Regarding the DVD ripping, I tried that back when Blockbuster had the "unlimited rentals with in store exchange" deal going on.
They would mail you 3 DVDs, then you would rip them, drop them off at the store the next day and they would give you 3 in store rentals for free in exchange, while at the same time mailing you 3 more.
When it first came out, they didn't wait for the in-store rentals to be returned before mailing the next set of discs. They changed that at some point.
So you could get up to 12 movies a week if you were swapping them every 3 days or so.
After a few months, I had several TB of hard drive space full of movies that... frankly weren't likely to ever be watched.
Then Blu-Ray came out, and the quality there was good enough that it made the ripped copies look like crap. I ended up deleting them. That was a LOT of hours of time wasted.
So yea, the idea that I'll have this huge horde ended up being rather silly. Now I just put the PS3 or Ruku on and stream more content than I will ever have time to watch and life is good.
Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, and Hulu Plus might not be perfect, they each have their own issues, they don't have "everything", but boy, they sure have enough stuff to keep my family busy most of the time.
To be honest, I'll admit that a few years ago, I was a frequent user of The Pirate Bay.
Now? For less than $25 a month, I have Amazon Prime Videos, Netflix, and Hulu Plus. They provide me with, more or less, all the video content I really want. (and more than I could ever watch)
There are shows and movies that come and go from these services that I'd *like* to have, but there is so much to watch, I can't be bothered to pirate them anymore.
So finally the media companies are offering a legal service that is approaching *good enough* status. It isn't perfect and yes, there are features we don't have yet that can be had with a pirate copy, but at some point it gets close enough that my time is worth more than messing with it. For the cost of 2 movie tickets a month, we have endless things to watch (and not nearly enough time to watch them all, my "to watch list keeps growing").
I currently have DirecTV in my home, cost is about $100 a month. I'm not quite ready to ditch it yet (because of my kids, Disney and Nick are popular in my house), but I see that day coming. The few things that we watch that aren't on Prime/Netflix/Hulu can be purchased by the episode most of the time, sooner or later, cable/satellite will be really pointless.
I'm sure for many, that day has already arrived. More and more each year are likely to cut that cord, just as they did with landlines. I cut my landline in 2005 and never looked back, so will it be with DirecTV at some point.
Can you provide me with an example of a government that willingly handed back money and power back to the people on anything remotely close to this scale?
Do you think that the government that is in place in the USA now is going to allow itself to be cut in half?
I simply don't believe that electing new people will cause that to happen, there are too many other people with their fingers in the pot.
I'm telling you: elect federal representatives that fight for small government, low taxes, and decentralization.
That is a great idea, except that we don't really have those anymore.
That is part of my point, the Republicans and Democrats are really two sides of the same coin, far more alike than they are different.
The idea that we can elect a third party is nice, but the two major parties are both making sure that is very hard to do. Since they also have control over the media, they can keep the independents out as well.
I wish you well in trying to get an independent elected, but I'm of the opinion that is no longer possible due to the current system.
I'm not "cherry picking which rules I like". I'm saying that these rules don't meet the criteria for how or what the federal government should do.
That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it... the courts long ago disagreed with it. As I said in another post, if you really believe that, your only remaining option at this point is revolution.
This was settled via the legal system a very long time ago, the way the United States works was changed a few times during its history. After the civil war, early in the 20th century, etc.
The federal government has decided it wants to be in charge of almost everything. The courts have largely backed them up.
You don't have to like it, but the ability to change it no longer exists outside of a military coup or revolution.
We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. The difference might seem small sometimes, but it is very important.
We don't vote for each law or rule change, we vote for people to go do it for us. If you don't like what the EPA is doing, tell your Congress person, he/she (and their friends in Congress) have the power to change it. Nothing the EPA does is set in stone, it can all be changed by an act of Congress.
What I insist on is that decisions that affect our lives are made by the lowest level of government that is able to do it
In this case, the EPA is the lowest level of government that can make national environmental rules. The states can make a stricter rule for that state, but can't control what other states do nor can they be less restrictive than what the federal rule is.
If you're against a lot of the things like this that the federal government does, then you lost that battle long ago. I tend to agree in many areas (education, why do we have a federal dept for that?), but the fact is, the courts have long ago ruled that our federal government can do all this.
You are simply not going to change that at this point, short of a revolution.
