You think prescription drug ads are bad -- what about the pharma reps who hang out at the doctor's clinic, and seem to know everyone there? Ever wonder why all your doctor's pens and stationery have the names of prescription drugs on them?
Again, this doesn't make sense. It's just phrases thrown together. Repeat them loud and often enough and they sometime elicit emotion reactions but that doesn't make them any less intellectually vapid.
Saying something is "intellectually vapid" does not a rebuttal make.
Now, if you were to say something like "How can it be cowardice to say these things when few are taking them seriously, and most people don't realize what kind of a country they live in? How is it immoral to stand up for the truth in the face of opposition?" That might be a logical refutation of his point.
Fiction's inherently open-source. Aspiring authors are always helping each other out, reading books written by people they like and seeking to emulate their styles. They acknowledge that every story has already been told; the only differences are the characters, the setting, and the meta-data of who reads it and where and when it was written.
So what possible purpose could copyright serve for authors of fiction? Well, it delineates the boundary between canon and fanfiction. I could write a story based on Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III's The Ur-Quan Masters, but I cannot claim that my story is endorsed by them in any way. I also can't make any money off of it, as the copyright grants them a monopoly. But this isn't really a problem -- because fiction is open-source. How much does the original Battlestar Galactica owe to Star Wars? How much did Tolkien draw on world mythology when writing The Lord of the Rings? Heck, how much did Dungeons and Dragons copy Tolkien? To say that a work of fiction is evocative of another one you've enjoyed is one of the highest compliments you can pay to it. That's why they put such comparisons on the back covers of novels (and PC/Mac games).
It's debatable whether or not copyright should grant such a monopoly. But I think if it didn't, fiction authors would just invent their own "Seal of Quality" so you could know which works were canon and which weren't. And I think it'd be perfectly appropriate for the law to enforce such things.
As an aside, just think if someone tried to invent software patents for fiction. What if someone patented the happy ending?
What regulations already apply to speech in public places? You can condemn the mayor if you like, but if you're crusing the block thumpin' your subwoofer at 120 decibels you're liable to be fined. There are laws against public indecency in most parts of these United States, as well.
I am against laws that limit political expression -- like the ones the original article was talking about, and the ones you are talking about. But certain kinds of expression are truly offensive, and not just because of the opinions contained therein. Laws against that, whether in the park or on the airwaves, are no different from laws against dumping your sewage in public waterways.
I guess if Japan's government has already decided they can restrict political speech in certain forums, however, it's not so great a leap of logic for them to do what the article's talking about.
That's why we need to take things into our own hands.
The corporations can't do anything without our money, and the more informed people there are, the fewer uninformed purchases to finance dumb projects like the one we're discussing here.
There is an argument that broadcast media must be regulated, seeing as how it takes place over public airwaves. I don't see how that applies to printed media or the Internet, though.
I am positive that banning weapons in space is something that will be coming soon.
And we all know how good the United States government is at paying attention to treaties and UN resolutions! Or allowing them to get passed in the first place...
Truth Happens recently posted a link to an article that proposed ways that artists could be paid for their work in a world in which everything's free. In brief, they are
1. Immediacy -- You want something now, and you're willing to pay the artist to speed production of a work.
2. Personalization -- You want something tailored to your needs specifically, like an art request, or a piece of Free / Open-Source Software that does what you need it to do.
3. Interpretation -- Or consultation. Like what Red Hat does, in providing paid support for free software.
4. Authenticity -- Like an artist's seal of approval, it lets you know that your recording is of the actual artist's work (and is certified virus-free).
5. Accessibility -- You could pay clearinghouses of data to keep track of all your songs and such for you. At its lowest level it's paid storage, but it could be more than that.
6. Embodiment -- Anyone can download the.pdf for free, but if you really like it and have the money, who wouldn't want the deluxe collector's edition with gold-engraved cover and bookmark? Or an actual DVD box to go on your shelves.
7. Patronage -- You know you could download that.pdf for free, but you've been following this guy's career for so long that you don't mind paying a few bucks to download the file from his server. Besides, your cash fills up his donation meter and ensures next month's update, or wins the "donation war" for what feature to implement next.
8. Findability -- Not everyone knows how to use P2P networks, or even wants to learn how.
Some of us get everything from the P2P networks. But others, who may not object to borrowing CDs or books from their friends, may still find getting copies of people's work anonymously to be somewhat disquieting. Moreover, they may not know how. These are often the people who buy songs from iTunes and Amazon, because $1 seems like a reasonable price to them for the service they receive.
