The fare is fixed for everyone at a particular time and in a particular place, but the fare can change based on demand/availability or place.
So with uber people don't worry about job longevity, or living wage, or health insurance.
From what I've heard from Uber drivers who are also taxi drivers, Uber pays a little better. One driver said he got 72% of the fare. In the best case, an Uber driver could make a lot of money (if they constantly have passengers for several hours).
I think you're probably referring to Mississippi, not Missouri. Missouri's flag does not contain the battle flag, it is designed after the French flag as a nod to that historical period when Missouri was part of the Louisiana territory.
But, I generally agree with Dave's answer. If there was an empty flag pole for MS with an explanation why then it would certainly send a message. The battle flag is without question a symbol of racism today, it wasn't always but it is today thanks to the KKK and the anti-civil-rights protesters using it as a symbol. Sure, the MS flag pre-dates that era, but the reason why MS is talking about changing their flag is because of the modern meaning, not the historical meaning. There's no reason to have a state flag that includes symbols identified with racism. MS isn't going to move at the same speed as some of the other states though, I don't think their legislature meets for another 6 months or something. Anything that's happening now is just talk, which is probably a good thing. By the time they actually meet to pass any laws hopefully there will be less emotion and more rationality and they can decide how they want to portray their state to visitors without a national media spotlight.
Changing flags is going to do very little to get rid of racism, in fact it might even make the racist members of society stick to their guns that much harder, but it's still an important symbolic gesture that we as a society don't approve of racism. It's most definitely a necessary step in the overall goal of reducing or eliminating racism. For what it's worth, I don't believe that it's even possible to eliminate racism, but removing implicit state sponsorship is an important step regardless.
I ask you to cite some sources for your claims and you tell me to do research? OK, thanks but no thanks. They're your claims, surely you can back them up. One thing I haven't seen is a single justification for secession by any Southern state that does not mention slavery. For your reference, the specific claim I'm looking for evidence for is the first two sentences in your post.
Then tell me why if the Union was all about ending slavery
Who said the Union was all about ending slavery? Did I make that argument somewhere without knowing it? I'm pretty sure the North went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. Slavery was headed out the door anyway, due to the fact that no new states could be slaveholding states. The percentage of slaveholders in the legislature was decreasing and it was only a matter of time. No reason to start a war over that, from the North's point of view anyway (the South had a different point of view). In fact, the North didn't start the war at all.
Shall we remove all confederate items from museums?
No, that's where they belong actually. We should move them there, in fact.
Shall we rewrite the history books so the civil war never happened?
No, that's a stupid idea and you're stupid for asking.
If we remove the confederate flag from everywhere, will that mean slavery never happened?
Obviously not, and thankfully people aren't stupid enough that anyone feels the need to clarify this. Until now.
Removing some flags will not advance the goal of eliminating racism.
That depends, actually. If you're removing the flags from government-owned buildings, so that it no longer appears that the government is sanctioning or sponsoring racism, then it might actually make an impact. Just like the names of streets, schools, parks, etc. If black people didn't have to attend a school that was named after someone who fought specifically to stop them from being able to attend school, or if they didn't have to drive down a street named after someone who fought specifically to stop them from being allowed to drive down that street, then that might also have an effect. Similarly, if white people weren't going to Stonewall Jackson High School, and instead attended Booker T. Washington High School, then maybe they wouldn't feel like they have some innate superiority over black people. If white kids weren't playing in Nathan Bedford Forrest National Park then maybe they wouldn't think so highly of the KKK.
Instead of quibbling about a flag that some people find offensive, why don't we work to fight actual racism.
I agree. A fantastic first step is to remove symbols of racism from government-owned places, and to stop glorifying people who fought to keep slavery in place.
Fighting so hard over symbols while we are mostly ignoring the reality of racism in the US seems counterproductive.
Part of the reality of racism in the US is the fact that racist symbols and people are openly glorified and praised. It's time we move on from that period in our history, let's get those things out of the general public and into a museum where they belong.
If I want a small Confederate Flag for a historical display, or a re-enactment, or other event these retails think I shouldn't be able to get it?
I don't think the retailers really give a shit what you have, they just don't want you to buy this particular thing from them. If you were an entrepreneur you might see an opportunity here.
The US Constitution is just a piece of paper, as are all of the articles in the Bill of Rights - made of the same stuff I wipe my butt with after take a shit.
