I advocate replacing, or at least strongly augmenting, the traditional model of studios publishing movies with one where independent producers publish them (or rather distribute them, as it's known in movies). Increased independent production too, the equivalent to the manufacturing of books that's part of self-publishing books. While self-published books like 50 Shades of Grey use the same retail venues, chain bookstores, that big publishers use, movie theaters are not as accessible to self-published movies, since theaters are more closely locked to big distributors. But since TVs are increasingly networked, home distribution is a more natural channel than theatrical distribution. The model isn't exactly the same for movies as for books. But TV is also a more popular venue than theaters for movies, especially through Netflix, Amazon and increasingly Youtube. So while Wool at Barnes & Noble is more achievable than My HD Epic at Cineplex Odeon, hit movies that are "straight to video" seems to be achievable by self-publishers.
Independent home video isn't quite as grand a vision as independent cinema. But neither are movies quite as grand a vision as a play performed 5 times a day, 7 days a week, in a theater. The format scaled down to suit the distribution and performance constraints. And after a while it became the norm. Self-published movies don't have to be shown in theaters to be either successful or the standard.
Soon enough outlets like Amazon and Netflix will figure out how to promote movies first shown in Youtube or on another webpage, and movie theaters will have to show some to keep their audiences. As theaters get networked for distribution and digital projectors take over everywhere, the theatrical platform will be ready for self-published features to be easily shown there, and they will be. Then you can take your flying car there to see them. But it might seem just as exotic as going to a theater to see drama performed by live actors.
That's why I don't watch theatrical movie projections in my home theater. But that doesn't stop me from watching movies on my TV that are published over the Internet. Because that's the appropriate venue for them. Even though it's not a theater.
Except they actually published their post. A good writer would proofread their own single sentence before publishing it. Especially where we're talking about self-publishing, where an editor or proofreader are optional, they'd better get their act together before putting it on the road.
What would be a real change would be if a self-published movie of a book hit gained a top 10 audience one week, or overall for a year. Internet publishing to TV should run circles around traditional movie distribution the way small presses are starting to do so around traditional books. The way websites have killed magazines and newspapers for years. Then if we can get self-published TV to dominate that industry we might have a chance at the free press that's necessary to a free society.
The power of the press belongs to those who own (or rather control) the presses.
Chinese characters, each of which represents a word or phrase, are evolved versions of icons that more or less literally represented their original meaning, from which the current meaning is derived. Very few Chinese people who use them every day have any idea what the original icon looked like. In many cases the original thing the icon represented either no longer exists, is far from common in use (especially in modern cities), or has evolved into a meaning at best barely recognizable.
Likewise most modern English words are derived from original words that would be totally unrecognized by modern speakers, especially the many foreign (French, Norse, Greek, Latin, etc) ones.
It's true that lots of icons aren't good ways to indicate their function based on recognizing the original object. But that's not how languages actually work.
Distributed version control should be the unspoken default for all data. The insistence on keeping the "save" mode has interfered with getting to that practice as the default.
Nobody ever sees a "disk" (round rotating storage hardware), why do we still call them that? Especially since you're probably saving to a Flash drive, not a disk at all.
And what's a "dial" I'm supposed to use when I hear a "dial tone"? Though I guess I hear a dial tone only on antiquated desktop phones, that I see only in an office.
And what "wires" are they referring to when they say my network or phone are "wireless"?
What do I advocate, militias instead of a standing army, and war declarations for a military strictly limited to specific wars instead of perpetual warfare? 1930s Republicans never led the charge to demilitarize into only militias instead of a standing army. If they had, we would have had it in the 1930s, but we didn't.
Roosevelt's rapid recruitment (including a draft larger than in Vietnam, by headcount and by proportion to volunteers) and rapid manufacturing tool-up showed that we could quickly turn untrained troops and a consumer industrial base into a world-dominating force of personnel, materiel, global supply chains and even astounding warfare technologies.
