Why do you always assume somebody that refuses to be on Facebook has no friends? It's a curious bit of fallacious logic that I encounter quite often.
I feel the same way the AC does. Most people *are* foolish to give up so much privacy for whatever you think Facebook is delivering.
Personally, I find Facebook to not only be dangerous to me for factual reasons based on logic regarding privacy, anonymity, game theory, etc. but incredibly shallow and just plain old bullshit.
I don't need to tweet shit, or put stuff up on Facebook, or see any of your shit either.
Call it a personal preference, but I prefer my relationships to have a little more "real life" in them. Meeting at tea and coffee shops, having a meal, you know, actually doing real things. Talking with my friends.
Facebook and Twitter (especially Twitter) just lack the depth that I find rewarding in personal relationships.
I am not a phone guy. Hate to be on it for more than a few minutes. Refuse to txt message. My communications are literally limited to email, phone conversations and physically talking. I like it that way.
and..... I have plenty of friends and I am considered to be quite nice and approachable.
It's still not political and I am delusional, ignorant, or refusing to accept reality.
Political, in the contemporary sense, and in this context, means that it is an argument about laws, regulations, policy, or a school of thought on how society should be administered to the benefit of the society. There can two or more sides to the argument, but what they all have in common is at least the pretense that it is beneficial towards society and serves to protect it.
I deny SOPA that status. While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction. Not FISA, not the Patriot Act, not Abortion, not Gay Marriage, etc. Every single one them has some sort of basis to support it. Some sort of rationale in which the American Way of Life (tm) is protected and allowed to flourish, even if I may disagree with it.
SOPA is pure corruption and abuse in its most distilled form. It is the most direct assault on intelligence, liberty, and common sense that I have been witness to in my entire life.
I don't know of any stronger terms that I can state just how evil SOPA *is*. For me to acknowledge it as political means that it there is some sort of public interest served in the debate. I just can't see that or say it.
That might be true if Wikipedia was being unreasonable. If I knew there was a potential big client out there with a lot of media clout that was known to be unreasonable and difficult to work with I would probably pass on servicing them too. However, taking a stance against something like SOPA, which anybody remotely involved with Internet knows is bad, very very bad, is hardly unreasonable.
Saying SOPA is political is like saying we could have rational discourse about the *possibility* of owning African Americans as slaves and starting up our "import business" all over again to compete with China on low cost labor.
No. SOPA is only political in the remotely tangential sense that it involves some politicians. Other than that, there is no rational basis on the pro-SOPA side to enact such dangerous and draconian laws.
Pro life and anti-evolution have more rational arguments and positions than SOPA and could be considered a valid political debate amongst the citizenry. SOPA is just flat out insanity with no possible redeeming virtue towards society in any way, shape, or form.
Political my ass. To characterize it as such it to give it validity. It has none whatsoever.
If I walked into a local restaurant and received poor service and bad tasting food, the people there might be a bit dismissive when I complain loudly and tell them that I am going "blog that shit all over the Internet".
Now if President Obama walked in (unlikely I know) and then mentioned how shitty the place was to the White House press core, it might be a little more devastating.
Both of us spent the same amount of money, and represent the same amount of loss in the future on an individual basis, but one certainly stings a bit more.
switching your hosting around isn't really something you can do on the turn of a dime
Exactly. It does take time, especially for a large organization, to find a suitable replacement for services.
.....but if they recant and you follow through on your threats regardless, would the next company you deal with have any reason to recant?
That's not the point. There is no forgiveness for GoDaddy. Absolute Utter Destruction Required. They KNOW better.
Some actions are not possible to take back. Yes, I will compare it to murder. You just can't take it back. Do I care that the murderer is blubbering in the court room? Nope. Not at all. Fry his ass.
That is what it really comes down too. A deterrent. When we partially hang GoDaddy, cut off their balls, disembowel them, chop of their head, and distribute the remaining portions of their body on spikes to the far reaches of the Internet it will stand as warning to all companies to not support laws that threaten the base functionality of the Internet and a free and open network.
Their cries for mercy fall on deaf ears and hardened resolve.
Not once have I ever advocated compromising one's own principles in the face of mounting resistance and consequences. Indeed, if you are not willing to suffer for your beliefs, they were not yours to begin with. I would say that is itself a measurement of faith and ethics. i In the case of privacy though it would seem prudent to not give up your privacy in totality, given the inherent dangers.