They need to do whatever it takes to become cashflow positive. Whatever they are doing in life needs to change, or they'll end up starving and/or homeless.
Unlike large companies and governments, people generally can't remain cashflow negative for very long without bad things happening.
At the very least, they'll have their power turned off, which I guess is better than starving, and better than being homeless, but I suspect the percentage of people in America who can afford to keep a roof over their head, afford food, but can't afford power, is pretty darn small.
Probably greater than zero, but if you're so close to the line that the power isn't paid but housing and food are, then you are in real trouble.
Actually, I think BP could have gotten away with more, they frankly stood up and took responsibility and paid out a lot of money without a ton of fighting.
Some of that was for "public relations" reasons, long term image vs. short term cost.
But some of it was also doing the right thing. I give them some credit for that, they could have fought it and fought it and kept it tied up in court for years.
I tend to agree with you in general regarding liability, however keep in mind that the flip side is that we have corporations and limited liability companies for a reason. People would not start companies and take risks with capital if their risk was not limited, many things that we have today would never have been done if the risk was unlimited.
Imagine starting a business, running it for a few years, ending up growing and having to borrow money to pay for the expansion, the bank gives you a loan for capital investment. Then 2008 hits and the economy goes down, your business goes bankrupt.
Should the owner be personally liable for the rest of his life? He may never be able to pay it all back. With such a risk, he wouldn't have started the business (or at least might not have), thus not creating jobs.
Likewise, lets say the company does something that causes a mess, should the owners of the company face unlimited liability for the actions of others? That is what a corporation is for, to limit the liability to just the company assets.
Now, if you're suggesting that only company assets be at risk, fair enough, but the soup lines comment implied to me that you think a person's personal assets should be at risk. People with money don't take those kinds of risks.
I felt the negotiation part was obvious so I didn't mention it. In my world view, you always try diplomacy first, be it with your next door neighbor, or another country. You only resort to violence when all peaceful solutions have been tried and failed.
To go "up a level of government" as someone else put it, requires taking it to the WTO, or UN, or treaty level.
Frankly, it doesn't do us a lot of good to clean up America, only to have most of the stuff we buy at Walmart made in polluting factories overseas.
The first step would be to retire anything imported into the US be manufactured under the same rules as if it had been made here.
Mexico want to sell goods to the US? Then they have to follow EPA rules. Same with China.
It would be a short term shock, as companies suddenly discover that it is expensive to do business under those rules, but a side benefit might be that they would find it easier and cheaper to just move production back to the US. Labor may cost more here, but once the "doing business" rules become even, the labor cost might not be such an issue anymore.
The primary goal is to make sure that goods we consume are made cleanly. Any other benefits are nice, but not a requirement.
The thing is, you can't cherry pick which rules you like. You either have an EPA or you don't. Their goal is to have a clean environment, or it isn't.
Yes, they probably do have bigger fish to fry than this, I agree with that. But this is what they are doing today.
Just like saying, "officer, I might have been speeding, but that other driver did a hit and run". It might be true, but it doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your crime.
Wood burning stoves might not be the most pressing issue the EPA has to deal with, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored either.
The average person doesn't actually know how money and capital works, they just know to pay something towards their credit card each month.
Some people of course do know, but way too many don't. I personally think that a money course (covering investments, capital, credit, etc.) should be provided in school to everyone, it would do a lot of good.
Some would say such evidence exists, some would not.
The problem is that some people will refuse to accept evidence because it goes against their prior assumptions or beliefs, regardless of how "true" it might be.
If you're waiting for everyone to agree, you'll be waiting awhile.
Take global warming (or climate change). Some people believe the evidence is clear and unmistakable, others believe it is a bunch of hogwash. You will never find evidence that will convince everyone.
The problem is, based on your post, that you're waiting for evidence that *you* personally believe. While that is a nice idea, that isn't how it works, nor should it.
You are correct... the private sector isn't all that interested in spending money to save the environment, there is no profit in that.
When things should be done for the benefit of everyone, but there is no profit to be made, you need either non-profits or the government to do it, or it won't get done.
Would you prefer to not pay the power bill and have no electricity?
The idea is that the loan payment is the same or lower than the savings on your power bill. So you are just changing who you pay the money to, not paying more each month.
In the long run, you'll pay less because the loan will go away but the power savings will stay.
