Using your cost model, if an artist received 20,000 plays in a year, he made $200. He can't even pay rent for a month on that.
The song is already written; he can go get a real job. Or write more songs. Or tour and make a living off that, like hundreds (thousands?) of bands do. Or write a book about his band experiences, or the sad state of copyright, or a vampire who glitters in sunlight. Or make a reality show.
Why should writing and releasing a single 3-minute song mean living wage for a year?
We're number 2 in comparison to other continent-spanning countries/federations.
That's little consolation for those of us who, thanks to government-granted monopolies, get 4Mb/s. Also, who cares about "continent-spanning countries"? All of South Korea gets faster internet than any city in the U.S.
Minimum wage for 1 song == living wage for multiple songs, which most artists have.
The real question isn't "Should they be satisfied by minimum wage" but "Is this enough to induce potential creators to release a product, thereby maintaining the furtherance of modern culture?" I submit that minimum wage does that, as it acts as a supplement to other income -- songwriting, after all, needn't take 40 hours per week.
I'd further submit that, for many, many artists, no monetary inducement is needed for the creative process. But that's a different argument.
I can't for the life of my see how that could be construed as a threat. It was probably some random person with nothing to do with Anonymous, having a little laugh at HBGary's expense.
Is it a threat to say to someone, "Hey, you got pwned!"? Of course not.
I'll put it a little less retardedly: Being as asshole isn't a crime, but it should be. And since the government/police can't do anything about it, it's always nice when someone else who can steps in.
It's how the world works, and it how the world *should* work. You're an asshole in a bar? Someone kicks your ass. You drive/park like an asshole? Someone keys your car or slashes your tires. Actions have consequences. Most of us learn that at a very young age, and therefore don't give in to our asshole urges. Then there are assholes like Aaron Barr, who desperately need a refresher course every now and then.
Unfortunately for him, he didn't just get his ass kicked or get his car fucked with. But kudos to Anon for putting an asshole in his place.
Here's the difference (and I say this as a right-leaning person):
* Al Gore-style fearmongering: If you try to jump off that 6-foot ledge, you will die, or at least get badly hurt.
* Glen Beck-style fearmongering: If you don't believe what I believe, you will be struck dead by unseen evil forces.
One at least has some merit, even if it's overly shrill. The other is retarded.
I'm more of a Ron Paul fan. The only real threat from the government is they may tax us to death.
Yes, they "might." But here I am paying less taxes then at any other period during my lifetime, and the Ron Paul fans won't shut up about how I'm being taxed to death.
As a right-leaning person, there is no party for me. Republicans can't stop spending and starting pointless wars, Libertarians can't stop being misrepresenting themselves (either you're a "Constitutional originalist" or you support the Civil Rights Act, pick one) and fear-mongering, and Democrats don't have enough backbone to actually DO anything (Health Care is a perfect example. It's a gift to insurance companies that does little more than fleece the rest of us.)
There is no reason to believe Jesus could read, or that he was a "lay rabbi" (a phrase that could presumably apply to nearly every Jew ever). He was a Jew, he told people to follow him, and they did.
I'll add (since I don't see it mentioned below) that, since your data is likely to evaporate when/if you die*, that every 3-5 years you choose a hundred or so of your best pics and have them printed in a bound book. These could make great gifts or just make for fun perusing, and will likely outlive you.
*I'm assuming that no one will want to comb through many thousands of pics of your cat, but your relatives might be more willing to do so than mine.
It's flamebait because it makes a potentially controversial or inflammatory statement without any supporting facts or commentary. It's like saying, "An even bigger scam is the pretext Apple uses to promote 'openness.'" You may or may not agree with Apple's policies, but without any supporting verbiage, it's just a useless jab at iTards. Pure flamebait.
Behaviors and plants are different. One can be malevolent; the other is always neutral (unless it falls on your house or something). Even if you're against pot, your problem isn't with the plant, but rather with the behaviors of those who use it.
Google built Android; so that Google can collect data, which is then used to better improve Google's searches. Improving Google's searches, and Google's ability to manipulate knowledge, enables Google to sell ads and other "in-the-cloud" services better.
I'll add that integration between Android and various Google apps is tight and generally very good. I didn't use gmail, maps, reader, or picasa before I had an Android phone. Now I do.
But, what if you look at it, not as censorship, but as translation.
If it were a history book, I'd agree. It's not. Literature is as much (or more!) about language and word choice as it is about "Then character A got on a boat and did X." Twain was aware of problematic language when he wrote Huck Finn -- that's why the language changes depending on the character who's speaking.
I suspect that many of the instances of the word 'nigger' in the original text are not in line with the racist, hateful connotations that are associated with the word today.