All I really said was that the inherent dangers are not influenced by your beliefs, and exist outside of them. If somebody's philosophy inclined them to be as open as possible with all information regardless of danger, I can certainly respect that. Even admire it since it is a commitment to that philosophy.
Rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of conscience sometimes have to be fought for.
I absolutely agree. My own fight is protecting my own privacy and anonymity by as much force as possible, the laws be damned. To that end I practice civil disobedience with every aspect of government and corporations. My drivers license is incorrect, and indeed, all government databases on me have conflicting and false information. I have over a thousand online aliases I keep track of in a database, and extensive use and involvement in proxies and onion routing technologies.
The day they outlaw encryption and onion routing technologies will be the day I appear in a criminal court. Proudly, to serve my fellow citizens in the best way I know how.
I absolutely believe, in the strongest possible terms, that the three greatest defenses that citizens have are:
1) Anonymity. 2) Privacy. 3) A loaded weapon ready to go.
When all three are widely deployed, the correct order is maintained. Specifically, the government is afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the government. In simpler terms, the people that make up the government will have a much harder time accomplishing any agenda that would abridge our freedoms when they lack the tools to do so.
Which is why I bring up history so often. It really is the greatest teacher.
So it doesn't matter what iTunes spends because they're a disinterested third party in this particular lawsuit.
Agreed. However, I would say instead that it does matter what iTunes charges the label.
The only thing that matters in this case is how the label calculates what percentage to give the artist.
Which is why it is difficult because the term license is misused. Sister Sledge has a valid grievance that there portion may be too small, while the label has a valid grievance that the term license is incorrect.
None of the contracts apparently address current technologies and distribution channels. So until we actually know what iTunes is charging the label, we cannot compare it to the costs of distributing through a retail store like Walmart.
I just know that licensing in this context is definitely not correct. It implies a much higher profit margin than is actually realized.
The reality is that both parties may be stupid for taking this to court. Somebody is being greedy and unwilling to modify an existing contract, being poorly worded, to reflect a balanced sharing of profits. In that regard, I will give Sister Sledge the benefit of the doubt that they are willing to settle. Their lawyer though has no idea what he is talking about it with his description of licensing as evidenced from the article.
What Sister Sledge is trying to say is that iTunes has more room for profit than a retail store by virtue of licensing instead of the sale of a physical product. Their argument is simplistic and misleading.
We don't know what the real costs of iTunes is, and what costs are being passed off to the label, etc. The record labels are most likely fucking Sister Sledge to be sure, I am just pointing out that the costs are not zero as they seem to imply.
Sales and Licensing are more closely on par with each other when you say that iTunes is licensing. Licensing in the original context would have been for radio, the Super Bowl, advertisements, etc. That does not describe what iTunes is doing at all. Not even close.
Not so much manufacturing know-how. We are quickly losing those skills because we don't manufacturer a lot of products domestically and those workers are retiring and dying off. New blood is not coming in and learning.
As for research, yes that is IP. All the more concerning with the recent high level attacks on the Military Industrial Complex by what, I am certain, is the Chinese government.
Even that is being harmed by Brain Drain. We are teaching people over here, but they leave and don't want to stay. Why would they if the opportunities are better in another country?
I know I am being attacked as a Protectionist and ignorant of economics, but one thing I am not is blind. We spend only 2.4% on our infrastructure, import nearly everything, have a progressively worse educational system, an ever widening gap between rich and poor, copyright laws squashing innovation and raising barrier to entry, etc.
If we don't start doing some stuff for ourselves again, even if that needs to be forced (to level the playing field by removing the option for all corporations at the same time), we won't know how to do it anymore. You can't just pick that up like riding a bicycle. It will take years of training people, learning curves, etc.
What happens when we crash and don't have the money to pay other countries for the stuff we need that we can't produce anymore? Not want, but actually need?
People can talk economics all they want. That is justification for keeping the status quo. Ultimately we are being harmed by letting everything be outsourced.
It might be a little bit different if we had the number one educational system in the entire world and our average level of education was so damned high that Americans were in incredible demand worldwide for their prowess. Then we would have some value. Right now our value is how well we can sit on our asses eating Cheetos and watching NASCAR.
Really, this would have been the short hairs of the world.
