Jon Stewart is the ONLY person will enough clout and guts to do this--just look at how he took down Jim Cramer a few years ago. He's ignored by most of those whose BS he calls out, and does it in a highly satirical comedic way, but that's why he's the most trusted man in America (in 2009 at least). Agreed, it would be so much more reassuring if people in the media were actually held accountable for their bullshit and agenda-pushing.
I think the point about the shuttle is just the opposite: SpaceX is cheaper *because* they are more reliable, not in spite of it. If you build the thing without cutting corners up-front, you save a bundle in the long term, which is what SpaceX is getting right where so many others got it wrong. The only way to get cheaper is if you designed a rocket with the *intent* to blow up 1 in 100. Even the Soyuz capsules, which have almost no redundant systems whatsoever, have a reputation as being reliable.
Alternatively, every "moral" action can be seen as promoting your self interest because they generally contribute to the cohesion of a society, which benefits the majority of its members. The only reason the term "moral" exists is because some people are too dumb to see that by not killing random people they increase their own chances of survival, so we indoctrinate our members with a set of codes for them to follow whether or not they know the real reason. And of course morals change over time, because the circumstances change. There is nothing absolute about the self-interests of survival, thus there is nothing absolute about moral principles either.
Actually, I agree with you. "Morals" are very limited in their scope of relevance, and in fact should never factor into copyright policy. Copyright law was created expressly to benefit society by making more works available to the public, and really has nothing to do with any "moral" concept of what is fair to creators. It is precisely those "moral" arguments that have got us where we are today, where society has free access to *fewer* works than ever before.
The moral principles behind copyright law are totally fine. Where your argument breaks down is where you assume the present scope of copyright law is in any way consistent with its moral basis. When people paid for what they could have got for free, they did it because they respect the moral principles, *not* because they respect the law. When I enjoy your work, I have a moral obligation to help you stay alive so that you can produce more work. I do not have the same obligation toward the corporation that bought the rights 60 years after your death. The additional incentive during your lifetime would have been so negligible that society is much better off with free access than they are with providing that incentive.
For your second point, are you suggesting that artists who become famous by having the music companies promote them while taking all/most of their profits for the first N years somehow owe those companies for the rest of their lives? Have you not considered whether fame is a finite commodity for which a finite payment should be rendered? If anything, CK should be applauded for showing that the corporations do not have a monopoly on ways to make money from art. He engaging is classic capitalism: He decided that the services they rendered were not worth the price they charged. If the corporations really provide something of value for other artists, then his actions won't affect them. If everyone bails, and is the better for it, then it was only bullying and monopoly pressure that kept the corps in business and they deserve to fail. If everyone bails, and is no better for it, then I guarantee that the industry will regrow in short order, but with significant and beneficial changes. It's a win-win-win a far as I can see.
I thought that would be the case. It's just there have been so many ramblings about trying to criminalize copyright infringement I wasn't sure what category it fell under...
I'm pretty sure they would overlook that in an overtly criminal case CP or terrorism, probably by casting the bill payer as an "accomplice" of some sort who could have information about the crime. That would be enough to get the address from the ISP. Whether it would lead to a friendly chat or a SWAT team raid is the biggest unknown, but there's no way they would let a pesky little bit of precedent get in their way for something like that.
If they have any sense they will raise the prices on the less popular channels before cancelling them. So the shit channels get cheap and the decent channels get more expensive? Hell, I'd pay $30 a month for only 10 channels if it meant not having to scroll through all the shit to find something interesting. If they try and charge $10/mo for each channel though, they'd have about 10 seconds before I pulled the plug. And if there are channels with literally hundreds of viewers, then either get a government grant or get cancelled. I expect my taxes to pay for other people's stuff, not my cable bill.
By "come to an understanding" he means asking the tech companies the question, "How can we break the Internet without hurting your bottom line so you let it pass into law?"