Yes, it's perfectly in line. That's part of the whole point of the book, and why it's great literature rather than just another story.
I get that updating real translations makes sense, but Huck Finn needs no translating -- it's in English. And in fact, these changes erase important facts about the characters that an educated reader can glean from the character's language. Twain was aware of all of this.
Why not change "The Road Not Taken" to "I came across 2 streets and took the one on the left because there was less stuff there"? After all, that would just be a more modern translation.
Maybe the big players in the market will realize that allowing private ownership of the idea of 1s and 0s was not such a great idea after all.
Exactly the opposite. The "Big Players" love this system, as it ensures that no young upstart will ever enter meaningfully threaten their dominance. As long as complex software creation requires a few million dollars, only the big guys can play. It's a small price to pay to ensure their long-term survival (especially since they all have their own IP caches they can sue over.)
Thank you for saying this. The question TFA poses is propaganda, and not worth addressing. The issue it's geared to gain traction against -- Net Neutrality -- is a real one, and worth addressing.
You've summed up the whole thing nicely. Who do we trust more: Those we can kick out of office, or those whose monopoly we have no choice but to bow down to (if we want broadband)?
Aha. So it's not illegal, and therefore legal, which is exactly what I said. Nearly everything in the U.S. that is legal is also regulated. Including Morphine.
Morphine may be "legal" but it is not legally available for public consumption in the U.S.
Of course it is. I "consumed" some when I had surgery last year.
None of which changes the fact that opium usage in China was unrelated to that country's decline.
Google's fault, why? Because they let carriers mod the system?
From my point of view, it's entirely the end-user's fault. Why buy 3 systems that don't work together the way you want them to? It's not like the older systems are off the market, or that it's in any way difficult for anyone on/. to upgrade the old system.
Normal users don't give a shit about fragmentation, because they have no idea which version they're running. Hell, most of them don't even install any apps.
Slashdot Mirror
Using your cost model, if an artist received 20,000 plays in a year, he made $200. He can't even pay rent for a month on that.
The song is already written; he can go get a real job. Or write more songs. Or tour and make a living off that, like hundreds (thousands?) of bands do. Or write a book about his band experiences, or the sad state of copyright, or a vampire who glitters in sunlight. Or make a reality show.
Why should writing and releasing a single 3-minute song mean living wage for a year?
We're number 2 in comparison to other continent-spanning countries/federations.
That's little consolation for those of us who, thanks to government-granted monopolies, get 4Mb/s. Also, who cares about "continent-spanning countries"? All of South Korea gets faster internet than any city in the U.S.
Minimum wage for 1 song == living wage for multiple songs, which most artists have.
The real question isn't "Should they be satisfied by minimum wage" but "Is this enough to induce potential creators to release a product, thereby maintaining the furtherance of modern culture?" I submit that minimum wage does that, as it acts as a supplement to other income -- songwriting, after all, needn't take 40 hours per week.
I'd further submit that, for many, many artists, no monetary inducement is needed for the creative process. But that's a different argument.
I don't see the hypocrisy. After all, Anon themselves released the information you claim they were trying to suppress.
The sign on the booth is a threat.
I can't for the life of my see how that could be construed as a threat. It was probably some random person with nothing to do with Anonymous, having a little laugh at HBGary's expense.
Is it a threat to say to someone, "Hey, you got pwned!"? Of course not.
The CIA doesn't operate inside the USA...
Hahahahaha!!!!
I'll put it a little less retardedly: Being as asshole isn't a crime, but it should be. And since the government/police can't do anything about it, it's always nice when someone else who can steps in.
It's how the world works, and it how the world *should* work. You're an asshole in a bar? Someone kicks your ass. You drive/park like an asshole? Someone keys your car or slashes your tires. Actions have consequences. Most of us learn that at a very young age, and therefore don't give in to our asshole urges. Then there are assholes like Aaron Barr, who desperately need a refresher course every now and then.
Unfortunately for him, he didn't just get his ass kicked or get his car fucked with. But kudos to Anon for putting an asshole in his place.
Here's the difference (and I say this as a right-leaning person):
* Al Gore-style fearmongering: If you try to jump off that 6-foot ledge, you will die, or at least get badly hurt.
* Glen Beck-style fearmongering: If you don't believe what I believe, you will be struck dead by unseen evil forces.
One at least has some merit, even if it's overly shrill. The other is retarded.
I'm more of a Ron Paul fan. The only real threat from the government is they may tax us to death.
Yes, they "might." But here I am paying less taxes then at any other period during my lifetime, and the Ron Paul fans won't shut up about how I'm being taxed to death.
