Everyone who has been keeping their money under their mattress since 1913 should be outraged over the depreciation of the US dollar.
So should anyone who has been trying to save their money safely to invest in a home (say towards a 20% down payment), prepare for a future business, or leave money for their heirs. All central banks discourage savings and encourage "investments" when not everyone should be taking a hefty risk on their savings.
For someone who doesn't have a good idea of "what the Fed really is, what is does, and what it is supposed to do", you are exceptionally critical of the Fed.
Oh, I know what the Fed does, I meant to say that no books I've read explain a central bank properly. They're legally mandated thieves, to put it lightly.
If British government didn't promise to guarantee all deposits at Northern Rock, it would likely have failed. But was it a bailout of the bank, or were they simply protecting the banking system? And while member banks hold shares of the Federal Reserve Banks, they and the Board of Governors remain under the oversight of the President and Congress.
The depositors at Northern Rock were, sorry to say, idiots. I would _never_ put my money into a fractional reserve bank.
In a full-reserve bank (which currently does not really exist), you put your money into a bank as a non-loanable deposit for security. You trade maybe 0.5% a year in losses to secure that wealth from theft. If you felt like you wanted to take some risk, you could give the bank a desired risk environment to invest your money into (or loan into, as it is), and you could accept a chance of gain but also a chance of loss.
Fractional reserve banking is fraudulent, it is theft, and it should be criminal. The idea is criminal for anyone to perform except for banks licensed by the State or Federal governments. Just because "everyone is doing it" does not mean it is good nor moral.
All banks are bankrupt -- if each person that visits Slashdot this week was to withdraw all their savings, checking accounts, money markets and CDs (even at a penalty), many banks in the U.S. would be insolvent. They don't have the funds that they tell you they have, because they're only legally supposed to keep a tiny reserve (8-11% generally). The Central Bank enables them to appear solvent by loaning them money "overnight" (even though the new overnight regulations can last 30 days, and can be renewed indefinitely) in case of depositors demanding _their_ money.
Sorry, not me. I don't partake in the fiat monetary system you call a bank.
I've read dozens of books (over 30, for sure) on central banking theory, and none of them have given a completely clear and transparent picture of what the Fed really is, what is does, and what it is supposed to do. In the end, all central banks have one customer: member banks (the banks you and I go to), and the central banks have one policy: save their buddies in the member banks against any malinvestment or market change.
The Fed isn't here to protect the value of OUR money (in fact, since the Fed's creation in 1913, the US dollar is about 95-96% devalued), and it isn't here to protect our investments or savings.
Competition happens because people look at the risk for a given venture, and the reward. In case of OSes, the reward is huge, but the risk is huger.
Microsoft, while not the greatest company in the world, has spent billions on continuous R&D to make sure that their software "works" with the majority of hardware out there. Third party hardware develops know the Microsoft system, and have a fairly "easy" reach to develop drivers, plus a huge market base.
There IS room for another OS or two, but no one wants to try to put one to market. Not yet. Microsoft won't be at the top forever, but it isn't like they've really used excessive force to win -- they did it little by little. Remember DOS and Flight Simulator? Remember Windows 2.x bundled "free" with the HP ScanJet Plus? I do. Microsoft 3.1 for Workgroups, which included "free" networking? They were fighting tooth and nail to beat LANtastic, DesqView, and others -- and they won because they gave people what they wanted.
We've had thousands of desktops of clients that attempted to switch to something better. The employees didn't want it. The bundled stuff can be removed fairly easily, or replaced just as easily. Installing Windows XP on a notebook is a 30 minute project, and with a ghosted copy with other stuff preinstalled (along with DriverPack), it's maybe a 40 minute install. It just works, and it works good enough to support what the users seem to want.
Most users are not geeks. Most don't even know Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. Most don't care if its Firefox or Internet Explorer, and would have no idea if CSS render badly, or if a site didn't load for a given reason, because most sites just work.
I'm not a fanboy, but I know what makes me money, and I know what makes my clients money in productivty and efficiency saved.
The EU is wrong, here. Forcing the market to change just makes things MORE expensive, not less.
Yes, your loving anarcho-capitalist, me, loudly pronounces his support of this great law.
It is my belief that the best way to get rid of government is to let it collapse on itself. We need more taxes, more laws, more regulations and more actions to be considered crimes -- at all levels of government. Not only would all this new legislation and income create a more massive bureaucracy that will just stifle its ability to do anything right, but it will help open the eyes of every being in seeing what a waste government is.
I love adding new non-violent action laws to the books: all it does is make the black market that much more fruitful for those willing to take the risk. Why just stop at copying the CD and DVD to another CD or DVD? Let's make it illegal to copy ANY information off of a CD or DVD into any other form, including RAM, so that just playing it is wrong.
"Did you see that new movie? It's gorgeous, bright and shiny, and the case is really nice!"
"What's the plot?"
"I don't know, I didn't want to risk playing it. But the DVD is nice!!!"
I was a founder of Deep Productions, one of the Chicago's first rendering farms about 15 years ago. I recall having dozens of Pentium 60s (Were they called Pentium Pros back then?) with 512MB of RAM (if I remember correctly) running a variety of rendering programs (usually 3D Studio, but others based on clients needs). IIRC, a single raytraced frame took about 20 minutes. 2 dozen machines churning full speed were able to render approximately 60 fields per hour, or 1 second of animation in an hour.
I exited that market and Deep eventually moved out of that field entirely, but looking back, I can't believe we made the money that we made at the time. Now that ray tracing is getting closer to real time, it gives me a few minutes pause to realize how much technology has changed in ways that the AVERAGE consumer has no understanding of -- and doesn't need to. In the end, I'm glad that so many entrepreneurs take risks so that consumers needs (and yes, entertainment for some is a need) and wants are fulfilled, without those consumers even knowing the process necessary to get there.
I'm sure my site idea has legality problems, but I wonder...
Constitutionally, there can be no laws that prevent a person's right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is a 1st Amendment restriction to government's power. I'd say that contacting the government about your grievance is protected speech, even if 10,000 or 100,000 are all contacting said government at once.
Secondly, the cause of government telling people to "shut up or we'll arrest you" might produce enough concern to have a peaceful revolution against the thugs who decide what we can say and do, and where we can travel, without their approval.
I guess that's a solution, but my idea is way more like digg+slashdot:
1. You get harassed by a company or a public official. 2. You post your details about the harassment, as well as any contact information by the harasser, as well as any proof of the harassment (video, audio, photos, receipts, etc). 3. People review the harassment, make initial phone calls to check on it, etc. 4. Harassments are moderated up or down, reviews are moderated up or down. Negative poster karma is displayed (people who lie, post their ex-girlfriend's contact info, etc). 5. Top harassments on each page get the most response from the site visitors. Maybe Michael Righi's case brings 10,000 phone calls a day to the Brookfield, OH police department, and every manager's home and cell phone per day. Issue solved.
