a period of immense income gaps. Far greater than we have at present. What they're not saying during the disinformation spiel is what is fueling the next wave of multimillionaires and beyond. They keep saying it's a hoax so no one buys and it remains in limited hands.
I try to live with this in mind.
And I tell you [learn from this], make friends for yourselves [for eternity] by means of the wealth of unrighteousness [that is, use material resources as a way to further the work of God], so that when it runs out, they will welcome you into the eternal dwellings.
I can do a lot of good in His name but don't ever think it's a cakewalk. I don't talk about the things I have to consider or avoid or the realities of a smaller Christian presence. Everything has a price.
~bella
So, maybe an income cap would not be the best idea, but a wealth cap could be, as some of these CEOs have multiple billions of dollars.
But something that I'm curious about is whether you could pull together a number of different news sources into a sponsorship model like Skillshare or Brilliant in which people pay a subscription fee that gives them access to a number of different news sources across a broad political/social spectrum.
I really have no experience in this area, but if I was tasked with finding a way to solve the funding problem I'd certainly do my best to make sure that I got that done, and that my staff was well compensated.
I agree with you entirely. Our government is not doing anything about this, regardless of party. I am glad that I stay away from cryptocurrencies. So for me, I use money as a way to help others, each month about $20, and I might up this to $30 cos of inflation.
I don't think that billionaires having an inordinate amount of the wealth is the problem. That money doesn't just sit around doing nothing. It's as if every dollar in the US economy has somebody's name written on it. It doesn't matter how many have my name on them, or how many have Elon Musk's name on them, it's still the same number of dollars being used to pay for salaries, and roads, and Starbucks coffees. Redistributing them wouldn't suddenly make more of them.
So, what do you think is the root cause? Greed?I don't think that billionaires having an inordinate amount of the wealth is the problem. That money doesn't just sit around doing nothing. It's as if every dollar in the US economy has somebody's name written on it. It doesn't matter how many have my name on them, or how many have Elon Musk's name on them, it's still the same number of dollars being used to pay for salaries, and roads, and Starbucks coffees. Redistributing them wouldn't suddenly make more of them.
Cos of scams, and potential risks: What To Know About Cryptocurrency and ScamsWhy do you avoid them?
Cos of scams, and potential risks: What To Know About Cryptocurrency and Scams
Also, some people who study the end-times think crypto could be used as a means of currency in the future, but I stay away from end-times studies, as it is all speculation.
Yes, crypto currency is real, but a lot of people want to scam people using crypto. I will stick with dollars or other currency until the value of crypto is stable (less volatile). But yeah, crypto has been around for over 15 years, if not even longer (Bitcoin was founded in 2009). There is a long article, even long for me about Bitcoin, and from the summary, Bitcoin was founded for a good purpose: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...seminar/2018/Emerging_Tech_Bitcoin_Crypto.pdfThe government has been working on crypto since the nineties. Jerome Powell admitted it in one of his Fed meetings. But most people don't watch them and they know that. It's not a scam. But you won't know that unless you look at other things that few will read. See the pattern?
Digital currency is a certainty. They're aware it will create massive wealth that's why it's denounced. But if you pay attention you'll see that Chase and other players are buying it in droves. While saying they oppose it in public.
Don't believe everything you hear. Take things to the Lord in prayer. He knows the truth and can cut through the fog. My dear one teaches a blockchain class at an Ivy League college. That course wouldn't exist if it was fake. Food for thought.
~bella
1 & 2 seem like the same thing. I don't think (3) is true, for research costs money and paywalls fund research. Removing paywalls removes research funding. Regarding (4), maybe a little, but I don't a journal that charges for access lacks transparency or accountability. I don't think these are great arguments.Secular Arguments for Open Access:
1. Advancement of Knowledge: Making scientific and news articles open access allows for the free flow of information, enabling researchers and the public to build on each other's work, leading to new discoveries and advancements in various fields.
2. Accessibility: Open access ensures that everyone, regardless of their financial situation or institutional affiliation, can access vital information for personal growth, education, and decision-making.
3. Economic Efficiency: Open access reduces the overall cost of research by eliminating paywalls and subscription fees, which ultimately benefits researchers, funding agencies, and the public.
4. Transparency and Accountability: Making information freely available promotes transparency and accountability, as individuals can verify the accuracy and validity of claims made in scientific or news articles.
These are three sound arguments. Bottom line: generally speaking, it should cost us to acquire things that are costly to produce. I don't think anything will ultimately circumvent this principle. A content creator can of course generously prescind from this principle, but the principle cannot be fundamentally invalidated, and the content creator's right to charge is based on this principle. Once one understands money as a store of value it becomes a self-evident truth that costly work costs money.Secular Arguments against Open Access:
1. Financial Sustainability: Many publishers rely on subscription fees to cover their costs and generate revenue, which could be put at risk if all content becomes open access. Journalists may not recieve a steady stream of income.
2. Quality Control: Open access does not necessarily guarantee the quality or credibility of the information being shared, as anyone can publish online. Therefore, some argue that there should be a way to vet and verify the accuracy of published content.