As a right-leaning person, there is no party for me. Republicans can't stop spending and starting pointless wars, Libertarians can't stop being misrepresenting themselves (either you're a "Constitutional originalist" or you support the Civil Rights Act, pick one) and fear-mongering, and Democrats don't have enough backbone to actually DO anything (Health Care is a perfect example. It's a gift to insurance companies that does little more than fleece the rest of us.)
There is no reason to believe Jesus could read, or that he was a "lay rabbi" (a phrase that could presumably apply to nearly every Jew ever). He was a Jew, he told people to follow him, and they did.
I'll add (since I don't see it mentioned below) that, since your data is likely to evaporate when/if you die*, that every 3-5 years you choose a hundred or so of your best pics and have them printed in a bound book. These could make great gifts or just make for fun perusing, and will likely outlive you.
*I'm assuming that no one will want to comb through many thousands of pics of your cat, but your relatives might be more willing to do so than mine.
It will be interesting, but I think it'll be a longer wait than some of us want.
Everyone I know has Nextflix; I'm the only one I know who watches it streaming on a regular basis.
You're paying parcel rate. You should be paying letter rate (but then you can't use a normal jewel case). Also, they get bulk rate.
"Medicine" doesn't come in "joints".
No, it comes in brownies and rice crispy treats.
It's flamebait because it makes a potentially controversial or inflammatory statement without any supporting facts or commentary. It's like saying, "An even bigger scam is the pretext Apple uses to promote 'openness.'" You may or may not agree with Apple's policies, but without any supporting verbiage, it's just a useless jab at iTards. Pure flamebait.
Behaviors and plants are different. One can be malevolent; the other is always neutral (unless it falls on your house or something). Even if you're against pot, your problem isn't with the plant, but rather with the behaviors of those who use it.
Google built Android; so that Google can collect data, which is then used to better improve Google's searches. Improving Google's searches, and Google's ability to manipulate knowledge, enables Google to sell ads and other "in-the-cloud" services better.
I'll add that integration between Android and various Google apps is tight and generally very good. I didn't use gmail, maps, reader, or picasa before I had an Android phone. Now I do.
But, what if you look at it, not as censorship, but as translation.
If it were a history book, I'd agree. It's not. Literature is as much (or more!) about language and word choice as it is about "Then character A got on a boat and did X." Twain was aware of problematic language when he wrote Huck Finn -- that's why the language changes depending on the character who's speaking.
I suspect that many of the instances of the word 'nigger' in the original text are not in line with the racist, hateful connotations that are associated with the word today.
Yes, it's perfectly in line. That's part of the whole point of the book, and why it's great literature rather than just another story.
I get that updating real translations makes sense, but Huck Finn needs no translating -- it's in English. And in fact, these changes erase important facts about the characters that an educated reader can glean from the character's language. Twain was aware of all of this.
Why not change "The Road Not Taken" to "I came across 2 streets and took the one on the left because there was less stuff there"? After all, that would just be a more modern translation.
Maybe the big players in the market will realize that allowing private ownership of the idea of 1s and 0s was not such a great idea after all.
Exactly the opposite. The "Big Players" love this system, as it ensures that no young upstart will ever enter meaningfully threaten their dominance. As long as complex software creation requires a few million dollars, only the big guys can play. It's a small price to pay to ensure their long-term survival (especially since they all have their own IP caches they can sue over.)
The problem is that our whole IP system exists -- according to the Constitution -- to advance innovation.
So the onus *should* be on its supporters to prove that it does that, not on everyone else to prove that it doesn't.
Thank you for saying this. The question TFA poses is propaganda, and not worth addressing. The issue it's geared to gain traction against -- Net Neutrality -- is a real one, and worth addressing.
You've summed up the whole thing nicely. Who do we trust more: Those we can kick out of office, or those whose monopoly we have no choice but to bow down to (if we want broadband)?
Morphine may be "legal" but it is not legally available for public consumption in the U.S.
Of course it is. I "consumed" some when I had surgery last year.
None of which changes the fact that opium usage in China was unrelated to that country's decline.
Google's fault, why? Because they let carriers mod the system?
/. to upgrade the old system.
From my point of view, it's entirely the end-user's fault. Why buy 3 systems that don't work together the way you want them to? It's not like the older systems are off the market, or that it's in any way difficult for anyone on
Normal users don't give a shit about fragmentation, because they have no idea which version they're running. Hell, most of them don't even install any apps.
You must still be using those last-gen TV remote apps, then.
Agreed. Hackers was a great soundtrack in search of a movie. In that respect, it really was far ahead of its time.