Who said they're accountable for providing value to anyone?
That guy spent a life honing his craft, and if he says he doesn't want his music in a commercial, it's eminently shitty of them to get a stand-in. Your control over your social security number doesn't provide me with any value. If I decide to use it on a job application, does that make us even?
The compulsory licensing fee has to do with new recordings of a song. Legal control over your image and likeness is a separate matter.
I hate that hesitate-and-we'll-exploit-it behavior. Those who would tell the truth and avoid oversimplifying need to have *even more* integrity than would have initially been required, in order to stop themselves from compensating for the effects of other peoples' spin.
It is a great irony that intellectually honest folks lose sleep over how honest they're actually being, while the liars get to sleep at night, safe and warm inside their massive ego.
I know you're kidding, but holy crap are hybrids ever fools' gold. The nerd in me thinks that regenerative braking is too cool of a technology to just ignore, but we need to figure out a do this without causing more NET carbon output, and without the terrible battery-chemical-mining pollution to boot.
I know it's popular to blame the US for everything, including (somehow!) lowering scientific standards for the entire world, but I grew up here in the 80s and 90s and I heard plenty about global warming. For instance, Nickelodeon, which was the most popular childrens' programming (on cable tv, at least), would regularly run little cartoons about the greenhouse effect and the need to lower CO2 output.
Also they would run stuff about recycling, conserving water, solar power, you name it.
Except for preventing vitamin deficiencies. A class of terrible "diseases" was quickly and cheaply wiped out in the first half of the 20th century because of the novel idea that food gives us something besides fat or carbs or protein, something that we need in order to survive.
While I agree that there is plenty of nutrition-based pseudo-science out there, there are some true blue chemists working on this stuff and I think the worst you could say as a generalization is that:
(a) There's still a lot of work to be done. Our bodies are complicated and isolation studies are in many ways a blunt tool. (b) There's a lot of crap and well-established canards out there because it's an area of study that affects so many. there's also good science, if you know where to look. in most cases the FDA does know where to look. In the periods where they're not gutted by administrations unfriendly toward regulatory agencies, anyway.
they fail to account for the fact that there are natural cycles in climate
Milankovitch Cycles have been accounted for since their discovery, as well as solar output cycles. I really don't know what cycles you could be mentioning that a generation of scientists has somehow ignored.
They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records.
I'm not sure anything of this nature is worth getting hysterical over. We need to be careful and make sure the science is done rigorously. Only at that point can the politicians have a slim chance of not screwing this up.
The thing I don't like about what Christy says there, is that he's using the urban heat island effect as a rationale for cherry-picking his data. The article seems to paint it as a positive thing too. It's not right to dismiss out of hand all of the surface data. First of all, trends related to city growth are already accounted for, at what came out of NASA was. And not all of the surface temps come from the land!
Another thing: I refuse to believe that the majority of climatologists are part of some secret left-wing cabal or something. But Christy wastes no time in using divisive labels like "the alarmist camp" to dismiss his colleagues. You'd hope a guy poring over atmospheric data would learn to deal in specifics rather than generalizations.
Regardless, the main point he brings up is one about the urban heat island effect...that in particular is something that's still debated and his word is not final there. Perhaps he has some novel objection that isn't covered by the corrections already made, but if so, that article didn't get specific enough to need to bring that up.
The link I gave above contains an alternate viewpoint. You may not dig the tone of that site ("what the science says" headings, etc), and I can't say I do either. But it's worth a look.
They haven't gotten it because the actual problem of global warming should be separate from how we choose to deal with it in the political arena.
Having society bear the cost of pollution rather than the polluter...isn't that socialism?
I have had good and bad arguments against cap and trade. I'm not even sure where I stand on it. But you definitely get points with me for the argument that it's bad because it diverts resources from migrating to another planet 50s-sci-fi-style. That was art.
Much as I dislike defending ASCAP, most of what they actually do in a day involves shaking down radio and satellite stations, who not only can afford to pay the artists their share, they damn well should since they're in the business of playing other peoples' music.
You and your publisher join ASCAP or BMI because it's easier to do that than to actually try and get your unsolicited unprotected crap out onto the airwaves when everyone expects you to be with one or the other, has procedures in place for paying them, and is not going to waste their time sending you $2.47 checks once a year.