I recall when Ron Paul (sorry, had to bring it up) was going to be uninvited from Michigan's GOP gatherings. All it took was a few thousands phone calls a day to get that resolved in a matter of days. Sounds like an excellent way to use one official's negative service to the public's advantage.
His answer is a cop out. He did not, in any situation, need his family to testify on his behalf. That's ridiculous.
The cop, and the store manager, and the security person, all need to take an oath to tell the truth. If, and only if, they tell lies on the stand, THEN he might need his family to counter their testimony. The threat of having the available is all he needs to keep the others truthful.
He won nothing. He gained nothing. The precedent he said was already set was NOT set because it is obvious that no one learned from the previous precedents. Even if a precedent is set that would win you a case in court, we need precedents set that remind the thugs of their limited powers.
It seems to me that this case would be a quick one in court. If he believes there are judicial precedents, brings those up and let the judge consider them to end the trial quickly.
Here's the downside: By dropping the case, the People lose because their rights are hampered by extended government powers. By winning the case, the People lose because they will be taxed to pay for the thug who violated Righi's rights.
What we need are direct penalties for all individuals if they violate the rights of another. Police should not be able to hide behind corporate liability limitations (neither should Circuit City employees, or any employees or manager). We also need to make sure that public officials (anyone on the public dole) should have to face 3X the penalties for a crime as if committed by a non-public individual.
Many years ago, when the web was still quiet and tiny, we had a little group of friends who promised to follow through with customer service and govenrment issues for one another. Since we all had various newsletters, writing gigs, and other media-style connections, we had the ability to contact people giving bad service via the phone and inquire to the service issues from a media perspective.
Of course it was more a joke than a reality, but as time grew, we found that hundreds of people calling businesses and police departments inquiring about "Any new information?" was a great way to get things fixed. I can recall one incident with Circuit City (of all places!) where the managers on duty received nearly 200 phone calls a day from "media inquiries" relating to a direct lie from a sales person to one of our group. It only took 2 weeks of "Any new information" for the company to back down and repair the situation, at which point there was no more news to cover.
Now I know harassment is a "crime," but why isn't there a site like phonedot.org? Instead of the slashdot effect, you can have the phonedot effect. Give it digg like capabilities so bloggers and other media contributors can vote up or down various customer service issues, and then let these thousands or hundreds of thousands of bloggers make their calls to see if there is "Any new information?" until the issue is settled.
When my previous city refused to get rid of the city sticker for vehicles, I typed up a newsletter and printed 30,000 of them to distribute. The newsletter had every phone number of every city official (home, work, cell). It only took 2 months of massive phone inquiries for the city council to end the city sticker harassment, and I think it was a net gain for those who called to inquire. Fight idiotic harassment with idiotic harassment.
A happy worker is a productive worker. If you save that 1/2 hour a day and the employee is constantly wishing for the fancy interface they -know-they could have, you are probably losing productivity, not gaining.
I've spent _years_ researching desktop productivity (not in scientific environments, though) and while this may be true, I find that workers tend to be more happy in the long run by having things work as fast as they can. A slower PC worker may not notice a difference, but someone who has used PC efficiently for decades tends to be able to knock things out quicker if they don't have the micropauses that many PCs have. Many people don't even notice these pauses, but more often than not people have commented how fast my notebooks are when they use them. My loaner notebooks (I loan them out freely to clients who need them for short term projects) are generally older PCs -- 2-4 years old, but they fly because they're properly tweaked to only run what is needed, with the most stable drivers, and are clean-swept after every loan period. It isn't the overall speed of the units that matter when it comes to "Wow that's fast!" but reducing those micropauses that are easy to miss, but also easy to see when you work on a relatively stable PC.
I've had good luck with XP when it is installed properly, without the overhead of most installations. I also go out on a limb and don't run real-time virus or spyware scanners, because I include a full-restore DVD with each loaner (if someone screws up the PC, the reinstall is very fast). I would not be surprised if my more efficient clients save up to an hour a day over the micro and slightly longer pauses that they have on their regular PCs (because of all the junk software, clutter and faulty drivers they're using). When I've played with Vista, those pauses come significantly more often, or are built into the OS as a "feature."
Give me menus and prompts that appear instantly, not in fast slow-motion.
This past week I picked up my first Vista notebook (on purpose). All our previous workstations were either XP or Vista replaced by XP -- and our clients are also XP. But in the past month, I've noticed quite a few clients running Vista on their notebooks they bring in from home, and that's usually a deciding factor for near-term upgrades.
My company has a "Not till 2008" stance on Vista. I've had horrible experiences with it and third party apps since its release, which is expected. The last week since running Vista, I have to say that the interface does LOOK nicer, but it is counter-intuitive for those who are used to the old keyboard commands to get to places. I'm sure its an easy transition, but I can't figure out the benefits, yet.
Here's the downside: while I don't see any efficiency, the few clients who are choosing to stick with it are doing so because of the cool factor. When I explain to them that the 0.25 second "pauses" for all the flashiness (which can be disabled, of course) add up to a 1/2 hour a day in lost productivity, they don't care: it just looks cool! Engineers and designers we work with hate it, but the managements and CxOs that are our primary market love it. Ugh. Vista: The Ferrari of Operating Systems, and just as costly to repair when it breaks down, often.
When it comes to "fighting crime," the answer is much deeper and more complex than just trying to figure out how to use public force to prevent what ends up being a private property issue.
I personally do believe in John Lott's research that more guns means less crime, but I don't think that is the answer -- just handing out guns. When you have responsible gun owners (which can include children, too), and a responsible knowledge of what constitutes private property, you increase a criminal's risk in going forward with a crime. A property owner that is responsible has many reasons to use defensive force to protect their property; a public officer has almost no reason to stop a crime from being committed, and if the property owners aren't aware that they are the first line of defense, there will never be enough cops to stop crime.
For me, before we even really discuss decriminalization of guns, we have to consider how many crimes may be committed because of non-violent actions that have been criminalized. How many crimes are committed in protecting a black market of goods from one competitor to another? Drug sales are non-violent (two consenting parties bartering), as is prostitution, gambling, and a plethora of other non-violent actions that are called criminal. These create massive black markets where guns are the answer to protecting markets. By removing non-violent actions as crimes, you can greatly decrease these black markets -- bringing down the crimes associated with protecting those markets.
In addition to reducing black market crimes, decriminalizing said non-violent actions has a long term effect of putting fewer people in prison. As someone who has known more than one person go to prison for a minor offense only to come out with more ideas for committing more crime, I would believe that we'd have fewer violent criminals if we put fewer non-violent criminals in jail. Again, this is a long term effect that you can't judge as fruitful overnight.
We need more private property freedom -- that's the end goal. When people are free to protect their property, and free to use their property in non-violent bartering, you also have more reason for people to defend their property rather than put hope in the cops. I have no hope in the cops: not the traffic cops, not the anti-gang cops, not the anti-drug cops. I have faith in myself, and my direct family and friends.
You are asking the US Government to extend rights reserved for citizens to non-citizens, under the guise of holding the Government accountable to the Constitution...which is a stretch under any imagination.