If you think about it, part of the reason that iTunes is so successful in this age of free downloads is because it combines just about everything on the list. You get authentic recordings immediately, which are automatically sorted on your PC or Mac complete with cover art. You can find songs easily on their store, and you get personalized recommendations as to what other songs you might like. Yes, I know iTunes has DRM, but I also know a lot of people don't even think about it. It's true that we need to educate them about it, but I'm just saying it doesn't factor into their decisions.
I found the article extremely relevant, because I hope to make a living as a content creator selling e-books and physical copies thereof. Maybe what we need is more widespread awareness of how to make money? At any rate, the world I see this evolving into is one in which large, "gateway" institutions like TV stations and book publishers are fewer and farther between, but one in which large numbers of individual content creators can make a living off of their work, and have thriving microcommunities built up around each of them.
But putting it on my Windows PC was like making a Hackintosh. Even with Fedora / Ubuntu's Live CDs, I still had to rely on the community for help in getting everything to work right. And some things just plain won't work, period.
Don't get me wrong, I think Fedora and Ubuntu are great! I love how they have such friendly communities to turn to for help. But when The Year Of The Linux Desktop comes, it's not going to be like this -- it's going to be from preinstalled systems. And I, for one, think that this trend is awesome.
Kudos to Everex, Asus, Zonbu and Dell. Let's see some more of these PCs!
Doing that will do us no good as long as we're still buying from the corporations that control the government, and voting for policies that put us more into debt to the bankers.
If only it were that simple! People still die of drug-related illnesses and tainted meat, and a large part of the reason is how cozy the people in charge of the regulatory agencies are with the corporations. There's not a lot that politicians can do when the companies are financing their elections and controlling the media outlets, even if we would like them to.
Voting for yourself is only voting your conscience if you think that you'd make the best president. I personally don't think I'm qualified.
I'm not interested in whether or not Ron Paul "has a future," nor am I interested in enlarging my social circle by proclaiming myself right (I have not made any contacts at all this election). What I care about is whether or not Constitutional government has a future. I believe that our current government has overstepped its bounds, and must be reined in. And I think that he is the one to do it.
If not him, then whomever takes up the mantle next election. The more support he receives this year, the more likely it is to happen.
Ron Paul may not be elected this year, but he's already broken records in online fundraising and practically become an Internet meme. The more momentum he builds, the easier it'll be to elect someone who supports Constitutional government, whether this election or the next.
I also submit that there's something wrong with our system, insofar as people keep trying to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting their consciences.
Sir, you're accusing the Mormons of letting others die because, with all that they give, they did not give as much as you think they could have. I don't see how you've any right to do that unless you're giving your all as it is.
That should be the end of the discussion, but I will address your other points just in case.
You mentioned your experiences with volunteering before. I've personally volunteered on some very hard service projects with many Latter-Day Saints, including working at the Bishop's Storehouse (where food from the welfare farms gets distributed) and helping rebuild homes that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
Maybe we could have spent the day working (assuming we are able to turn that time into money) and hired people to do the job, but I don't think that that would have been efficient. I don't feel that hired workers would've been as compelled or as motivated, and I do feel that blessings come to those who work hard to serve others. Somebody had to do the work -- why not people who want to help, instead of those who are doing it for the money? We've been counseled to grow our own gardens too, which is a poor idea from an efficiency standpoint but which brings blessings beyond simple money.
You say that "If they are able to do farm work and warehouse stocking, they are physically qualified for more productive jobs." But wouldn't that mean that no one should do these things, since everyone's physically qualified to do better? Maybe we could hire people in third-world countries... but if they're qualified for harder work, then why would we make them grow things for us instead of helping them learn and get better jobs, like the LDS Perpetual Education Fund does? And who's going to ship them around the world to help with our service projects? It's not just food that we export.
Sir, I understand that you may be expressing your honest concerns, but it seems to me that your concerns do not take real human considerations into account. It's not as simple as making things most efficient. As MightyYar points out, people are often sacrificing their free time to do these things. Not everyone is able to trade time for money with 100% efficiency, whenever they like. And some jobs, like serving in leadership positions (our clergy is made up of unpaid volunteers) and helping to rebuild houses, require skilled labor or human connections. These aren't things we can outsource.
It's about spreading the word and getting more people excited about the idea of Constitutional government. Ron Paul already broke fundraising records, and practically became an Internet meme.
Voting for Ron Paul shows that you're sick of the lesser of two evils, and sends a message to the people in charge. How many people are listening? Who's to say what won't happen in 2012?