Not really. This was aimed at the very foundation of the Internet, the Well Spring of Porn, the Cornucopia of Poontang, The Alpha and Omega of inventions to date.
He would have just been killed by the rest of us for "disturbing the force" and life would have moved on.
This is painful. I kinda have to side with iTunes on this, in principle, but not on the amount. The whole thing is retarded on both sides.
The lawsuit argued that record companies' arrangements with digital retailers resembled a license more than it did a sale of a CD or record because, among other reasons, the labels furnished the seller with a single master recording that it then duplicated for customers. 'Unlike physical sales, where the record company manufactures each disc and has incremental costs, when they license to iTunes, all they do is turn over one master,' says attorney Richard S. Busch. 'It's only fair that the artist should receive 50 percent of the receipts.'"
Are the labels fucking the Artist? Yes. Is the RIAA representing the Artist? Hell no.
However, to be simplistic and say that only a master is turned over and the artist should receive 50% of the receipts because there are no incremental costs is just ignorant.
There are the costs of the developers, bandwidth, servers, data centers, CTOs, IT, CSR reps, call centers, equipment, diesel fuel for the backup generators, lights, toilet paper, hand soap, Bob the Janitor, etc.
What needs to happen is that a new agreement is negotiated. iTunes can list out all of its costs of doing business, which are reasonable, required, and beneficial to the company. After that is reviewed, iTunes can then write a number down on a piece of paper, slide across the conference table, and see if the Artists find it a fair deal.
The truth is somewhere in the middle here. Knowing the costs of running data centers, call centers, etc. I would not be surprised if iTunes has costs similar to a factory pressing copies from a digital master and the associated distribution costs of getting it to a retail store.
Why does everybody believe the Internet is made of magic fairy dust and it is free and cheap to operate? Far from it. Those costs can easily be on par with any other company making real tangible product.
Of course we don't know what that cost actually is, but let us not assume it is zero. Just negotiate a new contract and stop insulting iTunes by saying they have no costs of doing business.
If we can't survive as a country without the resources of any other country then we are doing it wrong.
We can't possibly compete against 3rd world labor rates. So the protectionist game is absolutely required. Let other countries play it too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Our products should be slightly more expensive.
Guess what will decide if our products get purchased at a higher rate? Quality. Yeah... that would suck. A world with high quality products and services. It's not like we would stop importing products like artisan cheeses, olives, salami from Mediterranean countries right? Not only that, those countries would get paid more. I'm sure they would hate that.
You know why you say we can't afford it? We don't get paid very well because everything it outsourced. Duh, Duh, and more Duh. If we started bringing back all of those outsourced jobs we might just bolster our own local economies back up.... and I don't know... create jobs. What a concept.
Social change as a tool for change? Great. Show me where I can buy the US product and I will. Those are are far and few between right now.
I tell you what. In 20 years when we don't enact protectionist methods and we are 10 times further in the shitter, look me in the face and explain those "rational" solutions again.
What I am talking about is not radical at all. It's just plain common sense. The only reason why I would need to play "barbarian" to get corporations to do it, is because if any group of people can get together and make shortsighted short term decisions for only profit at the expense of the consumer, society, and their country, it's corporations.
Explain to me again what consequence of lack of privacy is independent of values?
It's this simple.
How you view privacy and anonymity and how it may relate to freedom is completely dependent on your values. It is very much a philosophical discussion, and hence my reference to pick-your-utopia day. We can envision many different types of possible societies from Star Trek to Star Wars to Welcome to Thunder Dome Bitch. It's wonderful fun.
What is not dependent on your values or philosophy is what history shows us that people do to other people based on information. That is a fact not subject to any one person's values.
For instance, and this is not a Godwin attempt, the Gestapo and SS were reliant upon information gathered through "unintended consequences" of laws passed before and during WWII to carry out their own value based agenda against non-Aryans, namely Jews.
The Stasi is another good example of how information about you, sometimes gathered by force, can be used against you.
So while your "blah blah blah blah danger" characterization of my post has a certain appeal to the anti Tin-Foil Hat people, it disregards history to a dangerous and quite humorous and cartoon like degree. You saying it is about values is like Wile E Coyote "deciding" on whether or not gravity exists.
Regardless of how you feel about your privacy, history is an inarguable series of facts that demonstrate that people will use information against you, time and time and time and time again.
If your talking about something that could not possibly work, I always wondered about the pads they had on Star Trek. You always saw them "typing" stuff in one handed.