You somehow think that if we're not bombing someplace or preparing to (the two phases of America's endless loop) we're isolated from it. Postwar Japan and Germany prove you wrong. America's global engagement is always damaged by our global perpetual warfare and the standing army that ensures it. Retiring that in favor of the Constitution would leave us far more engaged with the world, less isolated from our attack targets, those who fear to be next, and those who fear to be forced to join us in the attacks. And we could invest the $TRILLIONS saved annually in business, diplomacy, or private enterprise. Especially as our violent enemies are best addressed by small and mostly covert return forces, our gargantuan and constant military is becoming entirely a liability instead of an asset, as well as helping destroy the Constitution it's always betrayed in spirit.
Not only was giving gold stars and showing leaders publicly not intentionally "gamification", this summary has the relationship backwards. It's the games that copied real life practices like those. Games are increasingly realistic. Of course, that's because all of life is adopting practices used in other ways in the past in new situations. Since real life came first, games copied RL, and then RL repeated the compliment by copying the updated practice from games.
The Democrats are the only ones that ever rounded up people by ethnic/racial/national background and imprisoned them without warrant, charges, or trial or basically any due process in camps in the US. The Democrats were also stalwart racial segregation supporters.
Republicans created and populated Guantanamo Bay precisely that way. Guantanamo is a camp on US soil in Cuba. The offshore location fits precisely Republican hatred of the laws passed mostly by Democrats that should prevent the country but doesn't.
BTW, everyone in politics was stalwart segregationist racists, until the Democratic Party defined itself generations ago by purging its racists (who fled into a Republican Party happy to accept them) over the Civil Rights Act. The racism by what is now obviously the White Men's Party is one of its core values now.
So when I give you a chance to make good on your "both parties do it" false equivalency, you merely rant more about Democrats. You have no standing to insist on "intellectually honest" or how seriously people take me. And your prattle about "distractions" when I meet your exclusively partisan assertions with facts and logic is a hall of mirrors.
You are a Republican. You vote Republican. You talk Republican. You "think" Republican. You can kid yourself by becoming even more Republican than the Republicans you've voted for, going corporate anarchist "Libertarian", but you're a Republican. No different from anything else. You complain most loudly about what you're most guilty of.
Of course I know it, which is why I put Eisenhower and the MIC together in my post. But Eisenhower was the one who proposed and signed all those military budgets. The MIC was his job; it was what distinguished him as commander in Europe, and he was a reliable exec to keep the war machine cranked up to the max even during the greatest peace opportunity in American history. The fact that a Republican's farewell speech warned of some terrible institution he created to misdirect the blame elsewhere only underscores their direct responsibility, just as they always project their own worst faults on someone else, typically the victim,
The Constitution provides for only militias like the National Guard during any time Congress has not declared war, and during wartime the army/navy/etc are to be budgeted only for 2 years at a time, so Congresses cannot commit future Congresses to their wars. The large arms industry has always been American, and indeed has just gotten worse. We should strip the military/intel Federal budget down to under $300B, and prohibit any deployment not under a war declaration, bringing home every military asset from around the world. But we've locked ourselves into corruption so deep that it's hard to see any point to break the cycle.
But understanding history and its liars is a good place to start.
No, as I just explained in response to them, they are simply a Republican who's too cowardly to admit it anymore.
I agree with your post, though, except where somehow "court packing threats" had any effect (or even reality, outside some Republican propaganda factory) on the New Deal's passage. The Republicans who opposed the New Deal were the ones who ran the country into the Great Depression while they had the president/House/Senate trifecta through the 1920s, running up unsupportable debt on equity risk until it crashed the world. Just as the current Republicans are the ones who did exactly the same thing with their president/House/Senate trifecta on direct debt risk until it crashed the world, and continue to do everything they can to keep it crashing, just as they always do.
And "the Paul duo", who are totally insane, not to mention committed racists of the kind we all knew as crazy 80s survivalists. No I'm not using a metaphor.
The two parties are not equivalent, even if Democrats are also often bad, and its executives keep powers created by their Republican predecessors. Republicans are absolutely unsustainable, in a class by themselves. That doesn't excuse the Democrats, but the false equivalence is what Republicans depend on to keep ratcheting our government down every time around the cycle.