"Line upon line, precept on precept" is an LDS (Mormon) doctrine which says that people learn truths a little at a time. Perhaps the church members were not ready until then? When did other leading religions admit blacks into their priesthoods?
As an aside, each new revelation (and appointment of Church leadership) must be approved by the membership. I'm given to understand that the one admitting blacks into the priesthood was affirmed unanimously.
Sir, you're assuming that all Mormons are equally likely to volunteer to help out with every project, and not taking into account how many volunteers may be youth, retired, or unemployed. You're also assuming that choosing to donate or volunteer is an either/or proposition, i.e. that those who choose to volunteer do not donate, and vice-versa.
I apologize, but the "Flamebait" tag may be justified, as your post seems more eager to criticize than to find out the underlying causes of things.
You're saying that "If 'Freedom of Speech' suddenly means 'Kill someone for fun,' then we shouldn't have freedom of speech." This is a perfectly logical argument, but it turns the opposing position into a straw man, because no one's saying we should kill people for fun.
High-powered weaponry is no more likely to kill people than low-powered weaponry, unless you point it at someone and pull the trigger. Or unless it's inherently dangerous to possess, like unshielded nuclear material. Nobody's saying that this ought to happen. They're just saying that "If we're allowed to possess weapons, then we should be allowed to possess these weapons."
As far as freedom of speech goes, the Internet is the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. It lets anyone, anywhere in the world spread any idea they like, and gives others the freedom to accept or reject it at their leisure. The only reason to restrict the growth of the Internet is the same one there's always been -- because you don't want people to have that kind of power. Likewise the Second Amendment and modern weaponry.
There are lots of good people out there, so it stands to reason there are lots of good companies, too. I shop for groceries at Whole Foods, and use Red Hat's community Linux distro with the Mozilla Foundation's web browser and Google's free homepage.
If you desperately need something made by teh ebil, there's always eBay, Craigslist and Freecycle. People buy more new things than they need and they throw things out all the time; buying used helps make sure that things don't go to waste. It's sort of like recycling, except that it saves you money. And it doesn't directly support the people that you don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
You think prescription drug ads are bad -- what about the pharma reps who hang out at the doctor's clinic, and seem to know everyone there? Ever wonder why all your doctor's pens and stationery have the names of prescription drugs on them?
Games come on cartridges? Are these the same kind of cartridges you put in your inkjet printer? What do you do if your game runs out of ink?
Again, this doesn't make sense. It's just phrases thrown together. Repeat them loud and often enough and they sometime elicit emotion reactions but that doesn't make them any less intellectually vapid.
Saying something is "intellectually vapid" does not a rebuttal make.
Now, if you were to say something like "How can it be cowardice to say these things when few are taking them seriously, and most people don't realize what kind of a country they live in? How is it immoral to stand up for the truth in the face of opposition?" That might be a logical refutation of his point.
Fiction's inherently open-source. Aspiring authors are always helping each other out, reading books written by people they like and seeking to emulate their styles. They acknowledge that every story has already been told; the only differences are the characters, the setting, and the meta-data of who reads it and where and when it was written.
So what possible purpose could copyright serve for authors of fiction? Well, it delineates the boundary between canon and fanfiction. I could write a story based on Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III's The Ur-Quan Masters, but I cannot claim that my story is endorsed by them in any way. I also can't make any money off of it, as the copyright grants them a monopoly. But this isn't really a problem -- because fiction is open-source. How much does the original Battlestar Galactica owe to Star Wars? How much did Tolkien draw on world mythology when writing The Lord of the Rings? Heck, how much did Dungeons and Dragons copy Tolkien? To say that a work of fiction is evocative of another one you've enjoyed is one of the highest compliments you can pay to it. That's why they put such comparisons on the back covers of novels (and PC/Mac games).
It's debatable whether or not copyright should grant such a monopoly. But I think if it didn't, fiction authors would just invent their own "Seal of Quality" so you could know which works were canon and which weren't. And I think it'd be perfectly appropriate for the law to enforce such things.
As an aside, just think if someone tried to invent software patents for fiction. What if someone patented the happy ending?
What regulations already apply to speech in public places? You can condemn the mayor if you like, but if you're crusing the block thumpin' your subwoofer at 120 decibels you're liable to be fined. There are laws against public indecency in most parts of these United States, as well.
I am against laws that limit political expression -- like the ones the original article was talking about, and the ones you are talking about. But certain kinds of expression are truly offensive, and not just because of the opinions contained therein. Laws against that, whether in the park or on the airwaves, are no different from laws against dumping your sewage in public waterways.