You wipe your ass with parchment? Doesn't that get expensive, or do you skin the animals and treat the skin yourself?
But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union?
For me personally, if I see a truck drive by with a Confederate flag flying from the back of it I don't think "wow, that guy must really be into states' rights", or "wow, that guy must be a huge Dukes of Hazzard fan". I think "wow, that guy is really proud to be racist". It might not be fair but, yeah, that's the first thing that pops into my head.
Also, please stop talking about "succession" or "succeeding" or whatever. That's not the word.
What freedom of expression are you referring to? The freedom of a state to celebrate a racist history? Does the bill of rights even apply to a state in general? I'm pretty sure they only apply to people. Government speech is regulated differently. I'm not seeing any laws being passed that limit an individual's right of expression here.
Look, secession was about slavery, yes. That doesn't mean that's why the Civil War was fought.
Uh, well, I guess you're technically correct. The South seceded because of slavery, and the war was fought to preserve the Union (because the South was leaving, because of slavery).
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was primarily intended to keep Britain out of the war.
How do you figure? Britain had already outlawed slavery decades before, their people were not about to join a war on the side of a nation fighting to keep slavery as an institution. The US Navy already whipped the British Navy (twice), you think the British Navy was going to try to bust through American lines to help the South (and risk losing Canada)? No. If Britain was going to join the war they would have joined it on the side of the US. They didn't want to do that either, though.
It was because you can't have a "Union" unless there was the right to succeed. Many of the supporters in the North supported the South because if the government became too oppressive, they too wanted the right to succeed.
Stop it, you're making my eyelid twitch. A state has never "succeeded" from the US. The South definitely did not succeed in the war.
All of that hand-waving and justification without a single primary source to back up any claim. Well done sir!
FYI - there is not a single person living who was alive at the time this all happened. The best and only sources we have are primary documents from politicians, generals, and state legislatures. If you want to prove your claims, cite the primary sources that back you up. No one is interested in stories they heard from their grandfather about what his grandfather told him about was his father did. We already have plenty of writings from the time explaining exactly why they decided to secede, so let's stick to those sources.
As I said, slavery was a bit of a political talking point because it sounded so much better than a dispute over tariffs, on both sides. (from your reply below)
Right, because taxes and tariffs never angered and pushed Americans to do anything, did they?
The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. So the 1% had to sell the war to the 99% using different arguments.
One argument I saw was that the existence of an inferior race was necessary for Southern white society. There might have been poor members of white society, but to the elites they were still white, they were still better than the black people, so the elites would still stand up for the poor white people as being "like them". In their view this held society together. If there was not an inferior race then the poor white people would be equal to the black people and would be left out of society. So, they sold the war by saying that, if slavery is outlawed, you're going to be no better than the black people. They contrasted their society with the north, where people of any race might be "greasy mechanics" or whatever, not the "refined gentlemen" that you find in the South. The mechanic in the South was still better than all of the black people he had working for him.
The Civil War was fought over a lot of stuff. Mostly economics, but social issues to a lesser extent.
If by "economics" you mean the ability to legally own black people and count them as property, then you're exactly correct. It was mostly fought over that.
Basically it was offer to the South to keeep their slaves, if only they would not leave the Union!
They still fought the war to leave, so it was not "all about slavery", more about tariffs.
Stop being a revisionist douche. If you're claiming that the South seceded because of tariffs, you better be prepared to show ample firsthand evidence. For you, I've got the Cornerstone Speech by the CSA's Vice President (emphasis is mine):
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it - when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
You'll need to point out where he talks about tariffs, because I'm not seeing it.
Although you're right about Lincoln deciding that he would preserve the Union without freeing a single slave if it were possible to do that. Obviously, that didn't happen though. One of the major reasons the Southern states seceded, and you can verify this in their statements of justification for secession, is because they were upset that the Northern states were no longer following the Fugitive Slave Act where a Northern state would have to return a fugitive slave to their Southern owner. In fact, several Northern states specifically criminalized the return of a fugitive slave. Many Southern states stated that, without that clause in the Constitution, the Southern states would not have agreed to it at all. Now that the Northern states were no longer doing their part to keep slavery around, the South wanted out. More than one state cited estimates of $3 or $4 billion in lost property that this would inflict on their economy. And, of course, when they said "property" they were referring to "people".