I am not married to any one solution, I just think that providing people a way to upgrade old systems with new systems, at no additional out of pocket cost to them (since it saves energy and thus has a lower monthly bill), is a good idea.
It is a good idea for them in the long run (lower bills and a capital improvement to their home) and a good idea for all of us (less energy, less pollution, less waste).
How we get there is less important than actually getting there.
Your mistake is to think that I'm trying to ban wood burning stoves.
After reading more about them, I actually want MORE of them. But I want the kind that burn cleanly, burn hot, and don't emit smoke and particles into the air.
Wood is FAR more carbon-neutral than any fossil fuel, we can plant farms of trees, powered by the Sun, burn them, then plant more trees, perfectly reasonable way to heat homes, it is actually the ultimate solar power source (with built in battery).
What I have a problem with are dirty stoves that don't burn cleanly and make a mess of things in the environment.
The EPA made the right call here, you can have your wood burning stove so long as it meets *this* standard. Just like your car has to meet various standards, environmental regulation didn't get rid of cars, it just made them cleaner.
You're right, I don't. But I do know what's best for me, or at least I *think* I know what's best for me.
If I think that what *you're* doing is bad for me, then I'm going to want you to stop, because you stopping is what's best for me.
The irony is that you called me a liberal (or implied it). I'm so far from a liberal it isn't funny. I can't stand most liberals who really do think they know what's best for you.
Pollute the planet that I live on? Yep, you've got to stop doing that. It harms me and my family, so you will stop, or those of us who care will do whatever it takes to make it stop. If you could just pollute the one spot that you live on and have it effect no one else? I wouldn't care.
Of course, it seems that many people missed the point.
If I have no government to make the rules and enforce them (lets say we do away with the EPA), then I come over and ask nicely, "please clean this up and get rid of it.
When you tell me to go pound sand and get lost, then what do I do?
I thought the above part was obvious, but based on replies it seems not. If you refuse to clean up the leak and tell me to get lost, and I have no government to go to, then what do I do?
Thus the "shoot you" answer, I have no remaining solutions at that point. My point was that the EPA is a prefered solution to the "shoot you" solution. At least in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
They would mail you 3 DVDs, then you would rip them, drop them off at the store the next day and they would give you 3 in store rentals for free in exchange, while at the same time mailing you 3 more.
When it first came out, they didn't wait for the in-store rentals to be returned before mailing the next set of discs. They changed that at some point.
So you could get up to 12 movies a week if you were swapping them every 3 days or so.
After a few months, I had several TB of hard drive space full of movies that... frankly weren't likely to ever be watched.
Then Blu-Ray came out, and the quality there was good enough that it made the ripped copies look like crap. I ended up deleting them. That was a LOT of hours of time wasted.
So yea, the idea that I'll have this huge horde ended up being rather silly. Now I just put the PS3 or Ruku on and stream more content than I will ever have time to watch and life is good.
Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, and Hulu Plus might not be perfect, they each have their own issues, they don't have "everything", but boy, they sure have enough stuff to keep my family busy most of the time.
Now? For less than $25 a month, I have Amazon Prime Videos, Netflix, and Hulu Plus. They provide me with, more or less, all the video content I really want. (and more than I could ever watch)
There are shows and movies that come and go from these services that I'd *like* to have, but there is so much to watch, I can't be bothered to pirate them anymore.
So finally the media companies are offering a legal service that is approaching *good enough* status. It isn't perfect and yes, there are features we don't have yet that can be had with a pirate copy, but at some point it gets close enough that my time is worth more than messing with it. For the cost of 2 movie tickets a month, we have endless things to watch (and not nearly enough time to watch them all, my "to watch list keeps growing").
I currently have DirecTV in my home, cost is about $100 a month. I'm not quite ready to ditch it yet (because of my kids, Disney and Nick are popular in my house), but I see that day coming. The few things that we watch that aren't on Prime/Netflix/Hulu can be purchased by the episode most of the time, sooner or later, cable/satellite will be really pointless.
I'm sure for many, that day has already arrived. More and more each year are likely to cut that cord, just as they did with landlines. I cut my landline in 2005 and never looked back, so will it be with DirecTV at some point.
Can you provide me with an example of a government that willingly handed back money and power back to the people on anything remotely close to this scale?
Do you think that the government that is in place in the USA now is going to allow itself to be cut in half?
I simply don't believe that electing new people will cause that to happen, there are too many other people with their fingers in the pot.