Wilson and FDR after the failed modern US Liberalism movement re-branded itself as the Progressive movement and started gaining more and more power through the later part of the 20th century, implementing the "New Deal", the "War on Poverty",
Wilson and FDR were Democrats. Liberalism and Progressivism have been Democratic movements since the Republican Party abandoned Theodore Roosevelt (which is why he ran independently from them in 1912). The New Deal was FDR's Democratic programme; the War on Poverty was LBJ's Democratic programme.
Everything you cite is Democratic, even though the worst abuses by far have been Republican. Bush/Cheney and their Republican Congresses brought on everything you just cited in your last post, but you still blame "Progressives", which no one would ever accuse Bush, Cheney or being. "Progressivism and Liberalism are mandatory ideas"? That is about as irrational as you can get, and perfectly Republican.
Kool aid blah blah blah. Both parties are guilty of subverting the Constitution, but the Republican Party has been nothing but destructive to this country, while the Democratic Party has been a mixed bag - guilty mainly of failing to oppose it. The Liberal and Progressive movements, including the New Deal and even the War on Poverty, have done a great amount on behalf of the people of this country, though of course that's a mixed bag too. But you're the one pretending "they're both guilty", while condemning only Democrats. You're a Republican. I don't care if you finally rejected Republicans too - how many times did you vote for them? And now you still say exactly what you always said, even when you proudly claimed to be Republican. You're a "Libertarian" now, or some other copout that lets you act like an obsolete Republican while pretending you're not to blame.
Yeah, that's right. Liberals are the creators of the military/industrial complex that keeps America paranoid and always at war. Republican General Eisenhower didn't create it in his 8 years. Nixon didn't in his two terms, Reagan/Bush didn't in their 3 terms, Bush/Cheney didn't in their two terms. Liberals are somehow both anti-war, anti-military traitors, and the creators of the military and its wars.
Oh, and America was so much better, but only in the part that has no living witnesses.
You Republicans are totally insane: you always get everything exactly backwards, and never have any doubts that your fantasy is the truth that only you and a few other Fox guzzlers have realized. If only we could get a Republican some power, everything would be a perfect Andy Griffith again.
Nah, the underwear bomb is quite probably completely real, a completely real attack by a real enemy.
The beauty of the US military/intel industry is that it can only get more money and power, regardless of its success or failure, so long as Americans have an enemy to fear (regardless of any reality). The US doesn't need to synthesize the Qaeda, but it does need the Qaeda to exist and keep attacking, even impotently and very occasionally. Why spend any of your military budget creating the Qaeda, when the Qaeda does that itself, leaving that budget to the crony capitalists?
Nothing else changes. It was enough for the US to get the Qaeda started (Afghanistan 1979-80s), and then leave it perpetually angry and alive, failing to destroy it when the chance occurs (no drone strike on Binladen 1998, invade Iraq instead of infiltrate Afghanistan 2001-2007, Tora Bora, etc). The entire Qaeda phase of the predator/prey cycle is shoestring, outsourced, and reliable marketing for the main business. And totally authentic.
On the other hand, the hysteria over Muslim terrorists is preventing the US from investing its time and money in competing with China (and EU, and BRIC, and the rest of our global competitors). The underwear bomb isn't going to destroy America. But forcing every traveller through the underwear bomb detectors that don't work is surely destroying America. Along with all the other colossal wastes inspired by Muslim terrorists in our insane backlash.
A few hundred $billion invested in intel and assassinations, under a new legal regime that allows legitimate, Constitutional US courts to determine that certain specific people and militias are legitimate targets, would destroy the Muslim terrorist threat. Combined with a few hundred $billion more invested in education, trade and counter propaganda in the cesspools where these terrorists fester.
But instead, we're playing head-pong over "CHINA!" "TERRORISM!", responding badly to each. Because we insist on rage and paranoid overreactions, instead of careful strategy that uses force only as a last resort, not the first and only method.
Slashdot Mirror
You're ruining the planet, and we think you suck.
How are those two groups different?