Another major reason were the laws which outlawed slavery in new states admitted to the Union. Since the slaveholding states were not able to increase their numbers then their percentage of representation in the Federal government was bound to fall and the writing was already on the wall with regard to the end of slavery. So, they wanted out, they wanted to return to being sovereign nations free to continue practicing their God-given rights to rule over and legally own black people.
It had fuck all to do with tariffs, so don't act like it did.
Even so, the Confederate Battle Flag died out as a symbol until the racist "Dixiecrat" party ran Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate in 1948, and they brought the flag back as the symbol of their party. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s leading up to the surge in the civil rights movement, white Southerner
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. - Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America Savannah, Georgia; March 21, 1861
You probably wouldn't even need firearms -- maybe some kind of EMP pulse and let the drone fall into the fire.
Right, because an EMP is so much easier to create, more portable, and less likely to cause collateral damage than a beanbag fired from a shotgun.
Or a non-lethal shotgun round designed to take out propellers.
Or a beanbag that carries enough kinetic energy to knock it down no matter where you hit it.
a big tangle if nylon fishing line
Right, let's launch loads of plastic all over the place.
I wonder if there's some kind of compromise. Like, drones can scout out the situation until aircraft are deployed, and then must leave the area or risk destruction and/or heavy fines.
Fine, let the fire department fly their scout drones to recon the fire before moving in. As far as civilians are concerned, stay the fuck away and let the professionals do their jobs.
I would argue that this is time-sensitive content, in that new releases can be expected to be played a lot initially but may decline after that. So bands releasing during the trial would be at a disadvantage of not receiving that initial release income. I would also argue that the bands had no say in the agreement with Apple, but I suppose that's their fault for signing over the rights to everything they make.
Really? So I can open, for example, a new restaurant where I'm specializing in fresh ingredients, local farms, flying in same-day seafood, etc. I can contact all of my future suppliers and explain that I want them to give me their food for free for three months, so that I can give it to free for all of my future customers. This does not happen in other industries. My suppliers would tell me that it's great if they want to give my stuff away for free, but they still need to pay me to even send it to them in the first place.
In this case the owners of the copyrights made a deal with Apple
You think they made that deal with the full agreement of the artists? Or would this be another example of the music industry in general screwing over the people who actually create the music?
The irony, yes irony, is that you are probably someone who complains when companies do not take a long-term approach and concentrate on quarterly growth.
I'll have to check my OED, but I'm pretty sure that irony isn't defined by what you imagine.
And that's what this argument is; since Apple decided to pay the Artists during the "Trial" period, anyway.
Since you're no longer debating the actual question, I'll take this statement as a concession that you don't want to try to defend your earlier position. Yes, Apple decided they were wrong and switched their stance. Apparently you have also. I'm not an attorney, but I did win this one by virtue of no one defending it.
So, you must just like arguing for argument's sake. Not a very good trait in a lawyer.
You don't think so? Millennia of philosophers might disagree with you.
It seems unfair since the artists since the artists are receiving some benefit of exposure during the trial too. I think it would be fair to have some sort of reduced fees during the trial period to recognize the fact that Apple still has expenses related to providing the service.
Can you think of an example of that happening in any other industry?
I'm opening a new store specializing in _____. Please send me some of your inventory at no cost to me so that I can offer it for less or free in order to attract future paying customers to my business. Eventually I'll start paying you for your product.
And do the (mostly) indie artists, who ought to be tickled-pink that ANYONE is giving their music a listen
Oh, that argument again, huh? Hey assholes, you should be THANKING us for stealing your product and using it to enrich our lives at all!
You're an entitled prick. What about the band who went into debt in order to record their first album, and it's getting ready to be released, and the songs are good, and people will listen regardless of whatever Apple does, so they are expecting a quick surge in royalties when it gets released in order to pay off that debt and help launch their career. Now they get to stay in debt because Apple volunteered them for free plays? Wow, thanks Apple! But hey, make sure you thank Apple for letting you stay in debt, you miserable little greedy fucking simpleton musicians!
Again, you're a dick. You should be thanking the artists for creating the music that you choose to listen to, not the other way around.
By the way, I don't own a Mac. I can see by your username that you think everyone should, so you should buy one for me from my local Apple store, and THANK ME for bothering to try it at all!
Slashdot Mirror
The fare is fixed for everyone at a particular time and in a particular place, but the fare can change based on demand/availability or place.
So with uber people don't worry about job longevity, or living wage, or health insurance.