Just because we have elections doesn't mean we have any real choice in who is elected.
I'm telling you: elect federal representatives that fight for small government, low taxes, and decentralization.
That is a great idea, except that we don't really have those anymore.
That is part of my point, the Republicans and Democrats are really two sides of the same coin, far more alike than they are different.
The idea that we can elect a third party is nice, but the two major parties are both making sure that is very hard to do. Since they also have control over the media, they can keep the independents out as well.
I wish you well in trying to get an independent elected, but I'm of the opinion that is no longer possible due to the current system.
As for the 20th century, the establishment of the income tax, the federal reserve bank, etc...
By all means, keep fighting it if you like, I'm simply saying that it won't accomplish anything. But it is your right to try. I wish you luck...
We have, perhaps, use the "shoot people" solution too often in the past 50 years, and over time that pisses people off.
So I actually agree with you, that option has to be reserved for when all other options have failed and as a very last resort.
I'm not "cherry picking which rules I like". I'm saying that these rules don't meet the criteria for how or what the federal government should do.
That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it... the courts long ago disagreed with it. As I said in another post, if you really believe that, your only remaining option at this point is revolution.
This was settled via the legal system a very long time ago, the way the United States works was changed a few times during its history. After the civil war, early in the 20th century, etc.
The federal government has decided it wants to be in charge of almost everything. The courts have largely backed them up.
You don't have to like it, but the ability to change it no longer exists outside of a military coup or revolution.
That fails to be a democracy.
We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. The difference might seem small sometimes, but it is very important.
We don't vote for each law or rule change, we vote for people to go do it for us. If you don't like what the EPA is doing, tell your Congress person, he/she (and their friends in Congress) have the power to change it. Nothing the EPA does is set in stone, it can all be changed by an act of Congress.
What I insist on is that decisions that affect our lives are made by the lowest level of government that is able to do it
In this case, the EPA is the lowest level of government that can make national environmental rules. The states can make a stricter rule for that state, but can't control what other states do nor can they be less restrictive than what the federal rule is.
If you're against a lot of the things like this that the federal government does, then you lost that battle long ago. I tend to agree in many areas (education, why do we have a federal dept for that?), but the fact is, the courts have long ago ruled that our federal government can do all this.
You are simply not going to change that at this point, short of a revolution.
They need to do whatever it takes to become cashflow positive. Whatever they are doing in life needs to change, or they'll end up starving and/or homeless.
Unlike large companies and governments, people generally can't remain cashflow negative for very long without bad things happening.
At the very least, they'll have their power turned off, which I guess is better than starving, and better than being homeless, but I suspect the percentage of people in America who can afford to keep a roof over their head, afford food, but can't afford power, is pretty darn small.
Probably greater than zero, but if you're so close to the line that the power isn't paid but housing and food are, then you are in real trouble.
For everyone else, the plan is reasonable one.
Some of that was for "public relations" reasons, long term image vs. short term cost.
But some of it was also doing the right thing. I give them some credit for that, they could have fought it and fought it and kept it tied up in court for years.
I tend to agree with you in general regarding liability, however keep in mind that the flip side is that we have corporations and limited liability companies for a reason. People would not start companies and take risks with capital if their risk was not limited, many things that we have today would never have been done if the risk was unlimited.
Imagine starting a business, running it for a few years, ending up growing and having to borrow money to pay for the expansion, the bank gives you a loan for capital investment. Then 2008 hits and the economy goes down, your business goes bankrupt.
Should the owner be personally liable for the rest of his life? He may never be able to pay it all back. With such a risk, he wouldn't have started the business (or at least might not have), thus not creating jobs.
Likewise, lets say the company does something that causes a mess, should the owners of the company face unlimited liability for the actions of others? That is what a corporation is for, to limit the liability to just the company assets.
Now, if you're suggesting that only company assets be at risk, fair enough, but the soup lines comment implied to me that you think a person's personal assets should be at risk. People with money don't take those kinds of risks.
I felt the negotiation part was obvious so I didn't mention it. In my world view, you always try diplomacy first, be it with your next door neighbor, or another country. You only resort to violence when all peaceful solutions have been tried and failed.
To go "up a level of government" as someone else put it, requires taking it to the WTO, or UN, or treaty level.
Frankly, it doesn't do us a lot of good to clean up America, only to have most of the stuff we buy at Walmart made in polluting factories overseas.