I advocate replacing, or at least strongly augmenting, the traditional model of studios publishing movies with one where independent producers publish them (or rather distribute them, as it's known in movies). Increased independent production too, the equivalent to the manufacturing of books that's part of self-publishing books. While self-published books like 50 Shades of Grey use the same retail venues, chain bookstores, that big publishers use, movie theaters are not as accessible to self-published movies, since theaters are more closely locked to big distributors. But since TVs are increasingly networked, home distribution is a more natural channel than theatrical distribution. The model isn't exactly the same for movies as for books. But TV is also a more popular venue than theaters for movies, especially through Netflix, Amazon and increasingly Youtube. So while Wool at Barnes & Noble is more achievable than My HD Epic at Cineplex Odeon, hit movies that are "straight to video" seems to be achievable by self-publishers.
Independent home video isn't quite as grand a vision as independent cinema. But neither are movies quite as grand a vision as a play performed 5 times a day, 7 days a week, in a theater. The format scaled down to suit the distribution and performance constraints. And after a while it became the norm. Self-published movies don't have to be shown in theaters to be either successful or the standard.
Soon enough outlets like Amazon and Netflix will figure out how to promote movies first shown in Youtube or on another webpage, and movie theaters will have to show some to keep their audiences. As theaters get networked for distribution and digital projectors take over everywhere, the theatrical platform will be ready for self-published features to be easily shown there, and they will be. Then you can take your flying car there to see them. But it might seem just as exotic as going to a theater to see drama performed by live actors.
That's why I don't watch theatrical movie projections in my home theater. But that doesn't stop me from watching movies on my TV that are published over the Internet. Because that's the appropriate venue for them. Even though it's not a theater.
My house doesn't have a wooden stage and a cast of actors and their supporting crew and lighting equipment.
No, a legitimately tautological definition of "good" FTW.
What's a theatre? Why would you fly a car to your home theater, just to see a movie you got over the Net? Are you old?
"Explosive bestseller" or "bombed at the editorial offices"?
Except they actually published their post. A good writer would proofread their own single sentence before publishing it. Especially where we're talking about self-publishing, where an editor or proofreader are optional, they'd better get their act together before putting it on the road.
Yes, and the publisher of "War and Peace" was a pine forest.
Douchebag AC of the moment.
What would be a real change would be if a self-published movie of a book hit gained a top 10 audience one week, or overall for a year. Internet publishing to TV should run circles around traditional movie distribution the way small presses are starting to do so around traditional books. The way websites have killed magazines and newspapers for years. Then if we can get self-published TV to dominate that industry we might have a chance at the free press that's necessary to a free society.
The power of the press belongs to those who own (or rather control) the presses.
Chinese characters, each of which represents a word or phrase, are evolved versions of icons that more or less literally represented their original meaning, from which the current meaning is derived. Very few Chinese people who use them every day have any idea what the original icon looked like. In many cases the original thing the icon represented either no longer exists, is far from common in use (especially in modern cities), or has evolved into a meaning at best barely recognizable.
Likewise most modern English words are derived from original words that would be totally unrecognized by modern speakers, especially the many foreign (French, Norse, Greek, Latin, etc) ones.
It's true that lots of icons aren't good ways to indicate their function based on recognizing the original object. But that's not how languages actually work.
Distributed version control should be the unspoken default for all data. The insistence on keeping the "save" mode has interfered with getting to that practice as the default.
Nobody ever sees a "disk" (round rotating storage hardware), why do we still call them that? Especially since you're probably saving to a Flash drive, not a disk at all.
And what's a "dial" I'm supposed to use when I hear a "dial tone"? Though I guess I hear a dial tone only on antiquated desktop phones, that I see only in an office.
And what "wires" are they referring to when they say my network or phone are "wireless"?
What do I advocate, militias instead of a standing army, and war declarations for a military strictly limited to specific wars instead of perpetual warfare? 1930s Republicans never led the charge to demilitarize into only militias instead of a standing army. If they had, we would have had it in the 1930s, but we didn't.