My first thought about a system like this was that it might actually explain how such a pad might work. With a couple more combinations and some smart AI correcting and predicting stuff by context, it goes a long way as a possible explanation to me.
As for the ease of use, I think you could get trained to do just about anything with enough repetition.
Which is why society needs to get together and force them to do it.
At the rate the US is cratering in education, infrastructure, manufacturing know-how, research, etc. all that is left is the bullshit that Hollywood produces. We call that Intellectual Property.
In order to protect IP, we are bullying the rest of the world to adopt copyright laws and frameworks that are quite frankly insane and damaging to society.
It's not isolationism or discrimination to put tariffs in place that are designed to make it just slightly more expensive to purchase an imported product. It's just good sense if what you cared about was the long term health of your country and your people.
If you think I am wrong, then please explain to me how we are not doing that bad. Not companies, but people. Explain how allowing companies to outsource everything is good for people in the long run. Please avoid the bullshit explanation that people could invest and be shareholders.
why is it a problem the OP doesn't share your values? She's clear on the facts.
It's a problem because it has nothing to do with values. Saying it does implies that it is a lifestyle choice like pick-your-utopia day.
Although one might not be able to envision what you can do with information, that does not mean that something cannot be done with it, or be done with it in the future.
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. History has shown us, in concrete factual terms, that people can do some downright nasty things to other people for any number of reasons and justifications tied to whatever values, religions, etc. you can think of.
Which is precisely why protecting your privacy, meaning protecting the information about you, is "value" agnostic. It is just simple logic. The less those in power know about you the more protected you are. Period. That simple. I could beat you over the head with history books for a few hours, but it really is that simple.
Information is power. Power corrupts. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely.
People can stick to their "values" and be completely open and free with all information that pertains to them. What will not change about it is the incredible danger they are in by doing so. That fact will remain timeless.
Eliminating transparency for police operations based on the fact the some citizens information might be disclosed is baseless when 911 calls are recorded and made public record already.
We don't need less transparency in government. Especially law enforcement where abuse is rampant.
I'm a fierce advocate for privacy and anonymity as basic human rights. However, it is too dangerous to public safety to allow law enforcement to enjoy privacy while they are carrying out their duties.
911 calls are not the only instance in which your concern is not currently being addressed either. Nearly every part of a law enforcement action, from the 911 call to the court rooms, is made available as public record.
To find them he just needs to yell out "Hey Darth!!!" in a crowd.
Oh my god. You people are killing me tonight.
You don't need help to find a 7' foot tall asthmatic asshole in a crowd dressed completely in black with a Light Bright set on his torso with a huge helmet. I don't think they really considered if ol' Darth was going to blend into a crowd when they made him.
That's not why we invented in the first place silly. We invented it for porn. When you consider that, the Internet kicks ass and is the most wildly successful invention in mankind's history.
I don't have Bluray or HD. I refused to buy it till the "war" settled down and the DRM issue was sorted out. Bluray won, but the DRM got worse.
Post processing and the equipment was one of the thoughts that I had. I do have a basic understanding of the technology. My experiences have been with others, in their expensive home theaters, and it was lacking to me. More specifically, it did not have the value required to really put up with the bullshit of Bluray.
It's a pretty wide range of equipment I have seen artifacts on, and to be fair, I am looking for them. I have even done some research on some occasions and have got the artifacts to be reduced.
My response was about the supposed perfect fidelity of digital as it exists in the marketplace. Of course with proper equipment, and proper settings, and proper encoding, artifacts can be greatly mitigated. Even more so in the future. On average though, they are not. That was my point.
So VHS and Bluray do *have* something in common. There is impaired quality in most viewings. That's all I was trying to say.
I just have to live with it every day. Especially with Netflix and streaming media. I'm not being anal retentive about it as we are a hell of lot better off than we were in the 60's and 70's. My issue is spending $20 for crap encoding that the best equipment and settings cannot fix. I'm sure you are not telling me that you have not run across some pretty sketchy Bluray releases right?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you always assume somebody that refuses to be on Facebook has no friends? It's a curious bit of fallacious logic that I encounter quite often.
I feel the same way the AC does. Most people *are* foolish to give up so much privacy for whatever you think Facebook is delivering.
Personally, I find Facebook to not only be dangerous to me for factual reasons based on logic regarding privacy, anonymity, game theory, etc. but incredibly shallow and just plain old bullshit.