The first step would be to retire anything imported into the US be manufactured under the same rules as if it had been made here.
Mexico want to sell goods to the US? Then they have to follow EPA rules. Same with China.
It would be a short term shock, as companies suddenly discover that it is expensive to do business under those rules, but a side benefit might be that they would find it easier and cheaper to just move production back to the US. Labor may cost more here, but once the "doing business" rules become even, the labor cost might not be such an issue anymore.
The primary goal is to make sure that goods we consume are made cleanly. Any other benefits are nice, but not a requirement.
Yes, they probably do have bigger fish to fry than this, I agree with that. But this is what they are doing today.
Just like saying, "officer, I might have been speeding, but that other driver did a hit and run". It might be true, but it doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your crime.
Wood burning stoves might not be the most pressing issue the EPA has to deal with, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored either.
The average person doesn't actually know how money and capital works, they just know to pay something towards their credit card each month.
Some people of course do know, but way too many don't. I personally think that a money course (covering investments, capital, credit, etc.) should be provided in school to everyone, it would do a lot of good.
The problem is that some people will refuse to accept evidence because it goes against their prior assumptions or beliefs, regardless of how "true" it might be.
If you're waiting for everyone to agree, you'll be waiting awhile.
Take global warming (or climate change). Some people believe the evidence is clear and unmistakable, others believe it is a bunch of hogwash. You will never find evidence that will convince everyone.
The problem is, based on your post, that you're waiting for evidence that *you* personally believe. While that is a nice idea, that isn't how it works, nor should it.
Now when did I go and insult you?
Adults solve their problems through negotiation and cooperation.
Yes, but what happens when the person (or company or country) that is polluting isn't behaving like an adult?
When things should be done for the benefit of everyone, but there is no profit to be made, you need either non-profits or the government to do it, or it won't get done.
The idea is that the loan payment is the same or lower than the savings on your power bill. So you are just changing who you pay the money to, not paying more each month.
In the long run, you'll pay less because the loan will go away but the power savings will stay.
I am not married to any one solution, I just think that providing people a way to upgrade old systems with new systems, at no additional out of pocket cost to them (since it saves energy and thus has a lower monthly bill), is a good idea.
It is a good idea for them in the long run (lower bills and a capital improvement to their home) and a good idea for all of us (less energy, less pollution, less waste).
How we get there is less important than actually getting there.
After reading more about them, I actually want MORE of them. But I want the kind that burn cleanly, burn hot, and don't emit smoke and particles into the air.
Wood is FAR more carbon-neutral than any fossil fuel, we can plant farms of trees, powered by the Sun, burn them, then plant more trees, perfectly reasonable way to heat homes, it is actually the ultimate solar power source (with built in battery).
What I have a problem with are dirty stoves that don't burn cleanly and make a mess of things in the environment.
The EPA made the right call here, you can have your wood burning stove so long as it meets *this* standard. Just like your car has to meet various standards, environmental regulation didn't get rid of cars, it just made them cleaner.
You don't know what's best for me.
You're right, I don't. But I do know what's best for me, or at least I *think* I know what's best for me.
If I think that what *you're* doing is bad for me, then I'm going to want you to stop, because you stopping is what's best for me.
The irony is that you called me a liberal (or implied it). I'm so far from a liberal it isn't funny. I can't stand most liberals who really do think they know what's best for you.
Pollute the planet that I live on? Yep, you've got to stop doing that. It harms me and my family, so you will stop, or those of us who care will do whatever it takes to make it stop. If you could just pollute the one spot that you live on and have it effect no one else? I wouldn't care.
I'd come over and ask nicely, you'd tell me to "get lost" and that you have the "freedom" to do whatever you want.
I'd leave nicely without another word, then shoot you in the back when you're not looking. Then clean up the leak myself.
Problem solved.
If I have no government to make the rules and enforce them (lets say we do away with the EPA), then I come over and ask nicely, "please clean this up and get rid of it.
When you tell me to go pound sand and get lost, then what do I do?
I thought the above part was obvious, but based on replies it seems not. If you refuse to clean up the leak and tell me to get lost, and I have no government to go to, then what do I do?
Thus the "shoot you" answer, I have no remaining solutions at that point. My point was that the EPA is a prefered solution to the "shoot you" solution. At least in my opinion.