3. Intellectual Property: Publishers and authors have the right to protect their intellectual property, which can be a challenge when it comes to open access.
Yeah, the secular arguments against open access seem to win in this regard. Open access does work for some things, but research needs funding. If something is taxpayer funded, then it should be open access. If it is funded without taxes, then publishers have the right to close the access behind a paywall. Hopefully the profit margins are lowered a bit. But regardless, I try to give both sides to my posts in the ethics forums, as well as theological and secular reasoning as that allows for friendly discussions between Christians, non-Christians and people who support or deny the ethical concept presented. If someone wants to get access to a journal, most universities have programs or a subscription to Elsevier and other journal publishers. Or, folks could use MDPI, which is a journal publisher that publishes open access journals. But of course, there will be people that use software tools to bypass journal paywalls also, myself included. But, I will make a concerted effort not to do that anymore. Already, I deactivated the bypass software for news articles on my computers, since April 18, cos my library gives permission to read the news through my library card online. My library card is like the license that Gon (main character) uses to access special services such as cyberspace and public facilities.(I have only read the OP)
1 & 2 seem like the same thing. I don't think (3) is true, for research costs money and paywalls fund research. Removing paywalls removes research funding. Regarding (4), maybe a little, but I don't a journal that charges for access lacks transparency or accountability. I don't think these are great arguments.
These are three sound arguments. Bottom line: generally speaking, it should cost us to acquire things that are costly to produce. I don't think anything will ultimately circumvent this principle. A content creator can of course generously prescind from this principle, but the principle cannot be fundamentally invalidated, and the content creator's right to charge is based on this principle. Once one understands money as a store of value it becomes a self-evident truth that costly work costs money.
First note that it is possible to buy the rights to something, before or after it is created. For example, a rich benefactor might commission a piece of art that they will then own. Now there is an important sense in which things that are funded by taxes are owned by taxpayers, and yet in a representative government it is the representatives of the people who control such things. Those representatives effectively get to decide these questions of access, and they do so based on a number of factors.If something is taxpayer funded, then it should be open access. If it is funded without taxes, then publishers have the right to close the access behind a paywall.
Yes, that's great. Is this a card from a public library or from a college/university?Already, I deactivated the bypass software for news articles on my computers, since April 18, cos my library gives permission to read the news through my library card online. My library card is like the license that Gon (main character) uses to access special services such as cyberspace and public facilities.
I think their merits and demerits are similar to the "secular" arguments. The difficulty with using a Bible to address modern questions is that what gets presented is an argument and a Biblical interpretation. The arguments are self-supporting, and are neither secular nor religious. The interpretations in this case seem strained, because the Bible was not really concerned with this issue.So, what do you think about the Biblical arguments for and against open access?
Take care.God bless, and good night.
Well, about the card, my library card is from a public library in my city, plus I was making an anime reference, as my library card can not access as much as Gon's Hunter License could, but it means books, DVDs, games, newspapers (online and offline), and even bike rentals, though I already have a bike. For those rare folks who somehow do not own a computer (or do not want a computer), the library card allows one to use the library computers and get electronic peripherals such as borrowing a hard drive.First note that it is possible to buy the rights to something, before or after it is created. For example, a rich benefactor might commission a piece of art that they will then own. Now there is an important sense in which things that are funded by taxes are owned by taxpayers, and yet in a representative government it is the representatives of the people who control such things. Those representatives effectively get to decide these questions of access, and they do so based on a number of factors.
The difficulty with commissioned science is that it presents a conflict of interest. Take for example the popular conception of the Galileo affair (which conception is in fact largely mythical). In that popular conception the commissioning body (and simultaneously, the governing body) censored work that was not to its liking. This sort of thing has never stopped, and is constantly at play today. Whenever a government or political party or university funds research there is almost always a conflict of interest at play, and the researchers are beholden to the desires of their benefactors.
Yes, that's great. Is this a card from a public library or from a college/university?
I think their merits and demerits are similar to the "secular" arguments. The difficulty with using a Bible to address modern questions is that what gets presented is an argument and a Biblical interpretation. The arguments are self-supporting, and are neither secular nor religious. The interpretations in this case seem strained, because the Bible was not really concerned with this issue.
I think the Bible does testify to intellectual virtue, and what I find is that content creators desire to foster open access. They do so by sharing some articles on things like Academia.edu, by negotiating rights with publishers, by contributing to proprietary and non-proprietary efforts, by giving interviews or doing video introductions to topics, etc. I think it is good for content creators to do this, and it also helps them advertise their work.
Take care.
Wikipedia is quite politically slanted.Agreed. My local library has both print and digital copies or news. My library also gives home access to articles as well, I just need to set it up with my library card. Yeah, the internet has sadly given some people a sense of entitlement to get everything for free, which is totally unrealistic. For instance, Wikipedia always asks for donations, as not enough people give to Wikipedia, same with The Guardian.
Everything appears to be politically slanted one way or another, whether that be to the right or the left.Wikipedia is quite politically slanted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?