From what I've heard from Uber drivers who are also taxi drivers, Uber pays a little better. One driver said he got 72% of the fare. In the best case, an Uber driver could make a lot of money (if they constantly have passengers for several hours).
A "more urban city"?
adjective: urban
1.
in, relating to, or characteristic of a city or town.
So a city more like a city? What's an example of a less urban city?
I think you're probably referring to Mississippi, not Missouri. Missouri's flag does not contain the battle flag, it is designed after the French flag as a nod to that historical period when Missouri was part of the Louisiana territory.
But, I generally agree with Dave's answer. If there was an empty flag pole for MS with an explanation why then it would certainly send a message. The battle flag is without question a symbol of racism today, it wasn't always but it is today thanks to the KKK and the anti-civil-rights protesters using it as a symbol. Sure, the MS flag pre-dates that era, but the reason why MS is talking about changing their flag is because of the modern meaning, not the historical meaning. There's no reason to have a state flag that includes symbols identified with racism. MS isn't going to move at the same speed as some of the other states though, I don't think their legislature meets for another 6 months or something. Anything that's happening now is just talk, which is probably a good thing. By the time they actually meet to pass any laws hopefully there will be less emotion and more rationality and they can decide how they want to portray their state to visitors without a national media spotlight.
Changing flags is going to do very little to get rid of racism, in fact it might even make the racist members of society stick to their guns that much harder, but it's still an important symbolic gesture that we as a society don't approve of racism. It's most definitely a necessary step in the overall goal of reducing or eliminating racism. For what it's worth, I don't believe that it's even possible to eliminate racism, but removing implicit state sponsorship is an important step regardless.
I ask you to cite some sources for your claims and you tell me to do research? OK, thanks but no thanks. They're your claims, surely you can back them up. One thing I haven't seen is a single justification for secession by any Southern state that does not mention slavery. For your reference, the specific claim I'm looking for evidence for is the first two sentences in your post.
Then tell me why if the Union was all about ending slavery
Who said the Union was all about ending slavery? Did I make that argument somewhere without knowing it? I'm pretty sure the North went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. Slavery was headed out the door anyway, due to the fact that no new states could be slaveholding states. The percentage of slaveholders in the legislature was decreasing and it was only a matter of time. No reason to start a war over that, from the North's point of view anyway (the South had a different point of view). In fact, the North didn't start the war at all.
Shall we remove all confederate items from museums?
No, that's where they belong actually. We should move them there, in fact.
Shall we rewrite the history books so the civil war never happened?
No, that's a stupid idea and you're stupid for asking.
If we remove the confederate flag from everywhere, will that mean slavery never happened?
Obviously not, and thankfully people aren't stupid enough that anyone feels the need to clarify this. Until now.
Removing some flags will not advance the goal of eliminating racism.
That depends, actually. If you're removing the flags from government-owned buildings, so that it no longer appears that the government is sanctioning or sponsoring racism, then it might actually make an impact. Just like the names of streets, schools, parks, etc. If black people didn't have to attend a school that was named after someone who fought specifically to stop them from being able to attend school, or if they didn't have to drive down a street named after someone who fought specifically to stop them from being allowed to drive down that street, then that might also have an effect. Similarly, if white people weren't going to Stonewall Jackson High School, and instead attended Booker T. Washington High School, then maybe they wouldn't feel like they have some innate superiority over black people. If white kids weren't playing in Nathan Bedford Forrest National Park then maybe they wouldn't think so highly of the KKK.
Instead of quibbling about a flag that some people find offensive, why don't we work to fight actual racism.
I agree. A fantastic first step is to remove symbols of racism from government-owned places, and to stop glorifying people who fought to keep slavery in place.
Fighting so hard over symbols while we are mostly ignoring the reality of racism in the US seems counterproductive.
Part of the reality of racism in the US is the fact that racist symbols and people are openly glorified and praised. It's time we move on from that period in our history, let's get those things out of the general public and into a museum where they belong.
If I want a small Confederate Flag for a historical display, or a re-enactment, or other event these retails think I shouldn't be able to get it?
I don't think the retailers really give a shit what you have, they just don't want you to buy this particular thing from them. If you were an entrepreneur you might see an opportunity here.
The US Constitution is just a piece of paper, as are all of the articles in the Bill of Rights - made of the same stuff I wipe my butt with after take a shit.
You wipe your ass with parchment? Doesn't that get expensive, or do you skin the animals and treat the skin yourself?
But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union?