The point that Macaulay made is that while we can concede that copyrights must exist, it is mandatory that they have an end as well as a beginning. Any legislation enforcing copyright monopolies must enforce both the beginning and the end of copyright terms. Make the government responsible for prosecuting infringements upon the public domain and make the damages comparable to those awarded to infringement on private copyrights. Oh, and make the length of the terms short enough that there actually *is* an end. None of the copyright legislation in the last two decades, or indeed anyone in power, has mentioned enforcement of the public domain. Without a strong public domain, copyright becomes monopoly for monopoly's sake, rather than for the public good, and that is what makes it evil.
As an awkward 20-something myself, I have found it extremely important to verifying or explicitly establish context during important communications. For example, if after a sufficient amount of normal conversation you are not certain that she is uninterested, say out loud "I am interested in you as a possible romantic partner." It is much more effective than the mix of body language and innocuous comments known as flirting, especially when the target is similarly awkward and socially unaware. If she is normal instead, she'll either find your candor endearing or you would not have got along anyways. Basically my problem is that I am just as bad at interpreting my own body language as that of others, so even if the other party has received the message I cannot be sure that I transmitted it correctly without saying it out loud.
When one party is thinking about the interaction in a different context than the other there is HUGE room for misunderstanding even when the signals are unambiguous.
Then it would appear that what you call unambiguous signals are in fact extremely ambiguous. The context is part of the message too, so if the parties are not aware of what context the other is using, then the communication has already failed.
So basically they put complete control over the world's art above actually selling products that customers want to buy? Sounds evil to me. If all they wanted to do was make money, they could have figured it out years ago and be reaping the profits by now. But they are obsessed with "control" as though it is physically possible and increases their net worth, profits be damned. The whole industry is starting to look like a conspiracy out of a James Bond movie or something (once James Cameron sets up a base at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, their plan will be in full motion, muhahahaha). How does all this make them not evil? The only other explanation is excruciating ignorance: The technology started as an infant, and the giant record companies raised it through strict and careful diligence, but they failed to notice that it's all grown up now and they are riding on the back of a tiger. The best they can hope for is to stay on top, wherever it takes them, but they are so busy trying to steer that they're going to fall off and get eaten.
So the labels are still at a loss - they need people both NOT to steal the music, AND to purchase it.
WRONG. They only need people to purchase it. People stealing the music does not affect their bottom line at all. If I buy one copy and download 50 copies, that is still one copy sold, not 49 copies stolen. They want people to not "steal" the music because they think that will make them buy it--any other motive would make them irredeemably evil. But since that link is not at all causal*, it should come as no surprise that reducing the number illegal copies does not automatically increase revenue.
* They ignore the fact that "stealing" the music can be sway people to buy it when they otherwise wouldn't have, just as it can sway them to not buy it when they otherwise would have, or (most likely) have no effect at all on their judgement.
If your ship is sinking, throwing cargo overboard won't make that hole in the bottom stop leaking. The anti-piracy law was never the solution to the problem they actually have, which is the replacement of CDs with digital distribution (monetized or not).
My only snafu returning stuff at Microcenter was when I bought the MB/CPU from them and the RAM from Newegg. I assembled the computer and took it in after it didn't boot; the tech said to exchange the MB/CPU so I took the RAM out and put it back in the original box. Of course I didn't have the receipt for it and for some reason the barcode matched *Microcenter's* stock not Newegg so I don't know what the hell happened there. I guess they let me keep it after watching the security footage or just seeing that I didn't bolt so was probably telling the truth. How a Microcenter stock number ended up getting sold from Newegg is a mystery.
More times than not in recent memory whenever I go to a physical store to get something besides routine groceries, I come away empty-handed. Why? Either they don't stock what I want, or it's too expensive, or I just couldn't find it in the damn mess. My time is worth more than that, so online shopping wins hands-down. MicroCenter because a whole lot more attractive when they added "order online, pick up in store" because you could get it the same day but let their staff do the work of digging out from behind whatever shelf it fell last week.