I don't need to tweet shit, or put stuff up on Facebook, or see any of your shit either.
Call it a personal preference, but I prefer my relationships to have a little more "real life" in them. Meeting at tea and coffee shops, having a meal, you know, actually doing real things. Talking with my friends.
Facebook and Twitter (especially Twitter) just lack the depth that I find rewarding in personal relationships.
I am not a phone guy. Hate to be on it for more than a few minutes. Refuse to txt message. My communications are literally limited to email, phone conversations and physically talking. I like it that way.
and..... I have plenty of friends and I am considered to be quite nice and approachable.
It's still not political and I am delusional, ignorant, or refusing to accept reality.
Political, in the contemporary sense, and in this context, means that it is an argument about laws, regulations, policy, or a school of thought on how society should be administered to the benefit of the society. There can two or more sides to the argument, but what they all have in common is at least the pretense that it is beneficial towards society and serves to protect it.
I deny SOPA that status. While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction. Not FISA, not the Patriot Act, not Abortion, not Gay Marriage, etc. Every single one them has some sort of basis to support it. Some sort of rationale in which the American Way of Life (tm) is protected and allowed to flourish, even if I may disagree with it.
SOPA is pure corruption and abuse in its most distilled form. It is the most direct assault on intelligence, liberty, and common sense that I have been witness to in my entire life.
I don't know of any stronger terms that I can state just how evil SOPA *is*. For me to acknowledge it as political means that it there is some sort of public interest served in the debate. I just can't see that or say it.
Uhhhh... yeah okay.
That might be true if Wikipedia was being unreasonable. If I knew there was a potential big client out there with a lot of media clout that was known to be unreasonable and difficult to work with I would probably pass on servicing them too. However, taking a stance against something like SOPA, which anybody remotely involved with Internet knows is bad, very very bad, is hardly unreasonable.
Saying SOPA is political is like saying we could have rational discourse about the *possibility* of owning African Americans as slaves and starting up our "import business" all over again to compete with China on low cost labor.
No. SOPA is only political in the remotely tangential sense that it involves some politicians. Other than that, there is no rational basis on the pro-SOPA side to enact such dangerous and draconian laws.
Pro life and anti-evolution have more rational arguments and positions than SOPA and could be considered a valid political debate amongst the citizenry. SOPA is just flat out insanity with no possible redeeming virtue towards society in any way, shape, or form.
Political my ass. To characterize it as such it to give it validity. It has none whatsoever.
That's being a bit simplistic.
If I walked into a local restaurant and received poor service and bad tasting food, the people there might be a bit dismissive when I complain loudly and tell them that I am going "blog that shit all over the Internet".
Now if President Obama walked in (unlikely I know) and then mentioned how shitty the place was to the White House press core, it might be a little more devastating.
Both of us spent the same amount of money, and represent the same amount of loss in the future on an individual basis, but one certainly stings a bit more.
switching your hosting around isn't really something you can do on the turn of a dime
Exactly. It does take time, especially for a large organization, to find a suitable replacement for services.
.....but if they recant and you follow through on your threats regardless, would the next company you deal with have any reason to recant?
That's not the point. There is no forgiveness for GoDaddy. Absolute Utter Destruction Required. They KNOW better.
Some actions are not possible to take back. Yes, I will compare it to murder. You just can't take it back. Do I care that the murderer is blubbering in the court room? Nope. Not at all. Fry his ass.
That is what it really comes down too. A deterrent. When we partially hang GoDaddy, cut off their balls, disembowel them, chop of their head, and distribute the remaining portions of their body on spikes to the far reaches of the Internet it will stand as warning to all companies to not support laws that threaten the base functionality of the Internet and a free and open network.
Their cries for mercy fall on deaf ears and hardened resolve.
I am unsure as to what you are saying.
Not once have I ever advocated compromising one's own principles in the face of mounting resistance and consequences. Indeed, if you are not willing to suffer for your beliefs, they were not yours to begin with. I would say that is itself a measurement of faith and ethics.
i
In the case of privacy though it would seem prudent to not give up your privacy in totality, given the inherent dangers.
All I really said was that the inherent dangers are not influenced by your beliefs, and exist outside of them. If somebody's philosophy inclined them to be as open as possible with all information regardless of danger, I can certainly respect that. Even admire it since it is a commitment to that philosophy.
Rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of conscience sometimes have to be fought for.
I absolutely agree. My own fight is protecting my own privacy and anonymity by as much force as possible, the laws be damned. To that end I practice civil disobedience with every aspect of government and corporations. My drivers license is incorrect, and indeed, all government databases on me have conflicting and false information. I have over a thousand online aliases I keep track of in a database, and extensive use and involvement in proxies and onion routing technologies.
The day they outlaw encryption and onion routing technologies will be the day I appear in a criminal court. Proudly, to serve my fellow citizens in the best way I know how.
I absolutely believe, in the strongest possible terms, that the three greatest defenses that citizens have are:
1) Anonymity.
2) Privacy.
3) A loaded weapon ready to go.
When all three are widely deployed, the correct order is maintained. Specifically, the government is afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the government. In simpler terms, the people that make up the government will have a much harder time accomplishing any agenda that would abridge our freedoms when they lack the tools to do so.
Which is why I bring up history so often. It really is the greatest teacher.
So it doesn't matter what iTunes spends because they're a disinterested third party in this particular lawsuit.
Agreed. However, I would say instead that it does matter what iTunes charges the label.
The only thing that matters in this case is how the label calculates what percentage to give the artist.
Which is why it is difficult because the term license is misused. Sister Sledge has a valid grievance that there portion may be too small, while the label has a valid grievance that the term license is incorrect.
None of the contracts apparently address current technologies and distribution channels. So until we actually know what iTunes is charging the label, we cannot compare it to the costs of distributing through a retail store like Walmart.
I just know that licensing in this context is definitely not correct. It implies a much higher profit margin than is actually realized.
The reality is that both parties may be stupid for taking this to court. Somebody is being greedy and unwilling to modify an existing contract, being poorly worded, to reflect a balanced sharing of profits. In that regard, I will give Sister Sledge the benefit of the doubt that they are willing to settle. Their lawyer though has no idea what he is talking about it with his description of licensing as evidenced from the article.
Ultimately the money comes from the retailer.
What Sister Sledge is trying to say is that iTunes has more room for profit than a retail store by virtue of licensing instead of the sale of a physical product. Their argument is simplistic and misleading.
We don't know what the real costs of iTunes is, and what costs are being passed off to the label, etc. The record labels are most likely fucking Sister Sledge to be sure, I am just pointing out that the costs are not zero as they seem to imply.
Sales and Licensing are more closely on par with each other when you say that iTunes is licensing. Licensing in the original context would have been for radio, the Super Bowl, advertisements, etc. That does not describe what iTunes is doing at all. Not even close.
Not so much manufacturing know-how. We are quickly losing those skills because we don't manufacturer a lot of products domestically and those workers are retiring and dying off. New blood is not coming in and learning.
As for research, yes that is IP. All the more concerning with the recent high level attacks on the Military Industrial Complex by what, I am certain, is the Chinese government.
Even that is being harmed by Brain Drain. We are teaching people over here, but they leave and don't want to stay. Why would they if the opportunities are better in another country?
I know I am being attacked as a Protectionist and ignorant of economics, but one thing I am not is blind. We spend only 2.4% on our infrastructure, import nearly everything, have a progressively worse educational system, an ever widening gap between rich and poor, copyright laws squashing innovation and raising barrier to entry, etc.
If we don't start doing some stuff for ourselves again, even if that needs to be forced (to level the playing field by removing the option for all corporations at the same time), we won't know how to do it anymore. You can't just pick that up like riding a bicycle. It will take years of training people, learning curves, etc.
What happens when we crash and don't have the money to pay other countries for the stuff we need that we can't produce anymore? Not want, but actually need?
People can talk economics all they want. That is justification for keeping the status quo. Ultimately we are being harmed by letting everything be outsourced.
It might be a little bit different if we had the number one educational system in the entire world and our average level of education was so damned high that Americans were in incredible demand worldwide for their prowess. Then we would have some value. Right now our value is how well we can sit on our asses eating Cheetos and watching NASCAR.
Really, this would have been the short hairs of the world.
Not really. This was aimed at the very foundation of the Internet, the Well Spring of Porn, the Cornucopia of Poontang, The Alpha and Omega of inventions to date.
He would have just been killed by the rest of us for "disturbing the force" and life would have moved on.