For me personally, if I see a truck drive by with a Confederate flag flying from the back of it I don't think "wow, that guy must really be into states' rights", or "wow, that guy must be a huge Dukes of Hazzard fan". I think "wow, that guy is really proud to be racist". It might not be fair but, yeah, that's the first thing that pops into my head.
Also, please stop talking about "succession" or "succeeding" or whatever. That's not the word.
What freedom of expression are you referring to? The freedom of a state to celebrate a racist history? Does the bill of rights even apply to a state in general? I'm pretty sure they only apply to people. Government speech is regulated differently. I'm not seeing any laws being passed that limit an individual's right of expression here.
Look, secession was about slavery, yes. That doesn't mean that's why the Civil War was fought.
Uh, well, I guess you're technically correct. The South seceded because of slavery, and the war was fought to preserve the Union (because the South was leaving, because of slavery).
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was primarily intended to keep Britain out of the war.
How do you figure? Britain had already outlawed slavery decades before, their people were not about to join a war on the side of a nation fighting to keep slavery as an institution. The US Navy already whipped the British Navy (twice), you think the British Navy was going to try to bust through American lines to help the South (and risk losing Canada)? No. If Britain was going to join the war they would have joined it on the side of the US. They didn't want to do that either, though.
And even if the CF had been banned years ago, those people in Charleston would still be dead.
Prove it. Show your work.
It was because you can't have a "Union" unless there was the right to succeed. Many of the supporters in the North supported the South because if the government became too oppressive, they too wanted the right to succeed.
Stop it, you're making my eyelid twitch. A state has never "succeeded" from the US. The South definitely did not succeed in the war.
All of that hand-waving and justification without a single primary source to back up any claim. Well done sir!
FYI - there is not a single person living who was alive at the time this all happened. The best and only sources we have are primary documents from politicians, generals, and state legislatures. If you want to prove your claims, cite the primary sources that back you up. No one is interested in stories they heard from their grandfather about what his grandfather told him about was his father did. We already have plenty of writings from the time explaining exactly why they decided to secede, so let's stick to those sources.
As I said, slavery was a bit of a political talking point because it sounded so much better than a dispute over tariffs, on both sides. (from your reply below)
Right, because taxes and tariffs never angered and pushed Americans to do anything, did they?
The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. So the 1% had to sell the war to the 99% using different arguments.
One argument I saw was that the existence of an inferior race was necessary for Southern white society. There might have been poor members of white society, but to the elites they were still white, they were still better than the black people, so the elites would still stand up for the poor white people as being "like them". In their view this held society together. If there was not an inferior race then the poor white people would be equal to the black people and would be left out of society. So, they sold the war by saying that, if slavery is outlawed, you're going to be no better than the black people. They contrasted their society with the north, where people of any race might be "greasy mechanics" or whatever, not the "refined gentlemen" that you find in the South. The mechanic in the South was still better than all of the black people he had working for him.
The Civil War was fought over a lot of stuff. Mostly economics, but social issues to a lesser extent.
If by "economics" you mean the ability to legally own black people and count them as property, then you're exactly correct. It was mostly fought over that.
Basically it was offer to the South to keeep their slaves, if only they would not leave the Union!
They still fought the war to leave, so it was not "all about slavery", more about tariffs.
Stop being a revisionist douche. If you're claiming that the South seceded because of tariffs, you better be prepared to show ample firsthand evidence. For you, I've got the Cornerstone Speech by the CSA's Vice President (emphasis is mine):
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it - when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
You'll need to point out where he talks about tariffs, because I'm not seeing it.
Although you're right about Lincoln deciding that he would preserve the Union without freeing a single slave if it were possible to do that. Obviously, that didn't happen though. One of the major reasons the Southern states seceded, and you can verify this in their statements of justification for secession, is because they were upset that the Northern states were no longer following the Fugitive Slave Act where a Northern state would have to return a fugitive slave to their Southern owner. In fact, several Northern states specifically criminalized the return of a fugitive slave. Many Southern states stated that, without that clause in the Constitution, the Southern states would not have agreed to it at all. Now that the Northern states were no longer doing their part to keep slavery around, the South wanted out. More than one state cited estimates of $3 or $4 billion in lost property that this would inflict on their economy. And, of course, when they said "property" they were referring to "people".
