That analogy works well with slashdot anti-RIAA sentiment, but it's not completely accurate.. the RIAA isn't just some big stupid bully, it has the full support of United States law. It sees a multibillion dollar cash cow and it's milking it- this is not the RIAA's fault, it's the government's for allowing it to happen.
Actually, the RIAA is a big stupid bully. The government too is a big stupid bully. The RIAA is a bunch of mafia type lawyers who have agreed to protect the parasitical recording labels against the free distribution of an artistic work that niether one of them created. The government has codified their racket into law most likely because these racketeers have agreed to grease the politicians with lots of money.
The real question is is how should artists make money and how much money should they make? If a song is popular should an artist make more money from it. Do artists create to make money? If an artist's motivation is to make money is their creation art? Is a heavily promoted tune where many times its production costs are spent to make people believe that it is more important than it is objectively, make it art? Should we believe that the free market system is good for art? Should everything be commodified where all triangulation is on how much money can be made?
I'm quite sure that loss of mass has something to do with Hawking radiation and quantum tunnelling. He was probably thinking about where the standard was at the same time he was measuring its mass. This is a common error.
Yes if we all work hard,believe in the American dream, and click the heels of Larry Craig's ruby slippers three times, we can all own a 767 and store it right next to work at the Federally managed airport. Let's see, thats 300 million wide body jets at 1500 Gal. fuel per hour. In three hours we could consume the entire annual world production of oil. Isn't it grand to be dreamers, stupid, and full of arrogance. What dismays me the most are the ninnies who are apologists for this immoral excess.
He is blowing smoke out his ass. I suppose the crews on those trident submarines 500 ft. below the middle of the Atlantic ocean are wondering if they are carrying real nukes or not. Makes a lot of sense to send a sub out with dummy missles just so the crew doesn't know for sure. Get real.
Why would I or any sane person want a corporate oligarchy over a democratically elected government? That is exactly what one would get if right wing libertarianism would prevail. Under libertarianism the free market would prevail as the arbiter of all disputes. If company A pollutes the the river people wont't buy their product. Why not? If company A produces a product that is inferior competition will force them out of business or at least make them second tier. There wouldn't be any competition because company A owns all the aluminum refineries and fab plants. Our roads would be better because when they are privately owned and there are potholes and unrepaired heaving of the pavement people will use the other three competing interstates that are running parallel to the first.
Not only is there not a free market if there was it wouldn't work. Capitalism itself is undemocratic the only thing that makes it palatable at all is the fact the government regulates its excesses. We have already experienced what happens when the government allows capitalists to run wild under the Bush administration. You get a government owned by the wealthy for the wealthy to the detriment of most people. I really don't want to see that amplified. Capital and property should never be the measure of all things. The market needs to be regulated and reason, fairness, and ethics need to be at the heart of decision making. The freedom, rights, and the civil liberties of the individual should be paramount, but this needs to be tempered by the common wealth, and the common good. Government needs to be reformed to be transparent, free of the influence of money, religion, and narrow special interests. Media monopolies need to be broken up so that we have a diversity of views and wealth does not control our information.
Slashdot Mirror
That analogy works well with slashdot anti-RIAA sentiment, but it's not completely accurate.. the RIAA isn't just some big stupid bully, it has the full support of United States law. It sees a multibillion dollar cash cow and it's milking it- this is not the RIAA's fault, it's the government's for allowing it to happen. Actually, the RIAA is a big stupid bully. The government too is a big stupid bully. The RIAA is a bunch of mafia type lawyers who have agreed to protect the parasitical recording labels against the free distribution of an artistic work that niether one of them created. The government has codified their racket into law most likely because these racketeers have agreed to grease the politicians with lots of money. The real question is is how should artists make money and how much money should they make? If a song is popular should an artist make more money from it. Do artists create to make money? If an artist's motivation is to make money is their creation art? Is a heavily promoted tune where many times its production costs are spent to make people believe that it is more important than it is objectively, make it art? Should we believe that the free market system is good for art? Should everything be commodified where all triangulation is on how much money can be made?
I guess Fox News is more your cup of tea.
I'm quite sure that loss of mass has something to do with Hawking radiation and quantum tunnelling. He was probably thinking about where the standard was at the same time he was measuring its mass. This is a common error.
Yes if we all work hard,believe in the American dream, and click the heels of Larry Craig's ruby slippers three times, we can all own a 767 and store it right next to work at the Federally managed airport. Let's see, thats 300 million wide body jets at 1500 Gal. fuel per hour. In three hours we could consume the entire annual world production of oil. Isn't it grand to be dreamers, stupid, and full of arrogance. What dismays me the most are the ninnies who are apologists for this immoral excess.
He is blowing smoke out his ass. I suppose the crews on those trident submarines 500 ft. below the middle of the Atlantic ocean are wondering if they are carrying real nukes or not. Makes a lot of sense to send a sub out with dummy missles just so the crew doesn't know for sure. Get real.
Why would I or any sane person want a corporate oligarchy over a democratically elected government? That is exactly what one would get if right wing libertarianism would prevail.
Under libertarianism the free market would prevail as the arbiter of all disputes. If company A pollutes the the river people wont't buy their product. Why not? If company A produces a product that is inferior competition will force them out of business or at least make them second tier. There wouldn't be any competition because company A owns all the aluminum refineries and fab plants. Our roads would be better because when they are privately owned and there are potholes and unrepaired heaving of the pavement people will use the other three competing interstates that are running parallel to the first.
Not only is there not a free market if there was it wouldn't work. Capitalism itself is undemocratic the only thing that makes it palatable at all is the fact the government regulates its excesses. We have already experienced what happens when the government allows capitalists to run wild under the Bush administration. You get a government owned by the wealthy for the wealthy to the detriment of most people. I really don't want to see that amplified. Capital and property should never be the measure of all things. The market needs to be regulated and reason, fairness, and ethics need to be at the heart of decision making. The freedom, rights, and the civil liberties of the individual should be paramount, but this needs to be tempered by the common wealth, and the common good. Government needs to be reformed to be transparent, free of the influence of money, religion, and narrow special interests. Media monopolies need to be broken up so that we have a diversity of views and wealth does not control our information.