I am not asking any government to extend rights to anyone -- governments do not extend rights. Governments are given certain powers, and are restricted from anything beyond those powers. The Constitution delineates the powers the Federal government has, powers it can use over citizens or aliens within its demarcation. Anything beyond those powers are implicitly excluded from said government in performing acts against anyone else -- citizens, aliens, foreigners, etc. When the Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging a person's freedom to bear arms, it means ALL persons. Congress can't make a law saying "Citizen A can't bear arms" just as it can't make a law saying "Alien B living on Country B can't bear arms."
Citizens have these rights because they have stood up and fought (and died) for these rights, and they didn't do it just so non-citizens could have the same rights. Non-citizens get to enjoy the rights of their own governments. They have no explicit right to be protected from our government. That's why we have diplomats, and yes, Armies.
No, people have these rights for being born. When you "fight" for a right, you are only fighting a GOVERNMENT from taking that right away. Terrorists can't take away your friend except through murdering you. Government takes away your freedom just by being in existence. _ALL FREEDOMS COME FROM REMOVING POWER FROM GOVERNMENT_ or overthrowing the government.
No one has a right to be protected from the government IF the government is absolutely operating within its specified limited powers. Sending troops to other countries without a declaration of war is a crime, it is treason, and all who partake in this crime should be brought to trial, from the soldier to the CiC.
I travel a LOT, sometimes internationally, and I've always been paranoid enough to print my own book covers. I own a print shop, but I'm sure anyone can crank out their own book covers for under $1.00 at work or at home.
My typical book cover usually says "Word of the Day" with other harmless jargon under it, and on the spine. When those morons/monkeys (not ad hominem attack, the employees really are morons) go through my bags, they only look at the fake cover.
I visited Iraq before the first Persian police action, and I visited 2 churches and 2 synagogues there. One area we stayed in was primarily Jewish, with a myriad of Muslim and Christian-run stores. I saw no fascism in those towns.
I have regular lunches with Muslim clientele, as well as Jewish clientele, and neither party has any knowledge of anyone within their families abroad who hate me, or most other American citizens. The few who do have hatred hate the United States for occupations and denial of freedoms, not for promoting of freedom or securing its own border. I also own property in a primarily-Muslim region in Mumbai, India, and I've never met a Muslim who hates me, or my citizenship.
I'm not sure why Gitmo is dedicated to Muslims, alone. We've been fighting undeclared wars for 60+ years, against Christians, Jews, Muslims, Athiests, Hindus, Sikhs, and many other believers of various faiths. I'm a anarcho-pantelist Christian, and I find the United States one of the least Christian, most vile and evil governments in the world because nothing it does has any basis in the New Testament or the actions and words of Jesus. There is no just war in the New Testament, there is no judgment towards others there, either. If you're so fearful of Muslims, maybe it is your job to preach to them rather than kill them with the sword?
Surely you don't seriously believe that just because a war is not declared on an official document does not mean a war does not exist.
A war does not exist. Without a Declaration of War by Congress, or a Letter of Marque by Congress towards an individual or individuals, no U.S. citizen has any right to harm another person's rights or property. The military in Iraq is trespassing. The soldier who pulls the trigger against another person has committed murder, UNLESS that soldier was vacationing and truly defending themselves. If the solder was not vacationing, but were trespassing, it is murder, and trespass, and they should be bound until Iraq justice system can bring them to trial.
And "enemies" are enemies in practice... not by some legal definition. Al-Qaeda declared war on us, and attacked us several times... and in practice has been an enemy of the US for over a decade and a half now.
Wrong, Al Qaeda did not declare war on me or you. They declared war against the United States government, not the People. They did not attack me, nor you, because "they" are not within our borders. The men who attacked a building, and killed thousands, should have been tried in court had they survived. They didn't survive. Anyone who admits culpability in the crime of 9/11 should have a Letter of Marque issued against them by Congress, so they can be brought to justice. Anyone else should be left alone.
If a State declares war on the United States, it should be up to Congress to debate declaring a war back, or considering just leaving it be. As far as it stands today, every troops in a foreign country that has not been invited by that foreign country's leaders, is trespassing.
If the United States wants to go to war, like in World War II, there are 3 simple steps to do so:
1. Debate a Declaration of War in Congress. Let the constituents voice their opinions. 2. Raise funds for the war by selling war bonds. Remember those? They exist, but no one wants them. 3. Raise a militia of volunteers -- truly unpaid men who understand that they are defending against a real act of war that is invading the borders of their State or country. Paid troops is a ridiculous idea, because it becomes a job, not a moral decision to protect their home and family.
Further, your contention (in a previous post) that it, as well as the Bill of Rights applies to "all humans" is simply false.
It applies to the U.S. Federal government and the Constitutional restriction on it to understand that those rights belong to all humans. This means that the U.S. Federal government can not restrain those inherent rights from ANYONE it deals with, locally or abroad. It doesn't mean the Federal government must defend those rights outside of its borders, but it must abide by the restrictions of power against anyone it mingles with.
And why there is even a debate regarding the conveyance of the rights enjoyed by US Citizens in peacetime towards enemies and enemy combatants of the US, outside of the US, in a time of war, is simply beyond me.
Considering the last declaration of war by the U.S. Congress was World War II, we have no enemies currently. We are currently "at peace" since there is no formal declaration of war, so the U.S. government's actions in other countries must be facilitated as if we were not at war, which we aren't, since there was no formal declaration.
If we were at war, I can understand the U.S. government forming an army, a navy and and air force from the militias it calls up, and then using those military forces to win the war it has declared, within the specifications of the declaration by Congress. As there is no war right now, there is no ability of the U.S. government to not abide by the Constitutional restricts on the Federal government. Those rights are inherent rights, and the Feds have no power to restrict those rights of anyone, citizen or alien.
You're quoting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- which dictates that the individual States are also barred from usurping the inherent rights of the citizens, yes. But the Constitution itself was not written to give citizens rights, but to stop the Federal government from harming those specific rights of ANYONE it involves itself with -- foreign, domestic, citizen, alien. Have you read the Constitution, the debates before it, and the Articles of Confederation?
Thanks for your clarification, I concur there. To clarify your clarification, though, ALL rights that "we" and the founding fathers considered inherent are rights afforded to all humans, regardless of citizenship and government. Government should never have the power to censor speech or opinion, nor the power to search your person or property with proof and a warrant, nor the power to restrict what arms you own or carry, nor the power to jail/enslave someone without giving a reason for it -- and allowing that person, citizen or not, the ability to defend themselves quickly and with a jury of their peers (again, not necessarily citizens).
Government doesn't give you freedom, it doesn't grant you rights, and it isn't there to protect you from other individuals. The Federal government is there for four reasons: to PROTECT the inherent rights of individuals from any government or State, to coin money in gold or silver only, to call up militias of individuals in order to defend against a real attack within the borders of any State, and to defend against piracy on the high seas.