I guess if Japan's government has already decided they can restrict political speech in certain forums, however, it's not so great a leap of logic for them to do what the article's talking about.
That's why we need to take things into our own hands.
The corporations can't do anything without our money, and the more informed people there are, the fewer uninformed purchases to finance dumb projects like the one we're discussing here.
There is an argument that broadcast media must be regulated, seeing as how it takes place over public airwaves. I don't see how that applies to printed media or the Internet, though.
I am positive that banning weapons in space is something that will be coming soon.
...
And we all know how good the United States government is at paying attention to treaties and UN resolutions! Or allowing them to get passed in the first place
Truth Happens recently posted a link to an article that proposed ways that artists could be paid for their work in a world in which everything's free. In brief, they are
.pdf for free, but if you really like it and have the money, who wouldn't want the deluxe collector's edition with gold-engraved cover and bookmark? Or an actual DVD box to go on your shelves.
.pdf for free, but you've been following this guy's career for so long that you don't mind paying a few bucks to download the file from his server. Besides, your cash fills up his donation meter and ensures next month's update, or wins the "donation war" for what feature to implement next.
1. Immediacy -- You want something now, and you're willing to pay the artist to speed production of a work.
2. Personalization -- You want something tailored to your needs specifically, like an art request, or a piece of Free / Open-Source Software that does what you need it to do.
3. Interpretation -- Or consultation. Like what Red Hat does, in providing paid support for free software.
4. Authenticity -- Like an artist's seal of approval, it lets you know that your recording is of the actual artist's work (and is certified virus-free).
5. Accessibility -- You could pay clearinghouses of data to keep track of all your songs and such for you. At its lowest level it's paid storage, but it could be more than that.
6. Embodiment -- Anyone can download the
7. Patronage -- You know you could download that
8. Findability -- Not everyone knows how to use P2P networks, or even wants to learn how.
Some of us get everything from the P2P networks. But others, who may not object to borrowing CDs or books from their friends, may still find getting copies of people's work anonymously to be somewhat disquieting. Moreover, they may not know how. These are often the people who buy songs from iTunes and Amazon, because $1 seems like a reasonable price to them for the service they receive.
If you think about it, part of the reason that iTunes is so successful in this age of free downloads is because it combines just about everything on the list. You get authentic recordings immediately, which are automatically sorted on your PC or Mac complete with cover art. You can find songs easily on their store, and you get personalized recommendations as to what other songs you might like. Yes, I know iTunes has DRM, but I also know a lot of people don't even think about it. It's true that we need to educate them about it, but I'm just saying it doesn't factor into their decisions.
I found the article extremely relevant, because I hope to make a living as a content creator selling e-books and physical copies thereof. Maybe what we need is more widespread awareness of how to make money? At any rate, the world I see this evolving into is one in which large, "gateway" institutions like TV stations and book publishers are fewer and farther between, but one in which large numbers of individual content creators can make a living off of their work, and have thriving microcommunities built up around each of them.
How's that for Net Neutrality?
My family had two of those for our Commodore 64s. When I was little we played those games 'till half the disks and joysticks gave out. Good times!
But putting it on my Windows PC was like making a Hackintosh. Even with Fedora / Ubuntu's Live CDs, I still had to rely on the community for help in getting everything to work right. And some things just plain won't work, period.
Don't get me wrong, I think Fedora and Ubuntu are great! I love how they have such friendly communities to turn to for help. But when The Year Of The Linux Desktop comes, it's not going to be like this -- it's going to be from preinstalled systems. And I, for one, think that this trend is awesome.
Kudos to Everex, Asus, Zonbu and Dell. Let's see some more of these PCs!
Doing that will do us no good as long as we're still buying from the corporations that control the government, and voting for policies that put us more into debt to the bankers.
RPM FTW!
If only it were that simple! People still die of drug-related illnesses and tainted meat, and a large part of the reason is how cozy the people in charge of the regulatory agencies are with the corporations. There's not a lot that politicians can do when the companies are financing their elections and controlling the media outlets, even if we would like them to.
What about unsupported facts that don't answer the points made by the original poster?
Voting for yourself is only voting your conscience if you think that you'd make the best president. I personally don't think I'm qualified.
I'm not interested in whether or not Ron Paul "has a future," nor am I interested in enlarging my social circle by proclaiming myself right (I have not made any contacts at all this election). What I care about is whether or not Constitutional government has a future. I believe that our current government has overstepped its bounds, and must be reined in. And I think that he is the one to do it.
If not him, then whomever takes up the mantle next election. The more support he receives this year, the more likely it is to happen.