I don't know if what they did qualifies as jury-rigged. They basically mapped out the entire network and assigned RF channels and power levels so that adjacent floors would not interfere with each other. Seems like whoever installed it before just threw up an access point in every other room and left it on full power. What the IETF guys are doing is certainly not totally optimized yet but it's a big improvement over what was there before.
drive train:
n.
The components of an automotive vehicle that connect the transmission with the driving axles and include the universal joint and drive shaft. Also called driveline.
Unless the electric motor is directly in the wheel hubs, all electric cars have a drive train. Whether the drive train connects to a transmission or directly to an electric motor, or in this case to the clutch between the electric motor and gas engine, doesn't affect what word we use to describe it.
The Volt does have a 1:1 clutch between the drive train and the gas motor. This engages at highway speeds because when you go that fast, the electric motor has much less torque. This is why the Volt always outruns the Leaf when accelerating over 50 mph. But at all other times the gas engine is completely disconnected from the wheels.
The Volt is really a gas car with an electric transmission and a large battery pack. Instead of a mechanical transmission, it uses a generator and motor to convert power from the gas engine to the wheels in the most efficient manner possible. But the highest gear is 1:1, so it links the engine straight to the wheels to cut the losses in the electrical system. The battery add significant utility because it lets you use the high efficiency of the electric motor at low speeds without using any gas. It makes perfect sense if what you want is the best of both worlds, electric and gas: the torque and efficiency at low speeds and grid-powered operation of electric car, and the torque and power at high speeds and long range of a gas car. All this comes with a price, but you have to understand what you are getting for it.
And I wasn't even attacking Free Software, but simply observing that yelling "abolish copyright now!" does nothing to help reach a consensus on the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Jon Stewart is the ONLY person will enough clout and guts to do this--just look at how he took down Jim Cramer a few years ago. He's ignored by most of those whose BS he calls out, and does it in a highly satirical comedic way, but that's why he's the most trusted man in America (in 2009 at least). Agreed, it would be so much more reassuring if people in the media were actually held accountable for their bullshit and agenda-pushing.
Sorry, you're off by a prefix. 10.8 TWh = 10,800 GWh = 10,800,000 MWh = 10,800,000,000 kWh * $0.126/kWh = $1,360,800,000 = $1.3 billion.
I think the point about the shuttle is just the opposite: SpaceX is cheaper *because* they are more reliable, not in spite of it. If you build the thing without cutting corners up-front, you save a bundle in the long term, which is what SpaceX is getting right where so many others got it wrong. The only way to get cheaper is if you designed a rocket with the *intent* to blow up 1 in 100. Even the Soyuz capsules, which have almost no redundant systems whatsoever, have a reputation as being reliable.
Alternatively, every "moral" action can be seen as promoting your self interest because they generally contribute to the cohesion of a society, which benefits the majority of its members. The only reason the term "moral" exists is because some people are too dumb to see that by not killing random people they increase their own chances of survival, so we indoctrinate our members with a set of codes for them to follow whether or not they know the real reason. And of course morals change over time, because the circumstances change. There is nothing absolute about the self-interests of survival, thus there is nothing absolute about moral principles either.
Actually, I agree with you. "Morals" are very limited in their scope of relevance, and in fact should never factor into copyright policy. Copyright law was created expressly to benefit society by making more works available to the public, and really has nothing to do with any "moral" concept of what is fair to creators. It is precisely those "moral" arguments that have got us where we are today, where society has free access to *fewer* works than ever before.
The moral principles behind copyright law are totally fine. Where your argument breaks down is where you assume the present scope of copyright law is in any way consistent with its moral basis. When people paid for what they could have got for free, they did it because they respect the moral principles, *not* because they respect the law. When I enjoy your work, I have a moral obligation to help you stay alive so that you can produce more work. I do not have the same obligation toward the corporation that bought the rights 60 years after your death. The additional incentive during your lifetime would have been so negligible that society is much better off with free access than they are with providing that incentive.