I stopped reading when you said that only U.S. citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus. Sorry, but the Constitution was not written with the word "citizen" used often. The Constitution applies to the U.S. Federal government, and how it interacts with ALL people EVERYWHERE.
The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans, and are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution just reminds the Federal government that it can not revoke these rights, or change them. Habeas Corpus is an inherent right for all humans that we must demand to keep fully removed from any government's desire to remove it or restrain it.
For me, I keep track of all the various currencies and commodities, and plot my own charts based on comparing two currencies in what they can buy in a given commodity. My favorite 4 commodities are gold (1 ounce), silver (20 ounce), oil (1 barrel) and a barrel of goods I created.
Every currency, over time, is being inflated via credit expansion or money expansion. This inflation of new currency or credit causes prices to go up in various markets. The graphics I talk about above show the destruction of money by the various scheming central banks. Some of my charts also recalculate currencies based on the daily trade ratio, so you can actually see when currencies trade at par, and the commodity graphs show all currencies falling moreso in the last 3 years.
Did you just imply that you would be perfectly happy to be remembered in the same vain as Hitler or Stalin ?
Definitely not, but I am just comparing how some people who have sociopathic tendencies should want any sort of coverage in order to be promoted as an "expert" in their given industry. Hitler and Stalin were, in the long run, experts in the industry of death -- but I can't say they're worse than the current experts in the industry of death to become more powerful.
For those who want to be experts in the industry of artistic control and censorship (a la Jack Thompson), any sort of promotion of themselves is a gain for them because it gives them a wider portfolio of listeners, even if those listeners hate them.
How do I want to be remembered? I really don't, I just want my thoughts and opinions to be part of the formulation of thoughts and opinions of generations to come, even if I am forgotten and never quoted once.
There is nothing better, in my opinion, than having others ridicule you, parody you, or even work to convince others that you're evil or crazy. Opinions that polarize attitudes in readers/viewers is a great way to get people to search out the topic, and possibly come across the ridiculed party's opinion on a given subject.
It's like slashdot's "friend/foe" system. I probably have more foes than friends, but I appreciate both equally, and might even have more appreciation for those who consider me their foes than their friends. If someone rates me a foe, it definitely gives SOME people an interest in "who is this guy that is so hated" moreso than "who is this guy with so many friends." When people trackback to my blog posts with aggressive posts against my opinion, it also brings in a new market of readers to peruse my topics of discussion -- people who likely will HATE my opinion, but in some cases end up jumping over to my side.
While I don't think Thompson will gain many friends because of the parody, he might get quite a bit of traffic for those who are unfamiliar with his opinion, and this is still positive traffic for him as he can then say "Look at how many gamers are looking up my opinion -- I must be right!"
I would never, EVER go against anyone who attributes me in jest, parody or ridicule, even if they're pushing libel or slander (especially if they're pushing libel or slander). All marketing and traffic is positive in some way. The more hated you are, the more popular you become, even if that popularity is towards the negative. Look at people like Hitler and Stalin -- they are STILL talked about, even though their legacy is horrific and detested by most people. To me, that's proof that polarization is a key factor in building fame or infamy for those who want it.
Maybe it's a sociopathic attitude, but it's still truth in my book.
Transitioning to what? Illegal downloads? Cable is too expensive compared to simply stealing the stuff?
Transitioning to hopefully purchasing content in some way external to cable. I'm not a supporter of copyright, but I do believe the moral stance is to compensate all involved for their risk and investment. That being said, your answer is completely impossible to digest for me. For example:
1. If I get rid of cable, do I delete all the shows that I TiVo'd? Do I still have a moral or legal right to the content?
2. If cable is all about paying for something transmitted to me, that I can (morally? legally?) record for future use, what is the difference between recording cable and copying DVDs received from NetFlix? Sure, the license is different, but in terms of pure moral justification for copying, how are they different?
3. If I am using cable via my subscription, and I miss a show, is it immoral for me to grab a torrent even though I could have recorded the same show from cable? Torrents have commercials stripped, so I do see the problem there, morally again. Legally is irrelevant to me because copyright as it stands today is illegal, per what the original intent of the Constitution construed, and what I believe is a market obligation, not a legal structure. I'm a firm believer that a true supply and demand market economy will provide for profit for viewers, producers and actors, without copyright or intellectual property laws that use force to attempt to structure a market.
4. Since I have cable now, is it immoral for my friends who don't have it to watch cable on my TV? If you look closely at the license of DVDs, even personal home use is restricted. What size crowd can watch "my" cable or "my" DVD?
5. What is the opportunity for future producers of content (and actors) to provide their services directly, based on building their fan base through previous unpaid scenarios? For example, many bands initially go out and do free shows, to create a portfolio of services presented and build a fan base. Many of the bands I like today are composed of artists who performed in previous bands, sometimes for free for years. Why shouldn't video actors build their fan base the same way? A band usually has a composer, just as a TV show has a screenwriter. I don't see the difference. For me, music has a much more market-economy driven perspective, versus video which up until recently was stuck in a pseudo-monopoly structure where the distributors didn't allow for competition. There are hundreds of thousands of theatre groups in the world, I'd love to see some of them develop their own online shows that they sell or distribute freely. A stage show can even be done well via greenscreen a la Sanctuary (which I have bought, btw), even in real time (less camera pans without high end hardware, though).
I believe in the market economy, driven by supply and demand. Your laws that you support are of no weight to me, since I never signed your social contract, and never will. Yet morally I do believe that using someone's labors for my own profit (entertainment gain is a profit!) means that I should compensate them in some way (not necessarily always financial). Your system uses force, my system creates natural competition that develops a better product for all.
The down side of ala carte is there are no guarantees so it's a major risk to produce content.
That doesn't matter because that cost is there regardless of if it was to be sold off en masse or a la carte. Plus I do believe that the current system of monopolized (or virtually-monopolized) distribution greatly increases the cost of production. Many distribution companies refuse to even consider a pilot unless it is done "correctly", IE via SAG, DG and other unionized production companies. The cost of production is not as high as we think, it is has high as we are forced to support.
Who puts up money for pilots? Production companies, for certain. In some ways, we have more power without them in a completely user-driven structure. If you and I and 1 million other geeks were all Sci-Fi fans, the SciFi ALC network might have an annual contest where would-be directors and screenwriters would post their thoughts on future shows. Let the fans decide what moves forward with SciFi ALC's pilot money, or let us also provide for our own investment. Can you imagine if a production company making a pilot sold shares of the future proceeds to people? Ever see Weird Al's UHF? U62 gets sold to the public at $10 a share. Why can't Firefly do the same? Because the gamemakers don't want the game-players involved. If Firefly would put up 100,000 shares at $100 a pop, we're talking $10 million, which is a good starting investment for them to produce the sets and lease warehouse space. It's even more money if we don't have to deal with SAG and DG and the rest of the "guilds" but we do know that Joss is a crazed unionphile, so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone who has been keeping their money under their mattress since 1913 should be outraged over the depreciation of the US dollar.