Another major reason were the laws which outlawed slavery in new states admitted to the Union. Since the slaveholding states were not able to increase their numbers then their percentage of representation in the Federal government was bound to fall and the writing was already on the wall with regard to the end of slavery. So, they wanted out, they wanted to return to being sovereign nations free to continue practicing their God-given rights to rule over and legally own black people.
It had fuck all to do with tariffs, so don't act like it did.
Even so, the Confederate Battle Flag died out as a symbol until the racist "Dixiecrat" party ran Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate in 1948, and they brought the flag back as the symbol of their party. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s leading up to the surge in the civil rights movement, white Southerner
You left out the Cornerstone Speech, specifically:
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
Savannah, Georgia; March 21, 1861
You probably wouldn't even need firearms -- maybe some kind of EMP pulse and let the drone fall into the fire.
Right, because an EMP is so much easier to create, more portable, and less likely to cause collateral damage than a beanbag fired from a shotgun.
Or a non-lethal shotgun round designed to take out propellers.
Or a beanbag that carries enough kinetic energy to knock it down no matter where you hit it.
a big tangle if nylon fishing line
Right, let's launch loads of plastic all over the place.
I wonder if there's some kind of compromise. Like, drones can scout out the situation until aircraft are deployed, and then must leave the area or risk destruction and/or heavy fines.
Fine, let the fire department fly their scout drones to recon the fire before moving in. As far as civilians are concerned, stay the fuck away and let the professionals do their jobs.
I would argue that this is time-sensitive content, in that new releases can be expected to be played a lot initially but may decline after that. So bands releasing during the trial would be at a disadvantage of not receiving that initial release income. I would also argue that the bands had no say in the agreement with Apple, but I suppose that's their fault for signing over the rights to everything they make.
I had to open the animation in a new window and zoom all the way out to get it to look like anything other than a collection of pixels.
Really? So I can open, for example, a new restaurant where I'm specializing in fresh ingredients, local farms, flying in same-day seafood, etc. I can contact all of my future suppliers and explain that I want them to give me their food for free for three months, so that I can give it to free for all of my future customers. This does not happen in other industries. My suppliers would tell me that it's great if they want to give my stuff away for free, but they still need to pay me to even send it to them in the first place.
In this case the owners of the copyrights made a deal with Apple
You think they made that deal with the full agreement of the artists? Or would this be another example of the music industry in general screwing over the people who actually create the music?
The irony, yes irony, is that you are probably someone who complains when companies do not take a long-term approach and concentrate on quarterly growth.
I'll have to check my OED, but I'm pretty sure that irony isn't defined by what you imagine.
And that's what this argument is; since Apple decided to pay the Artists during the "Trial" period, anyway.
Since you're no longer debating the actual question, I'll take this statement as a concession that you don't want to try to defend your earlier position. Yes, Apple decided they were wrong and switched their stance. Apparently you have also. I'm not an attorney, but I did win this one by virtue of no one defending it.
So, you must just like arguing for argument's sake. Not a very good trait in a lawyer.
You don't think so? Millennia of philosophers might disagree with you.
Now what? How about your license that allows you to speak for every other musician out there?
You think you're the only musician?
You can be a musician AND an entitled prick at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
It seems unfair since the artists since the artists are receiving some benefit of exposure during the trial too. I think it would be fair to have some sort of reduced fees during the trial period to recognize the fact that Apple still has expenses related to providing the service.
Can you think of an example of that happening in any other industry?
I'm opening a new store specializing in _____. Please send me some of your inventory at no cost to me so that I can offer it for less or free in order to attract future paying customers to my business. Eventually I'll start paying you for your product.
And do the (mostly) indie artists, who ought to be tickled-pink that ANYONE is giving their music a listen
Oh, that argument again, huh? Hey assholes, you should be THANKING us for stealing your product and using it to enrich our lives at all!
You're an entitled prick. What about the band who went into debt in order to record their first album, and it's getting ready to be released, and the songs are good, and people will listen regardless of whatever Apple does, so they are expecting a quick surge in royalties when it gets released in order to pay off that debt and help launch their career. Now they get to stay in debt because Apple volunteered them for free plays? Wow, thanks Apple! But hey, make sure you thank Apple for letting you stay in debt, you miserable little greedy fucking simpleton musicians!
Again, you're a dick. You should be thanking the artists for creating the music that you choose to listen to, not the other way around.
By the way, I don't own a Mac. I can see by your username that you think everyone should, so you should buy one for me from my local Apple store, and THANK ME for bothering to try it at all!