For your second point, are you suggesting that artists who become famous by having the music companies promote them while taking all/most of their profits for the first N years somehow owe those companies for the rest of their lives? Have you not considered whether fame is a finite commodity for which a finite payment should be rendered? If anything, CK should be applauded for showing that the corporations do not have a monopoly on ways to make money from art. He engaging is classic capitalism: He decided that the services they rendered were not worth the price they charged. If the corporations really provide something of value for other artists, then his actions won't affect them. If everyone bails, and is the better for it, then it was only bullying and monopoly pressure that kept the corps in business and they deserve to fail. If everyone bails, and is no better for it, then I guarantee that the industry will regrow in short order, but with significant and beneficial changes. It's a win-win-win a far as I can see.
I thought that would be the case. It's just there have been so many ramblings about trying to criminalize copyright infringement I wasn't sure what category it fell under...
I'm pretty sure they would overlook that in an overtly criminal case CP or terrorism, probably by casting the bill payer as an "accomplice" of some sort who could have information about the crime. That would be enough to get the address from the ISP. Whether it would lead to a friendly chat or a SWAT team raid is the biggest unknown, but there's no way they would let a pesky little bit of precedent get in their way for something like that.
If they have any sense they will raise the prices on the less popular channels before cancelling them. So the shit channels get cheap and the decent channels get more expensive? Hell, I'd pay $30 a month for only 10 channels if it meant not having to scroll through all the shit to find something interesting. If they try and charge $10/mo for each channel though, they'd have about 10 seconds before I pulled the plug. And if there are channels with literally hundreds of viewers, then either get a government grant or get cancelled. I expect my taxes to pay for other people's stuff, not my cable bill.
By "come to an understanding" he means asking the tech companies the question, "How can we break the Internet without hurting your bottom line so you let it pass into law?"
Of course, the answer is a resounding NEVER.
The point that Macaulay made is that while we can concede that copyrights must exist, it is mandatory that they have an end as well as a beginning. Any legislation enforcing copyright monopolies must enforce both the beginning and the end of copyright terms. Make the government responsible for prosecuting infringements upon the public domain and make the damages comparable to those awarded to infringement on private copyrights. Oh, and make the length of the terms short enough that there actually *is* an end. None of the copyright legislation in the last two decades, or indeed anyone in power, has mentioned enforcement of the public domain. Without a strong public domain, copyright becomes monopoly for monopoly's sake, rather than for the public good, and that is what makes it evil.
Detecting whether the female is hitting on you is one thing, detecting whether they are just messing with you aren't really interested is another.
As an awkward 20-something myself, I have found it extremely important to verifying or explicitly establish context during important communications. For example, if after a sufficient amount of normal conversation you are not certain that she is uninterested, say out loud "I am interested in you as a possible romantic partner." It is much more effective than the mix of body language and innocuous comments known as flirting, especially when the target is similarly awkward and socially unaware. If she is normal instead, she'll either find your candor endearing or you would not have got along anyways. Basically my problem is that I am just as bad at interpreting my own body language as that of others, so even if the other party has received the message I cannot be sure that I transmitted it correctly without saying it out loud.
When one party is thinking about the interaction in a different context than the other there is HUGE room for misunderstanding even when the signals are unambiguous.
Then it would appear that what you call unambiguous signals are in fact extremely ambiguous. The context is part of the message too, so if the parties are not aware of what context the other is using, then the communication has already failed.
So basically they put complete control over the world's art above actually selling products that customers want to buy? Sounds evil to me. If all they wanted to do was make money, they could have figured it out years ago and be reaping the profits by now. But they are obsessed with "control" as though it is physically possible and increases their net worth, profits be damned. The whole industry is starting to look like a conspiracy out of a James Bond movie or something (once James Cameron sets up a base at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, their plan will be in full motion, muhahahaha). How does all this make them not evil? The only other explanation is excruciating ignorance: The technology started as an infant, and the giant record companies raised it through strict and careful diligence, but they failed to notice that it's all grown up now and they are riding on the back of a tiger. The best they can hope for is to stay on top, wherever it takes them, but they are so busy trying to steer that they're going to fall off and get eaten.