Roosevelt's rapid recruitment (including a draft larger than in Vietnam, by headcount and by proportion to volunteers) and rapid manufacturing tool-up showed that we could quickly turn untrained troops and a consumer industrial base into a world-dominating force of personnel, materiel, global supply chains and even astounding warfare technologies.
You somehow think that if we're not bombing someplace or preparing to (the two phases of America's endless loop) we're isolated from it. Postwar Japan and Germany prove you wrong. America's global engagement is always damaged by our global perpetual warfare and the standing army that ensures it. Retiring that in favor of the Constitution would leave us far more engaged with the world, less isolated from our attack targets, those who fear to be next, and those who fear to be forced to join us in the attacks. And we could invest the $TRILLIONS saved annually in business, diplomacy, or private enterprise. Especially as our violent enemies are best addressed by small and mostly covert return forces, our gargantuan and constant military is becoming entirely a liability instead of an asset, as well as helping destroy the Constitution it's always betrayed in spirit.
<NOSARC>
You are a strawman masturbator.
</NOSARC>
Not only was giving gold stars and showing leaders publicly not intentionally "gamification", this summary has the relationship backwards. It's the games that copied real life practices like those. Games are increasingly realistic. Of course, that's because all of life is adopting practices used in other ways in the past in new situations. Since real life came first, games copied RL, and then RL repeated the compliment by copying the updated practice from games.
Republicans created and populated Guantanamo Bay precisely that way. Guantanamo is a camp on US soil in Cuba. The offshore location fits precisely Republican hatred of the laws passed mostly by Democrats that should prevent the country but doesn't.
BTW, everyone in politics was stalwart segregationist racists, until the Democratic Party defined itself generations ago by purging its racists (who fled into a Republican Party happy to accept them) over the Civil Rights Act. The racism by what is now obviously the White Men's Party is one of its core values now.
So when I give you a chance to make good on your "both parties do it" false equivalency, you merely rant more about Democrats. You have no standing to insist on "intellectually honest" or how seriously people take me. And your prattle about "distractions" when I meet your exclusively partisan assertions with facts and logic is a hall of mirrors.
You are a Republican. You vote Republican. You talk Republican. You "think" Republican. You can kid yourself by becoming even more Republican than the Republicans you've voted for, going corporate anarchist "Libertarian", but you're a Republican. No different from anything else. You complain most loudly about what you're most guilty of.
Of course I know it, which is why I put Eisenhower and the MIC together in my post. But Eisenhower was the one who proposed and signed all those military budgets. The MIC was his job; it was what distinguished him as commander in Europe, and he was a reliable exec to keep the war machine cranked up to the max even during the greatest peace opportunity in American history. The fact that a Republican's farewell speech warned of some terrible institution he created to misdirect the blame elsewhere only underscores their direct responsibility, just as they always project their own worst faults on someone else, typically the victim,
The Constitution provides for only militias like the National Guard during any time Congress has not declared war, and during wartime the army/navy/etc are to be budgeted only for 2 years at a time, so Congresses cannot commit future Congresses to their wars. The large arms industry has always been American, and indeed has just gotten worse. We should strip the military/intel Federal budget down to under $300B, and prohibit any deployment not under a war declaration, bringing home every military asset from around the world. But we've locked ourselves into corruption so deep that it's hard to see any point to break the cycle.
But understanding history and its liars is a good place to start.
No, as I just explained in response to them, they are simply a Republican who's too cowardly to admit it anymore.
I agree with your post, though, except where somehow "court packing threats" had any effect (or even reality, outside some Republican propaganda factory) on the New Deal's passage. The Republicans who opposed the New Deal were the ones who ran the country into the Great Depression while they had the president/House/Senate trifecta through the 1920s, running up unsupportable debt on equity risk until it crashed the world. Just as the current Republicans are the ones who did exactly the same thing with their president/House/Senate trifecta on direct debt risk until it crashed the world, and continue to do everything they can to keep it crashing, just as they always do.
And "the Paul duo", who are totally insane, not to mention committed racists of the kind we all knew as crazy 80s survivalists. No I'm not using a metaphor.