So should anyone who has been trying to save their money safely to invest in a home (say towards a 20% down payment), prepare for a future business, or leave money for their heirs. All central banks discourage savings and encourage "investments" when not everyone should be taking a hefty risk on their savings.
For someone who doesn't have a good idea of "what the Fed really is, what is does, and what it is supposed to do", you are exceptionally critical of the Fed.
Oh, I know what the Fed does, I meant to say that no books I've read explain a central bank properly. They're legally mandated thieves, to put it lightly.
If British government didn't promise to guarantee all deposits at Northern Rock, it would likely have failed. But was it a bailout of the bank, or were they simply protecting the banking system? And while member banks hold shares of the Federal Reserve Banks, they and the Board of Governors remain under the oversight of the President and Congress.
The depositors at Northern Rock were, sorry to say, idiots. I would _never_ put my money into a fractional reserve bank.
In a full-reserve bank (which currently does not really exist), you put your money into a bank as a non-loanable deposit for security. You trade maybe 0.5% a year in losses to secure that wealth from theft. If you felt like you wanted to take some risk, you could give the bank a desired risk environment to invest your money into (or loan into, as it is), and you could accept a chance of gain but also a chance of loss.
Fractional reserve banking is fraudulent, it is theft, and it should be criminal. The idea is criminal for anyone to perform except for banks licensed by the State or Federal governments. Just because "everyone is doing it" does not mean it is good nor moral.
All banks are bankrupt -- if each person that visits Slashdot this week was to withdraw all their savings, checking accounts, money markets and CDs (even at a penalty), many banks in the U.S. would be insolvent. They don't have the funds that they tell you they have, because they're only legally supposed to keep a tiny reserve (8-11% generally). The Central Bank enables them to appear solvent by loaning them money "overnight" (even though the new overnight regulations can last 30 days, and can be renewed indefinitely) in case of depositors demanding _their_ money.
Sorry, not me. I don't partake in the fiat monetary system you call a bank.
...and a free e-book download is What has Government done to our money? by the esteemed Murray N. Rothbard.
I've read dozens of books (over 30, for sure) on central banking theory, and none of them have given a completely clear and transparent picture of what the Fed really is, what is does, and what it is supposed to do. In the end, all central banks have one customer: member banks (the banks you and I go to), and the central banks have one policy: save their buddies in the member banks against any malinvestment or market change.
The Fed isn't here to protect the value of OUR money (in fact, since the Fed's creation in 1913, the US dollar is about 95-96% devalued), and it isn't here to protect our investments or savings.
Competition happens because people look at the risk for a given venture, and the reward. In case of OSes, the reward is huge, but the risk is huger.
Microsoft, while not the greatest company in the world, has spent billions on continuous R&D to make sure that their software "works" with the majority of hardware out there. Third party hardware develops know the Microsoft system, and have a fairly "easy" reach to develop drivers, plus a huge market base.
There IS room for another OS or two, but no one wants to try to put one to market. Not yet. Microsoft won't be at the top forever, but it isn't like they've really used excessive force to win -- they did it little by little. Remember DOS and Flight Simulator? Remember Windows 2.x bundled "free" with the HP ScanJet Plus? I do. Microsoft 3.1 for Workgroups, which included "free" networking? They were fighting tooth and nail to beat LANtastic, DesqView, and others -- and they won because they gave people what they wanted.
We've had thousands of desktops of clients that attempted to switch to something better. The employees didn't want it. The bundled stuff can be removed fairly easily, or replaced just as easily. Installing Windows XP on a notebook is a 30 minute project, and with a ghosted copy with other stuff preinstalled (along with DriverPack), it's maybe a 40 minute install. It just works, and it works good enough to support what the users seem to want.
Most users are not geeks. Most don't even know Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. Most don't care if its Firefox or Internet Explorer, and would have no idea if CSS render badly, or if a site didn't load for a given reason, because most sites just work.
I'm not a fanboy, but I know what makes me money, and I know what makes my clients money in productivty and efficiency saved.
The EU is wrong, here. Forcing the market to change just makes things MORE expensive, not less.
Yes, your loving anarcho-capitalist, me, loudly pronounces his support of this great law.
It is my belief that the best way to get rid of government is to let it collapse on itself. We need more taxes, more laws, more regulations and more actions to be considered crimes -- at all levels of government. Not only would all this new legislation and income create a more massive bureaucracy that will just stifle its ability to do anything right, but it will help open the eyes of every being in seeing what a waste government is.
I love adding new non-violent action laws to the books: all it does is make the black market that much more fruitful for those willing to take the risk. Why just stop at copying the CD and DVD to another CD or DVD? Let's make it illegal to copy ANY information off of a CD or DVD into any other form, including RAM, so that just playing it is wrong.
"Did you see that new movie? It's gorgeous, bright and shiny, and the case is really nice!"
"What's the plot?"
"I don't know, I didn't want to risk playing it. But the DVD is nice!!!"
I was a founder of Deep Productions, one of the Chicago's first rendering farms about 15 years ago. I recall having dozens of Pentium 60s (Were they called Pentium Pros back then?) with 512MB of RAM (if I remember correctly) running a variety of rendering programs (usually 3D Studio, but others based on clients needs). IIRC, a single raytraced frame took about 20 minutes. 2 dozen machines churning full speed were able to render approximately 60 fields per hour, or 1 second of animation in an hour.
I exited that market and Deep eventually moved out of that field entirely, but looking back, I can't believe we made the money that we made at the time. Now that ray tracing is getting closer to real time, it gives me a few minutes pause to realize how much technology has changed in ways that the AVERAGE consumer has no understanding of -- and doesn't need to. In the end, I'm glad that so many entrepreneurs take risks so that consumers needs (and yes, entertainment for some is a need) and wants are fulfilled, without those consumers even knowing the process necessary to get there.
I'm sure my site idea has legality problems, but I wonder...
:)
Constitutionally, there can be no laws that prevent a person's right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is a 1st Amendment restriction to government's power. I'd say that contacting the government about your grievance is protected speech, even if 10,000 or 100,000 are all contacting said government at once.
Secondly, the cause of government telling people to "shut up or we'll arrest you" might produce enough concern to have a peaceful revolution against the thugs who decide what we can say and do, and where we can travel, without their approval.
Maybe its time to register a new domain name
I guess that's a solution, but my idea is way more like digg+slashdot:
1. You get harassed by a company or a public official.
2. You post your details about the harassment, as well as any contact information by the harasser, as well as any proof of the harassment (video, audio, photos, receipts, etc).
3. People review the harassment, make initial phone calls to check on it, etc.
4. Harassments are moderated up or down, reviews are moderated up or down. Negative poster karma is displayed (people who lie, post their ex-girlfriend's contact info, etc).
5. Top harassments on each page get the most response from the site visitors. Maybe Michael Righi's case brings 10,000 phone calls a day to the Brookfield, OH police department, and every manager's home and cell phone per day. Issue solved.