The going around and harassing every restaurant with a 2x2 "stage" is definitely in bad taste, but AFAIK musicians aren't even seeing that money, since they typically only pay you when they record an actual "play". No doubt most of that money is going straight to ASCAP.
You probably have 3 or 4 ASCAP or BMI members living on your street. Anyone who's halfway serious about songwriting is going to become a member as early as possible. Boycotting them is really out of the question if you actually enjoy music.
FWIW...they're not that good to their "clients" either. Sometimes people are just born with crappy souls. And then they go to work for ASCAP. Eh. I think the real reason not to boycott is boycotting century-old industry practice is kind of silly. These things were set before you were born. Entertainment is a racket and as much as the internet has the power to change some of that, it will not change all of it.
The reason the stupid copyright law exists in the first place is to benefit the people!
Well, that's what it says. But that's not why it exists. It exists because the UK had had it for a long time and it seemed silly to most of the founders to leave it out of the Constitution.
But the real reason why, in my mind, is that if you write a hit song you deserve to be paid for its use. I know that's not a popular opinion on here, but it's the way the world works, and it seems pretty fair to me. Just like if you make a giant banner with rights-managed stock art, you aren't necessarily denying the artist sale of the art. But you denied him the initial sale to you, which wasn't within your rights, legally or morally, to do.
That's a good question. In the old days people tried to get away with not paying for samples. But my guess is that "Gangsta's Paradise" was recent enough and high-profile enough that he likely paid to use the sample. The Biz Markie case was in 1992, the 2 Live Crew case was in 1994, and Dangerous Minds came out in 1995. The fact that it's also on a movie soundtrack makes me pretty sure that it was done legitimately.
Off-topic...TV commercials are pretty notorious for creating "sound-alike" songs though. I think the theory is that musicians don't deserve to be paid for what they do (maybe they consulted Ask Slashdot and that's the advice they got).
I know Waits is very strongly against his music being used in commercials. That doesn't mean he was right in that case. Unfortunately I can't figure out who the singer was, none of the articles I'm finding have it. That to me is a good sign that they actually did find a sound-alike to do the ad, rather than someone who was already somewhat known and just happened to sound like Waits. His voice is pretty unique.
I'm sure you know all this, I'm not in disagreement with you (how could I be when you just basically stated facts). Just felt like adding a couple cents.
In my state, there was at least one guy who didn't make the force because his IQ was too high. Police do have training in legal matters, at least on the enforcement side, and they know what the inside of a courtroom looks like. But it's not fair to assume that they're any more intelligent than the average individual. They're also obviously more likely to take another policeman's testimony over yours.
It's one thing to just rant about how broken the system is, it's another to think through the consequences of whatever you feel like replacing it with that week.
I said it was about getting anti-evolution viewpoints brought into science class. Which is not the same thing as removing evolution, but I'm sure they'd do that as well if they could.
It's just stupid that you'd attack a straw man while accusing me of the same.
Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
I'd invite everyone that hasn't done so and cares about such things to read through the entire thing. At the very least, the cross-examinations are eye-opening. This is black and white and it really is no secret what these people are about. But if you need it spelled out for you: indoctrinatingchildren.
I can understand why you are confused. The term Intelligent Design was chosen *because* of its ambiguity. The original name, Creationism, did a better job of declaring intent. Calling it ID (and there is plenty of hard evidence that it was a considered, wholesale, PR-style name change) lets you pick up the support of people who (a) believe in a creator and (b) are confused about what ID is all about.
"My opponents" do not need to have their words twisted in order to be debased. They do it to themselves when they put *fucking saddles* on *fucking dinosaurs.*
Capital-I-capital-D Intelligent Design is a political movement based on getting anti-evolution viewpoints brought into science curricula.
The mere belief in a God who created and designed the universe is not what this is about. If it were, then every religious scientist would call themselves IDers. It's not, and they don't.
These people are not interested in logic. If they were, they would know that the burden of proof was on them and not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said they're accountable for providing value to anyone?
That guy spent a life honing his craft, and if he says he doesn't want his music in a commercial, it's eminently shitty of them to get a stand-in. Your control over your social security number doesn't provide me with any value. If I decide to use it on a job application, does that make us even?
The compulsory licensing fee has to do with new recordings of a song. Legal control over your image and likeness is a separate matter.
The answer is to avoid generalizing.
It takes guts, however.