Ron Paul may not be elected this year, but he's already broken records in online fundraising and practically become an Internet meme. The more momentum he builds, the easier it'll be to elect someone who supports Constitutional government, whether this election or the next. I also submit that there's something wrong with our system, insofar as people keep trying to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting their consciences.
Sir, you're accusing the Mormons of letting others die because, with all that they give, they did not give as much as you think they could have. I don't see how you've any right to do that unless you're giving your all as it is.
... but if they're qualified for harder work, then why would we make them grow things for us instead of helping them learn and get better jobs, like the LDS Perpetual Education Fund does? And who's going to ship them around the world to help with our service projects? It's not just food that we export.
That should be the end of the discussion, but I will address your other points just in case.
You mentioned your experiences with volunteering before. I've personally volunteered on some very hard service projects with many Latter-Day Saints, including working at the Bishop's Storehouse (where food from the welfare farms gets distributed) and helping rebuild homes that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
Maybe we could have spent the day working (assuming we are able to turn that time into money) and hired people to do the job, but I don't think that that would have been efficient. I don't feel that hired workers would've been as compelled or as motivated, and I do feel that blessings come to those who work hard to serve others. Somebody had to do the work -- why not people who want to help, instead of those who are doing it for the money? We've been counseled to grow our own gardens too, which is a poor idea from an efficiency standpoint but which brings blessings beyond simple money.
You say that "If they are able to do farm work and warehouse stocking, they are physically qualified for more productive jobs." But wouldn't that mean that no one should do these things, since everyone's physically qualified to do better? Maybe we could hire people in third-world countries
Sir, I understand that you may be expressing your honest concerns, but it seems to me that your concerns do not take real human considerations into account. It's not as simple as making things most efficient. As MightyYar points out, people are often sacrificing their free time to do these things. Not everyone is able to trade time for money with 100% efficiency, whenever they like. And some jobs, like serving in leadership positions (our clergy is made up of unpaid volunteers) and helping to rebuild houses, require skilled labor or human connections. These aren't things we can outsource.
It's about spreading the word and getting more people excited about the idea of Constitutional government. Ron Paul already broke fundraising records, and practically became an Internet meme.
Voting for Ron Paul shows that you're sick of the lesser of two evils, and sends a message to the people in charge. How many people are listening? Who's to say what won't happen in 2012?
"Line upon line, precept on precept" is an LDS (Mormon) doctrine which says that people learn truths a little at a time. Perhaps the church members were not ready until then? When did other leading religions admit blacks into their priesthoods?
As an aside, each new revelation (and appointment of Church leadership) must be approved by the membership. I'm given to understand that the one admitting blacks into the priesthood was affirmed unanimously.
Sir, you're assuming that all Mormons are equally likely to volunteer to help out with every project, and not taking into account how many volunteers may be youth, retired, or unemployed. You're also assuming that choosing to donate or volunteer is an either/or proposition, i.e. that those who choose to volunteer do not donate, and vice-versa.
I apologize, but the "Flamebait" tag may be justified, as your post seems more eager to criticize than to find out the underlying causes of things.
You're saying that "If 'Freedom of Speech' suddenly means 'Kill someone for fun,' then we shouldn't have freedom of speech." This is a perfectly logical argument, but it turns the opposing position into a straw man, because no one's saying we should kill people for fun.
High-powered weaponry is no more likely to kill people than low-powered weaponry, unless you point it at someone and pull the trigger. Or unless it's inherently dangerous to possess, like unshielded nuclear material. Nobody's saying that this ought to happen. They're just saying that "If we're allowed to possess weapons, then we should be allowed to possess these weapons."
As far as freedom of speech goes, the Internet is the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. It lets anyone, anywhere in the world spread any idea they like, and gives others the freedom to accept or reject it at their leisure. The only reason to restrict the growth of the Internet is the same one there's always been -- because you don't want people to have that kind of power. Likewise the Second Amendment and modern weaponry.
There are lots of good people out there, so it stands to reason there are lots of good companies, too. I shop for groceries at Whole Foods, and use Red Hat's community Linux distro with the Mozilla Foundation's web browser and Google's free homepage.
If you desperately need something made by teh ebil, there's always eBay, Craigslist and Freecycle. People buy more new things than they need and they throw things out all the time; buying used helps make sure that things don't go to waste. It's sort of like recycling, except that it saves you money. And it doesn't directly support the people that you don't like.
But if they're changing their reviews based on the whims of their advertisers, then I'd prefer not to grant them more ad revenue.