I recall when Ron Paul (sorry, had to bring it up) was going to be uninvited from Michigan's GOP gatherings. All it took was a few thousands phone calls a day to get that resolved in a matter of days. Sounds like an excellent way to use one official's negative service to the public's advantage.
His answer is a cop out. He did not, in any situation, need his family to testify on his behalf. That's ridiculous.
The cop, and the store manager, and the security person, all need to take an oath to tell the truth. If, and only if, they tell lies on the stand, THEN he might need his family to counter their testimony. The threat of having the available is all he needs to keep the others truthful.
He won nothing. He gained nothing. The precedent he said was already set was NOT set because it is obvious that no one learned from the previous precedents. Even if a precedent is set that would win you a case in court, we need precedents set that remind the thugs of their limited powers.
It seems to me that this case would be a quick one in court. If he believes there are judicial precedents, brings those up and let the judge consider them to end the trial quickly.
Here's the downside: By dropping the case, the People lose because their rights are hampered by extended government powers. By winning the case, the People lose because they will be taxed to pay for the thug who violated Righi's rights.
What we need are direct penalties for all individuals if they violate the rights of another. Police should not be able to hide behind corporate liability limitations (neither should Circuit City employees, or any employees or manager). We also need to make sure that public officials (anyone on the public dole) should have to face 3X the penalties for a crime as if committed by a non-public individual.
Many years ago, when the web was still quiet and tiny, we had a little group of friends who promised to follow through with customer service and govenrment issues for one another. Since we all had various newsletters, writing gigs, and other media-style connections, we had the ability to contact people giving bad service via the phone and inquire to the service issues from a media perspective.
Of course it was more a joke than a reality, but as time grew, we found that hundreds of people calling businesses and police departments inquiring about "Any new information?" was a great way to get things fixed. I can recall one incident with Circuit City (of all places!) where the managers on duty received nearly 200 phone calls a day from "media inquiries" relating to a direct lie from a sales person to one of our group. It only took 2 weeks of "Any new information" for the company to back down and repair the situation, at which point there was no more news to cover.
Now I know harassment is a "crime," but why isn't there a site like phonedot.org? Instead of the slashdot effect, you can have the phonedot effect. Give it digg like capabilities so bloggers and other media contributors can vote up or down various customer service issues, and then let these thousands or hundreds of thousands of bloggers make their calls to see if there is "Any new information?" until the issue is settled.
When my previous city refused to get rid of the city sticker for vehicles, I typed up a newsletter and printed 30,000 of them to distribute. The newsletter had every phone number of every city official (home, work, cell). It only took 2 months of massive phone inquiries for the city council to end the city sticker harassment, and I think it was a net gain for those who called to inquire. Fight idiotic harassment with idiotic harassment.
A happy worker is a productive worker. If you save that 1/2 hour a day and the employee is constantly wishing for the fancy interface they -know-they could have, you are probably losing productivity, not gaining.
I've spent _years_ researching desktop productivity (not in scientific environments, though) and while this may be true, I find that workers tend to be more happy in the long run by having things work as fast as they can. A slower PC worker may not notice a difference, but someone who has used PC efficiently for decades tends to be able to knock things out quicker if they don't have the micropauses that many PCs have. Many people don't even notice these pauses, but more often than not people have commented how fast my notebooks are when they use them. My loaner notebooks (I loan them out freely to clients who need them for short term projects) are generally older PCs -- 2-4 years old, but they fly because they're properly tweaked to only run what is needed, with the most stable drivers, and are clean-swept after every loan period. It isn't the overall speed of the units that matter when it comes to "Wow that's fast!" but reducing those micropauses that are easy to miss, but also easy to see when you work on a relatively stable PC.
I've had good luck with XP when it is installed properly, without the overhead of most installations. I also go out on a limb and don't run real-time virus or spyware scanners, because I include a full-restore DVD with each loaner (if someone screws up the PC, the reinstall is very fast). I would not be surprised if my more efficient clients save up to an hour a day over the micro and slightly longer pauses that they have on their regular PCs (because of all the junk software, clutter and faulty drivers they're using). When I've played with Vista, those pauses come significantly more often, or are built into the OS as a "feature."
Give me menus and prompts that appear instantly, not in fast slow-motion.
This past week I picked up my first Vista notebook (on purpose). All our previous workstations were either XP or Vista replaced by XP -- and our clients are also XP. But in the past month, I've noticed quite a few clients running Vista on their notebooks they bring in from home, and that's usually a deciding factor for near-term upgrades.
My company has a "Not till 2008" stance on Vista. I've had horrible experiences with it and third party apps since its release, which is expected. The last week since running Vista, I have to say that the interface does LOOK nicer, but it is counter-intuitive for those who are used to the old keyboard commands to get to places. I'm sure its an easy transition, but I can't figure out the benefits, yet.
Here's the downside: while I don't see any efficiency, the few clients who are choosing to stick with it are doing so because of the cool factor. When I explain to them that the 0.25 second "pauses" for all the flashiness (which can be disabled, of course) add up to a 1/2 hour a day in lost productivity, they don't care: it just looks cool! Engineers and designers we work with hate it, but the managements and CxOs that are our primary market love it. Ugh. Vista: The Ferrari of Operating Systems, and just as costly to repair when it breaks down, often.
I'm not sure more cops is the answer, either.
When it comes to "fighting crime," the answer is much deeper and more complex than just trying to figure out how to use public force to prevent what ends up being a private property issue.
I personally do believe in John Lott's research that more guns means less crime, but I don't think that is the answer -- just handing out guns. When you have responsible gun owners (which can include children, too), and a responsible knowledge of what constitutes private property, you increase a criminal's risk in going forward with a crime. A property owner that is responsible has many reasons to use defensive force to protect their property; a public officer has almost no reason to stop a crime from being committed, and if the property owners aren't aware that they are the first line of defense, there will never be enough cops to stop crime.
For me, before we even really discuss decriminalization of guns, we have to consider how many crimes may be committed because of non-violent actions that have been criminalized. How many crimes are committed in protecting a black market of goods from one competitor to another? Drug sales are non-violent (two consenting parties bartering), as is prostitution, gambling, and a plethora of other non-violent actions that are called criminal. These create massive black markets where guns are the answer to protecting markets. By removing non-violent actions as crimes, you can greatly decrease these black markets -- bringing down the crimes associated with protecting those markets.
In addition to reducing black market crimes, decriminalizing said non-violent actions has a long term effect of putting fewer people in prison. As someone who has known more than one person go to prison for a minor offense only to come out with more ideas for committing more crime, I would believe that we'd have fewer violent criminals if we put fewer non-violent criminals in jail. Again, this is a long term effect that you can't judge as fruitful overnight.
We need more private property freedom -- that's the end goal. When people are free to protect their property, and free to use their property in non-violent bartering, you also have more reason for people to defend their property rather than put hope in the cops. I have no hope in the cops: not the traffic cops, not the anti-gang cops, not the anti-drug cops. I have faith in myself, and my direct family and friends.