Yours is well put as well.
I hate that hesitate-and-we'll-exploit-it behavior. Those who would tell the truth and avoid oversimplifying need to have *even more* integrity than would have initially been required, in order to stop themselves from compensating for the effects of other peoples' spin.
It is a great irony that intellectually honest folks lose sleep over how honest they're actually being, while the liars get to sleep at night, safe and warm inside their massive ego.
WE ALL MUST USE HYBRIDS NOW OR DIE!
I know you're kidding, but holy crap are hybrids ever fools' gold. The nerd in me thinks that regenerative braking is too cool of a technology to just ignore, but we need to figure out a do this without causing more NET carbon output, and without the terrible battery-chemical-mining pollution to boot.
It must though! 99% of the Slashdot comments have to do with agreeing or disagreeing with global warming science!
I guess one man's comforting warm color temperature is another's horrid long-wavelength tinge. Or something like that. Not that I don't buy CFLs.
Not only that, the core is cooling! Take that, LIEberal media!
I know it's popular to blame the US for everything, including (somehow!) lowering scientific standards for the entire world, but I grew up here in the 80s and 90s and I heard plenty about global warming. For instance, Nickelodeon, which was the most popular childrens' programming (on cable tv, at least), would regularly run little cartoons about the greenhouse effect and the need to lower CO2 output.
Also they would run stuff about recycling, conserving water, solar power, you name it.
Going back further you have this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4dAkoV87a0
Sorry to break up the hate-fest, guys.
Nutritionism is only pseudo-science.
Except for preventing vitamin deficiencies. A class of terrible "diseases" was quickly and cheaply wiped out in the first half of the 20th century because of the novel idea that food gives us something besides fat or carbs or protein, something that we need in order to survive.
While I agree that there is plenty of nutrition-based pseudo-science out there, there are some true blue chemists working on this stuff and I think the worst you could say as a generalization is that:
(a) There's still a lot of work to be done. Our bodies are complicated and isolation studies are in many ways a blunt tool.
(b) There's a lot of crap and well-established canards out there because it's an area of study that affects so many. there's also good science, if you know where to look. in most cases the FDA does know where to look. In the periods where they're not gutted by administrations unfriendly toward regulatory agencies, anyway.
they fail to account for the fact that there are natural cycles in climate
Milankovitch Cycles have been accounted for since their discovery, as well as solar output cycles. I really don't know what cycles you could be mentioning that a generation of scientists has somehow ignored.
That was an interesting article. I think this is worth a read as well.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records.
I'm not sure anything of this nature is worth getting hysterical over. We need to be careful and make sure the science is done rigorously. Only at that point can the politicians have a slim chance of not screwing this up.
The thing I don't like about what Christy says there, is that he's using the urban heat island effect as a rationale for cherry-picking his data. The article seems to paint it as a positive thing too. It's not right to dismiss out of hand all of the surface data. First of all, trends related to city growth are already accounted for, at what came out of NASA was. And not all of the surface temps come from the land!
Another thing: I refuse to believe that the majority of climatologists are part of some secret left-wing cabal or something. But Christy wastes no time in using divisive labels like "the alarmist camp" to dismiss his colleagues. You'd hope a guy poring over atmospheric data would learn to deal in specifics rather than generalizations.
Regardless, the main point he brings up is one about the urban heat island effect...that in particular is something that's still debated and his word is not final there. Perhaps he has some novel objection that isn't covered by the corrections already made, but if so, that article didn't get specific enough to need to bring that up.
The link I gave above contains an alternate viewpoint. You may not dig the tone of that site ("what the science says" headings, etc), and I can't say I do either. But it's worth a look.
They haven't gotten it because the actual problem of global warming should be separate from how we choose to deal with it in the political arena.
Having society bear the cost of pollution rather than the polluter...isn't that socialism?
I have had good and bad arguments against cap and trade. I'm not even sure where I stand on it. But you definitely get points with me for the argument that it's bad because it diverts resources from migrating to another planet 50s-sci-fi-style. That was art.
Much as I dislike defending ASCAP, most of what they actually do in a day involves shaking down radio and satellite stations, who not only can afford to pay the artists their share, they damn well should since they're in the business of playing other peoples' music.