The two parties are not equivalent, even if Democrats are also often bad, and its executives keep powers created by their Republican predecessors. Republicans are absolutely unsustainable, in a class by themselves. That doesn't excuse the Democrats, but the false equivalence is what Republicans depend on to keep ratcheting our government down every time around the cycle.
Wilson and FDR were Democrats. Liberalism and Progressivism have been Democratic movements since the Republican Party abandoned Theodore Roosevelt (which is why he ran independently from them in 1912). The New Deal was FDR's Democratic programme; the War on Poverty was LBJ's Democratic programme.
Everything you cite is Democratic, even though the worst abuses by far have been Republican. Bush/Cheney and their Republican Congresses brought on everything you just cited in your last post, but you still blame "Progressives", which no one would ever accuse Bush, Cheney or being. "Progressivism and Liberalism are mandatory ideas"? That is about as irrational as you can get, and perfectly Republican.
Kool aid blah blah blah. Both parties are guilty of subverting the Constitution, but the Republican Party has been nothing but destructive to this country, while the Democratic Party has been a mixed bag - guilty mainly of failing to oppose it. The Liberal and Progressive movements, including the New Deal and even the War on Poverty, have done a great amount on behalf of the people of this country, though of course that's a mixed bag too. But you're the one pretending "they're both guilty", while condemning only Democrats. You're a Republican. I don't care if you finally rejected Republicans too - how many times did you vote for them? And now you still say exactly what you always said, even when you proudly claimed to be Republican. You're a "Libertarian" now, or some other copout that lets you act like an obsolete Republican while pretending you're not to blame.
Yeah, that's right. Liberals are the creators of the military/industrial complex that keeps America paranoid and always at war. Republican General Eisenhower didn't create it in his 8 years. Nixon didn't in his two terms, Reagan/Bush didn't in their 3 terms, Bush/Cheney didn't in their two terms. Liberals are somehow both anti-war, anti-military traitors, and the creators of the military and its wars.
Oh, and America was so much better, but only in the part that has no living witnesses.
You Republicans are totally insane: you always get everything exactly backwards, and never have any doubts that your fantasy is the truth that only you and a few other Fox guzzlers have realized. If only we could get a Republican some power, everything would be a perfect Andy Griffith again.
Nah, the underwear bomb is quite probably completely real, a completely real attack by a real enemy.
The beauty of the US military/intel industry is that it can only get more money and power, regardless of its success or failure, so long as Americans have an enemy to fear (regardless of any reality). The US doesn't need to synthesize the Qaeda, but it does need the Qaeda to exist and keep attacking, even impotently and very occasionally. Why spend any of your military budget creating the Qaeda, when the Qaeda does that itself, leaving that budget to the crony capitalists?
Nothing else changes. It was enough for the US to get the Qaeda started (Afghanistan 1979-80s), and then leave it perpetually angry and alive, failing to destroy it when the chance occurs (no drone strike on Binladen 1998, invade Iraq instead of infiltrate Afghanistan 2001-2007, Tora Bora, etc). The entire Qaeda phase of the predator/prey cycle is shoestring, outsourced, and reliable marketing for the main business. And totally authentic.
On the other hand, the hysteria over Muslim terrorists is preventing the US from investing its time and money in competing with China (and EU, and BRIC, and the rest of our global competitors). The underwear bomb isn't going to destroy America. But forcing every traveller through the underwear bomb detectors that don't work is surely destroying America. Along with all the other colossal wastes inspired by Muslim terrorists in our insane backlash.
A few hundred $billion invested in intel and assassinations, under a new legal regime that allows legitimate, Constitutional US courts to determine that certain specific people and militias are legitimate targets, would destroy the Muslim terrorist threat. Combined with a few hundred $billion more invested in education, trade and counter propaganda in the cesspools where these terrorists fester.
But instead, we're playing head-pong over "CHINA!" "TERRORISM!", responding badly to each. Because we insist on rage and paranoid overreactions, instead of careful strategy that uses force only as a last resort, not the first and only method.