You are asking the US Government to extend rights reserved for citizens to non-citizens, under the guise of holding the Government accountable to the Constitution...which is a stretch under any imagination.
I am not asking any government to extend rights to anyone -- governments do not extend rights. Governments are given certain powers, and are restricted from anything beyond those powers. The Constitution delineates the powers the Federal government has, powers it can use over citizens or aliens within its demarcation. Anything beyond those powers are implicitly excluded from said government in performing acts against anyone else -- citizens, aliens, foreigners, etc. When the Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging a person's freedom to bear arms, it means ALL persons. Congress can't make a law saying "Citizen A can't bear arms" just as it can't make a law saying "Alien B living on Country B can't bear arms."
Citizens have these rights because they have stood up and fought (and died) for these rights, and they didn't do it just so non-citizens could have the same rights. Non-citizens get to enjoy the rights of their own governments. They have no explicit right to be protected from our government. That's why we have diplomats, and yes, Armies.
No, people have these rights for being born. When you "fight" for a right, you are only fighting a GOVERNMENT from taking that right away. Terrorists can't take away your friend except through murdering you. Government takes away your freedom just by being in existence. _ALL FREEDOMS COME FROM REMOVING POWER FROM GOVERNMENT_ or overthrowing the government.
No one has a right to be protected from the government IF the government is absolutely operating within its specified limited powers. Sending troops to other countries without a declaration of war is a crime, it is treason, and all who partake in this crime should be brought to trial, from the soldier to the CiC.
I travel a LOT, sometimes internationally, and I've always been paranoid enough to print my own book covers. I own a print shop, but I'm sure anyone can crank out their own book covers for under $1.00 at work or at home.
My typical book cover usually says "Word of the Day" with other harmless jargon under it, and on the spine. When those morons/monkeys (not ad hominem attack, the employees really are morons) go through my bags, they only look at the fake cover.
I visited Iraq before the first Persian police action, and I visited 2 churches and 2 synagogues there. One area we stayed in was primarily Jewish, with a myriad of Muslim and Christian-run stores. I saw no fascism in those towns.
I have regular lunches with Muslim clientele, as well as Jewish clientele, and neither party has any knowledge of anyone within their families abroad who hate me, or most other American citizens. The few who do have hatred hate the United States for occupations and denial of freedoms, not for promoting of freedom or securing its own border. I also own property in a primarily-Muslim region in Mumbai, India, and I've never met a Muslim who hates me, or my citizenship.
I'm not sure why Gitmo is dedicated to Muslims, alone. We've been fighting undeclared wars for 60+ years, against Christians, Jews, Muslims, Athiests, Hindus, Sikhs, and many other believers of various faiths. I'm a anarcho-pantelist Christian, and I find the United States one of the least Christian, most vile and evil governments in the world because nothing it does has any basis in the New Testament or the actions and words of Jesus. There is no just war in the New Testament, there is no judgment towards others there, either. If you're so fearful of Muslims, maybe it is your job to preach to them rather than kill them with the sword?
Surely you don't seriously believe that just because a war is not declared on an official document does not mean a war does not exist.
A war does not exist. Without a Declaration of War by Congress, or a Letter of Marque by Congress towards an individual or individuals, no U.S. citizen has any right to harm another person's rights or property. The military in Iraq is trespassing. The soldier who pulls the trigger against another person has committed murder, UNLESS that soldier was vacationing and truly defending themselves. If the solder was not vacationing, but were trespassing, it is murder, and trespass, and they should be bound until Iraq justice system can bring them to trial.
And "enemies" are enemies in practice... not by some legal definition. Al-Qaeda declared war on us, and attacked us several times... and in practice has been an enemy of the US for over a decade and a half now.
Wrong, Al Qaeda did not declare war on me or you. They declared war against the United States government, not the People. They did not attack me, nor you, because "they" are not within our borders. The men who attacked a building, and killed thousands, should have been tried in court had they survived. They didn't survive. Anyone who admits culpability in the crime of 9/11 should have a Letter of Marque issued against them by Congress, so they can be brought to justice. Anyone else should be left alone.
If a State declares war on the United States, it should be up to Congress to debate declaring a war back, or considering just leaving it be. As far as it stands today, every troops in a foreign country that has not been invited by that foreign country's leaders, is trespassing.
If the United States wants to go to war, like in World War II, there are 3 simple steps to do so:
1. Debate a Declaration of War in Congress. Let the constituents voice their opinions.
2. Raise funds for the war by selling war bonds. Remember those? They exist, but no one wants them.
3. Raise a militia of volunteers -- truly unpaid men who understand that they are defending against a real act of war that is invading the borders of their State or country. Paid troops is a ridiculous idea, because it becomes a job, not a moral decision to protect their home and family.
Further, your contention (in a previous post) that it, as well as the Bill of Rights applies to "all humans" is simply false.
It applies to the U.S. Federal government and the Constitutional restriction on it to understand that those rights belong to all humans. This means that the U.S. Federal government can not restrain those inherent rights from ANYONE it deals with, locally or abroad. It doesn't mean the Federal government must defend those rights outside of its borders, but it must abide by the restrictions of power against anyone it mingles with.
And why there is even a debate regarding the conveyance of the rights enjoyed by US Citizens in peacetime towards enemies and enemy combatants of the US, outside of the US, in a time of war, is simply beyond me.
Considering the last declaration of war by the U.S. Congress was World War II, we have no enemies currently. We are currently "at peace" since there is no formal declaration of war, so the U.S. government's actions in other countries must be facilitated as if we were not at war, which we aren't, since there was no formal declaration.
If we were at war, I can understand the U.S. government forming an army, a navy and and air force from the militias it calls up, and then using those military forces to win the war it has declared, within the specifications of the declaration by Congress. As there is no war right now, there is no ability of the U.S. government to not abide by the Constitutional restricts on the Federal government. Those rights are inherent rights, and the Feds have no power to restrict those rights of anyone, citizen or alien.
You're quoting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- which dictates that the individual States are also barred from usurping the inherent rights of the citizens, yes. But the Constitution itself was not written to give citizens rights, but to stop the Federal government from harming those specific rights of ANYONE it involves itself with -- foreign, domestic, citizen, alien. Have you read the Constitution, the debates before it, and the Articles of Confederation?
Thanks for your clarification, I concur there. To clarify your clarification, though, ALL rights that "we" and the founding fathers considered inherent are rights afforded to all humans, regardless of citizenship and government. Government should never have the power to censor speech or opinion, nor the power to search your person or property with proof and a warrant, nor the power to restrict what arms you own or carry, nor the power to jail/enslave someone without giving a reason for it -- and allowing that person, citizen or not, the ability to defend themselves quickly and with a jury of their peers (again, not necessarily citizens).
Government doesn't give you freedom, it doesn't grant you rights, and it isn't there to protect you from other individuals. The Federal government is there for four reasons: to PROTECT the inherent rights of individuals from any government or State, to coin money in gold or silver only, to call up militias of individuals in order to defend against a real attack within the borders of any State, and to defend against piracy on the high seas.