You and your publisher join ASCAP or BMI because it's easier to do that than to actually try and get your unsolicited unprotected crap out onto the airwaves when everyone expects you to be with one or the other, has procedures in place for paying them, and is not going to waste their time sending you $2.47 checks once a year.
The going around and harassing every restaurant with a 2x2 "stage" is definitely in bad taste, but AFAIK musicians aren't even seeing that money, since they typically only pay you when they record an actual "play". No doubt most of that money is going straight to ASCAP.
You probably have 3 or 4 ASCAP or BMI members living on your street. Anyone who's halfway serious about songwriting is going to become a member as early as possible. Boycotting them is really out of the question if you actually enjoy music.
FWIW...they're not that good to their "clients" either. Sometimes people are just born with crappy souls. And then they go to work for ASCAP. Eh. I think the real reason not to boycott is boycotting century-old industry practice is kind of silly. These things were set before you were born. Entertainment is a racket and as much as the internet has the power to change some of that, it will not change all of it.
The reason the stupid copyright law exists in the first place is to benefit the people!
Well, that's what it says. But that's not why it exists. It exists because the UK had had it for a long time and it seemed silly to most of the founders to leave it out of the Constitution.
But the real reason why, in my mind, is that if you write a hit song you deserve to be paid for its use. I know that's not a popular opinion on here, but it's the way the world works, and it seems pretty fair to me. Just like if you make a giant banner with rights-managed stock art, you aren't necessarily denying the artist sale of the art. But you denied him the initial sale to you, which wasn't within your rights, legally or morally, to do.
That's a good question. In the old days people tried to get away with not paying for samples. But my guess is that "Gangsta's Paradise" was recent enough and high-profile enough that he likely paid to use the sample. The Biz Markie case was in 1992, the 2 Live Crew case was in 1994, and Dangerous Minds came out in 1995. The fact that it's also on a movie soundtrack makes me pretty sure that it was done legitimately.
Off-topic...TV commercials are pretty notorious for creating "sound-alike" songs though. I think the theory is that musicians don't deserve to be paid for what they do (maybe they consulted Ask Slashdot and that's the advice they got).
I know Waits is very strongly against his music being used in commercials. That doesn't mean he was right in that case. Unfortunately I can't figure out who the singer was, none of the articles I'm finding have it. That to me is a good sign that they actually did find a sound-alike to do the ad, rather than someone who was already somewhat known and just happened to sound like Waits. His voice is pretty unique.
I'm sure you know all this, I'm not in disagreement with you (how could I be when you just basically stated facts). Just felt like adding a couple cents.
NYCL sure twitters a lot for a guy on death row!
:)
heh, i read that as "compliments" :)
If Windows still crashes on you then you are doing something wrong.
In my state, there was at least one guy who didn't make the force because his IQ was too high. Police do have training in legal matters, at least on the enforcement side, and they know what the inside of a courtroom looks like. But it's not fair to assume that they're any more intelligent than the average individual. They're also obviously more likely to take another policeman's testimony over yours.
It's one thing to just rant about how broken the system is, it's another to think through the consequences of whatever you feel like replacing it with that week.
I said it was about getting anti-evolution viewpoints brought into science class. Which is not the same thing as removing evolution, but I'm sure they'd do that as well if they could.
It's just stupid that you'd attack a straw man while accusing me of the same.
Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
I'd invite everyone that hasn't done so and cares about such things to read through the entire thing. At the very least, the cross-examinations are eye-opening. This is black and white and it really is no secret what these people are about. But if you need it spelled out for you: indoctrinating children .
I can understand why you are confused. The term Intelligent Design was chosen *because* of its ambiguity. The original name, Creationism, did a better job of declaring intent. Calling it ID (and there is plenty of hard evidence that it was a considered, wholesale, PR-style name change) lets you pick up the support of people who (a) believe in a creator and (b) are confused about what ID is all about.
"My opponents" do not need to have their words twisted in order to be debased. They do it to themselves when they put *fucking saddles* on *fucking dinosaurs.*
I have had it with these motherfuckin' ants, on this motherfuckin' circuitry!
Capital-I-capital-D Intelligent Design is a political movement based on getting anti-evolution viewpoints brought into science curricula.
The mere belief in a God who created and designed the universe is not what this is about. If it were, then every religious scientist would call themselves IDers. It's not, and they don't.
These people are not interested in logic. If they were, they would know that the burden of proof was on them and not the other way around.