This is painful. I kinda have to side with iTunes on this, in principle, but not on the amount. The whole thing is retarded on both sides.
The lawsuit argued that record companies' arrangements with digital retailers resembled a license more than it did a sale of a CD or record because, among other reasons, the labels furnished the seller with a single master recording that it then duplicated for customers. 'Unlike physical sales, where the record company manufactures each disc and has incremental costs, when they license to iTunes, all they do is turn over one master,' says attorney Richard S. Busch. 'It's only fair that the artist should receive 50 percent of the receipts.'"
Are the labels fucking the Artist? Yes. Is the RIAA representing the Artist? Hell no.
However, to be simplistic and say that only a master is turned over and the artist should receive 50% of the receipts because there are no incremental costs is just ignorant.
There are the costs of the developers, bandwidth, servers, data centers, CTOs, IT, CSR reps, call centers, equipment, diesel fuel for the backup generators, lights, toilet paper, hand soap, Bob the Janitor, etc.
What needs to happen is that a new agreement is negotiated. iTunes can list out all of its costs of doing business, which are reasonable, required, and beneficial to the company. After that is reviewed, iTunes can then write a number down on a piece of paper, slide across the conference table, and see if the Artists find it a fair deal.
The truth is somewhere in the middle here. Knowing the costs of running data centers, call centers, etc. I would not be surprised if iTunes has costs similar to a factory pressing copies from a digital master and the associated distribution costs of getting it to a retail store.
Why does everybody believe the Internet is made of magic fairy dust and it is free and cheap to operate? Far from it. Those costs can easily be on par with any other company making real tangible product.
Of course we don't know what that cost actually is, but let us not assume it is zero. Just negotiate a new contract and stop insulting iTunes by saying they have no costs of doing business.
How can I watch the video?
The article literally has maybe two sentences before you need to go to the next page. They can get the advertisement dollars somewhere else.
To be fair I think it was Blaster that was doing the posting this morning.
If we can't survive as a country without the resources of any other country then we are doing it wrong.
We can't possibly compete against 3rd world labor rates. So the protectionist game is absolutely required. Let other countries play it too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Our products should be slightly more expensive.
Guess what will decide if our products get purchased at a higher rate? Quality. Yeah... that would suck. A world with high quality products and services. It's not like we would stop importing products like artisan cheeses, olives, salami from Mediterranean countries right? Not only that, those countries would get paid more. I'm sure they would hate that.
You know why you say we can't afford it? We don't get paid very well because everything it outsourced. Duh, Duh, and more Duh. If we started bringing back all of those outsourced jobs we might just bolster our own local economies back up.... and I don't know... create jobs. What a concept.
Social change as a tool for change? Great. Show me where I can buy the US product and I will. Those are are far and few between right now.
I tell you what. In 20 years when we don't enact protectionist methods and we are 10 times further in the shitter, look me in the face and explain those "rational" solutions again.
What I am talking about is not radical at all. It's just plain common sense. The only reason why I would need to play "barbarian" to get corporations to do it, is because if any group of people can get together and make shortsighted short term decisions for only profit at the expense of the consumer, society, and their country, it's corporations.
Blah blah blah values blah blah blah danger
Explain to me again what consequence of lack of privacy is independent of values?
It's this simple.
How you view privacy and anonymity and how it may relate to freedom is completely dependent on your values. It is very much a philosophical discussion, and hence my reference to pick-your-utopia day. We can envision many different types of possible societies from Star Trek to Star Wars to Welcome to Thunder Dome Bitch. It's wonderful fun.
What is not dependent on your values or philosophy is what history shows us that people do to other people based on information. That is a fact not subject to any one person's values.
For instance, and this is not a Godwin attempt, the Gestapo and SS were reliant upon information gathered through "unintended consequences" of laws passed before and during WWII to carry out their own value based agenda against non-Aryans, namely Jews.
The Stasi is another good example of how information about you, sometimes gathered by force, can be used against you.
So while your "blah blah blah blah danger" characterization of my post has a certain appeal to the anti Tin-Foil Hat people, it disregards history to a dangerous and quite humorous and cartoon like degree. You saying it is about values is like Wile E Coyote "deciding" on whether or not gravity exists.
Regardless of how you feel about your privacy, history is an inarguable series of facts that demonstrate that people will use information against you, time and time and time and time again.
Rinse and Repeat.