I stopped reading when you said that only U.S. citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus. Sorry, but the Constitution was not written with the word "citizen" used often. The Constitution applies to the U.S. Federal government, and how it interacts with ALL people EVERYWHERE.
The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans, and are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution just reminds the Federal government that it can not revoke these rights, or change them. Habeas Corpus is an inherent right for all humans that we must demand to keep fully removed from any government's desire to remove it or restrain it.
For me, I keep track of all the various currencies and commodities, and plot my own charts based on comparing two currencies in what they can buy in a given commodity. My favorite 4 commodities are gold (1 ounce), silver (20 ounce), oil (1 barrel) and a barrel of goods I created.
Every currency, over time, is being inflated via credit expansion or money expansion. This inflation of new currency or credit causes prices to go up in various markets. The graphics I talk about above show the destruction of money by the various scheming central banks. Some of my charts also recalculate currencies based on the daily trade ratio, so you can actually see when currencies trade at par, and the commodity graphs show all currencies falling moreso in the last 3 years.
Did you just imply that you would be perfectly happy to be remembered in the same vain as Hitler or Stalin ?
Definitely not, but I am just comparing how some people who have sociopathic tendencies should want any sort of coverage in order to be promoted as an "expert" in their given industry. Hitler and Stalin were, in the long run, experts in the industry of death -- but I can't say they're worse than the current experts in the industry of death to become more powerful.
For those who want to be experts in the industry of artistic control and censorship (a la Jack Thompson), any sort of promotion of themselves is a gain for them because it gives them a wider portfolio of listeners, even if those listeners hate them.
How do I want to be remembered? I really don't, I just want my thoughts and opinions to be part of the formulation of thoughts and opinions of generations to come, even if I am forgotten and never quoted once.
There is nothing better, in my opinion, than having others ridicule you, parody you, or even work to convince others that you're evil or crazy. Opinions that polarize attitudes in readers/viewers is a great way to get people to search out the topic, and possibly come across the ridiculed party's opinion on a given subject.
It's like slashdot's "friend/foe" system. I probably have more foes than friends, but I appreciate both equally, and might even have more appreciation for those who consider me their foes than their friends. If someone rates me a foe, it definitely gives SOME people an interest in "who is this guy that is so hated" moreso than "who is this guy with so many friends." When people trackback to my blog posts with aggressive posts against my opinion, it also brings in a new market of readers to peruse my topics of discussion -- people who likely will HATE my opinion, but in some cases end up jumping over to my side.
While I don't think Thompson will gain many friends because of the parody, he might get quite a bit of traffic for those who are unfamiliar with his opinion, and this is still positive traffic for him as he can then say "Look at how many gamers are looking up my opinion -- I must be right!"
I would never, EVER go against anyone who attributes me in jest, parody or ridicule, even if they're pushing libel or slander (especially if they're pushing libel or slander). All marketing and traffic is positive in some way. The more hated you are, the more popular you become, even if that popularity is towards the negative. Look at people like Hitler and Stalin -- they are STILL talked about, even though their legacy is horrific and detested by most people. To me, that's proof that polarization is a key factor in building fame or infamy for those who want it.
Maybe it's a sociopathic attitude, but it's still truth in my book.
Transitioning to what? Illegal downloads? Cable is too expensive compared to simply stealing the stuff?
Transitioning to hopefully purchasing content in some way external to cable. I'm not a supporter of copyright, but I do believe the moral stance is to compensate all involved for their risk and investment. That being said, your answer is completely impossible to digest for me. For example:
1. If I get rid of cable, do I delete all the shows that I TiVo'd? Do I still have a moral or legal right to the content?
2. If cable is all about paying for something transmitted to me, that I can (morally? legally?) record for future use, what is the difference between recording cable and copying DVDs received from NetFlix? Sure, the license is different, but in terms of pure moral justification for copying, how are they different?
3. If I am using cable via my subscription, and I miss a show, is it immoral for me to grab a torrent even though I could have recorded the same show from cable? Torrents have commercials stripped, so I do see the problem there, morally again. Legally is irrelevant to me because copyright as it stands today is illegal, per what the original intent of the Constitution construed, and what I believe is a market obligation, not a legal structure. I'm a firm believer that a true supply and demand market economy will provide for profit for viewers, producers and actors, without copyright or intellectual property laws that use force to attempt to structure a market.
4. Since I have cable now, is it immoral for my friends who don't have it to watch cable on my TV? If you look closely at the license of DVDs, even personal home use is restricted. What size crowd can watch "my" cable or "my" DVD?
5. What is the opportunity for future producers of content (and actors) to provide their services directly, based on building their fan base through previous unpaid scenarios? For example, many bands initially go out and do free shows, to create a portfolio of services presented and build a fan base. Many of the bands I like today are composed of artists who performed in previous bands, sometimes for free for years. Why shouldn't video actors build their fan base the same way? A band usually has a composer, just as a TV show has a screenwriter. I don't see the difference. For me, music has a much more market-economy driven perspective, versus video which up until recently was stuck in a pseudo-monopoly structure where the distributors didn't allow for competition. There are hundreds of thousands of theatre groups in the world, I'd love to see some of them develop their own online shows that they sell or distribute freely. A stage show can even be done well via greenscreen a la Sanctuary (which I have bought, btw), even in real time (less camera pans without high end hardware, though).
I believe in the market economy, driven by supply and demand. Your laws that you support are of no weight to me, since I never signed your social contract, and never will. Yet morally I do believe that using someone's labors for my own profit (entertainment gain is a profit!) means that I should compensate them in some way (not necessarily always financial). Your system uses force, my system creates natural competition that develops a better product for all.
The down side of ala carte is there are no guarantees so it's a major risk to produce content.
That doesn't matter because that cost is there regardless of if it was to be sold off en masse or a la carte. Plus I do believe that the current system of monopolized (or virtually-monopolized) distribution greatly increases the cost of production. Many distribution companies refuse to even consider a pilot unless it is done "correctly", IE via SAG, DG and other unionized production companies. The cost of production is not as high as we think, it is has high as we are forced to support.
Who puts up money for pilots? Production companies, for certain. In some ways, we have more power without them in a completely user-driven structure. If you and I and 1 million other geeks were all Sci-Fi fans, the SciFi ALC network might have an annual contest where would-be directors and screenwriters would post their thoughts on future shows. Let the fans decide what moves forward with SciFi ALC's pilot money, or let us also provide for our own investment. Can you imagine if a production company making a pilot sold shares of the future proceeds to people? Ever see Weird Al's UHF? U62 gets sold to the public at $10 a share. Why can't Firefly do the same? Because the gamemakers don't want the game-players involved. If Firefly would put up 100,000 shares at $100 a pop, we're talking $10 million, which is a good starting investment for them to produce the sets and lease warehouse space. It's even more money if we don't have to deal with SAG and DG and the rest of the "guilds" but we do know that Joss is a crazed unionphile, so be it.