So the labels are still at a loss - they need people both NOT to steal the music, AND to purchase it.
WRONG. They only need people to purchase it. People stealing the music does not affect their bottom line at all. If I buy one copy and download 50 copies, that is still one copy sold, not 49 copies stolen. They want people to not "steal" the music because they think that will make them buy it--any other motive would make them irredeemably evil. But since that link is not at all causal*, it should come as no surprise that reducing the number illegal copies does not automatically increase revenue. * They ignore the fact that "stealing" the music can be sway people to buy it when they otherwise wouldn't have, just as it can sway them to not buy it when they otherwise would have, or (most likely) have no effect at all on their judgement.
If your ship is sinking, throwing cargo overboard won't make that hole in the bottom stop leaking. The anti-piracy law was never the solution to the problem they actually have, which is the replacement of CDs with digital distribution (monetized or not).
My only snafu returning stuff at Microcenter was when I bought the MB/CPU from them and the RAM from Newegg. I assembled the computer and took it in after it didn't boot; the tech said to exchange the MB/CPU so I took the RAM out and put it back in the original box. Of course I didn't have the receipt for it and for some reason the barcode matched *Microcenter's* stock not Newegg so I don't know what the hell happened there. I guess they let me keep it after watching the security footage or just seeing that I didn't bolt so was probably telling the truth. How a Microcenter stock number ended up getting sold from Newegg is a mystery.
More times than not in recent memory whenever I go to a physical store to get something besides routine groceries, I come away empty-handed. Why? Either they don't stock what I want, or it's too expensive, or I just couldn't find it in the damn mess. My time is worth more than that, so online shopping wins hands-down. MicroCenter because a whole lot more attractive when they added "order online, pick up in store" because you could get it the same day but let their staff do the work of digging out from behind whatever shelf it fell last week.
I don't know if what they did qualifies as jury-rigged. They basically mapped out the entire network and assigned RF channels and power levels so that adjacent floors would not interfere with each other. Seems like whoever installed it before just threw up an access point in every other room and left it on full power. What the IETF guys are doing is certainly not totally optimized yet but it's a big improvement over what was there before.
drive train : n. The components of an automotive vehicle that connect the transmission with the driving axles and include the universal joint and drive shaft. Also called driveline.
Unless the electric motor is directly in the wheel hubs, all electric cars have a drive train. Whether the drive train connects to a transmission or directly to an electric motor, or in this case to the clutch between the electric motor and gas engine, doesn't affect what word we use to describe it.
Thanks for the clarification! I was actually wondering about that myself.
The Volt does have a 1:1 clutch between the drive train and the gas motor. This engages at highway speeds because when you go that fast, the electric motor has much less torque. This is why the Volt always outruns the Leaf when accelerating over 50 mph. But at all other times the gas engine is completely disconnected from the wheels.
The Volt is really a gas car with an electric transmission and a large battery pack. Instead of a mechanical transmission, it uses a generator and motor to convert power from the gas engine to the wheels in the most efficient manner possible. But the highest gear is 1:1, so it links the engine straight to the wheels to cut the losses in the electrical system. The battery add significant utility because it lets you use the high efficiency of the electric motor at low speeds without using any gas. It makes perfect sense if what you want is the best of both worlds, electric and gas: the torque and efficiency at low speeds and grid-powered operation of electric car, and the torque and power at high speeds and long range of a gas car. All this comes with a price, but you have to understand what you are getting for it.
And I wasn't even attacking Free Software, but simply observing that yelling "abolish copyright now!" does nothing to help reach a consensus on the issue.