If your talking about something that could not possibly work, I always wondered about the pads they had on Star Trek. You always saw them "typing" stuff in one handed.
My first thought about a system like this was that it might actually explain how such a pad might work. With a couple more combinations and some smart AI correcting and predicting stuff by context, it goes a long way as a possible explanation to me.
As for the ease of use, I think you could get trained to do just about anything with enough repetition.
Which is why society needs to get together and force them to do it.
At the rate the US is cratering in education, infrastructure, manufacturing know-how, research, etc. all that is left is the bullshit that Hollywood produces. We call that Intellectual Property.
In order to protect IP, we are bullying the rest of the world to adopt copyright laws and frameworks that are quite frankly insane and damaging to society.
It's not isolationism or discrimination to put tariffs in place that are designed to make it just slightly more expensive to purchase an imported product. It's just good sense if what you cared about was the long term health of your country and your people.
If you think I am wrong, then please explain to me how we are not doing that bad. Not companies, but people. Explain how allowing companies to outsource everything is good for people in the long run. Please avoid the bullshit explanation that people could invest and be shareholders.
why is it a problem the OP doesn't share your values? She's clear on the facts.
It's a problem because it has nothing to do with values. Saying it does implies that it is a lifestyle choice like pick-your-utopia day.
Although one might not be able to envision what you can do with information, that does not mean that something cannot be done with it, or be done with it in the future.
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. History has shown us, in concrete factual terms, that people can do some downright nasty things to other people for any number of reasons and justifications tied to whatever values, religions, etc. you can think of.
Which is precisely why protecting your privacy, meaning protecting the information about you, is "value" agnostic. It is just simple logic. The less those in power know about you the more protected you are. Period. That simple. I could beat you over the head with history books for a few hours, but it really is that simple.
Information is power. Power corrupts. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely.
People can stick to their "values" and be completely open and free with all information that pertains to them. What will not change about it is the incredible danger they are in by doing so. That fact will remain timeless.
Your argument is irrational.
Eliminating transparency for police operations based on the fact the some citizens information might be disclosed is baseless when 911 calls are recorded and made public record already.
We don't need less transparency in government. Especially law enforcement where abuse is rampant.
I'm a fierce advocate for privacy and anonymity as basic human rights. However, it is too dangerous to public safety to allow law enforcement to enjoy privacy while they are carrying out their duties.
911 calls are not the only instance in which your concern is not currently being addressed either. Nearly every part of a law enforcement action, from the 911 call to the court rooms, is made available as public record.
To find them he just needs to yell out "Hey Darth!!!" in a crowd.
Oh my god. You people are killing me tonight.
You don't need help to find a 7' foot tall asthmatic asshole in a crowd dressed completely in black with a Light Bright set on his torso with a huge helmet. I don't think they really considered if ol' Darth was going to blend into a crowd when they made him.
When your mom brings down your Hot Pockets ask her.
That reminds of me of that t-shirt with Darth Vader on it saying, "Lighsabers don't kill people, I kill people".
Isn't Internet news great?
That's not why we invented in the first place silly. We invented it for porn. When you consider that, the Internet kicks ass and is the most wildly successful invention in mankind's history.
Really living up to your sig there huh?
I don't have Bluray or HD. I refused to buy it till the "war" settled down and the DRM issue was sorted out. Bluray won, but the DRM got worse.
Post processing and the equipment was one of the thoughts that I had. I do have a basic understanding of the technology. My experiences have been with others, in their expensive home theaters, and it was lacking to me. More specifically, it did not have the value required to really put up with the bullshit of Bluray.
It's a pretty wide range of equipment I have seen artifacts on, and to be fair, I am looking for them. I have even done some research on some occasions and have got the artifacts to be reduced.
My response was about the supposed perfect fidelity of digital as it exists in the marketplace. Of course with proper equipment, and proper settings, and proper encoding, artifacts can be greatly mitigated. Even more so in the future. On average though, they are not. That was my point.
So VHS and Bluray do *have* something in common. There is impaired quality in most viewings. That's all I was trying to say.
I just have to live with it every day. Especially with Netflix and streaming media. I'm not being anal retentive about it as we are a hell of lot better off than we were in the 60's and 70's. My issue is spending $20 for crap encoding that the best equipment and settings cannot fix. I'm sure you are not telling me that you have not run across some pretty sketchy Bluray releases right?