Re:IMDB was up
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Most of the current stuff is either refined, or regressed versions of what we had back then.
Digg => Slashdot Huffington Post => There wasn't any shortage of bullshit artists back then either Google => Yahoo, AltaVista, etc.. Twitter => IRC > Twitter. Twitter is like IRC, except there's only one channel, and everybody's on ignore by default. Wikipedia => Everything (up to the reader whether this was progress or regression) And there's the things that social networks and tag clouds replaced..... AOL, Web Rings, Geocities, etc...
What should be more shocking is that in 12 years, there isn't actually all that much out there that is truely new.
Too bad the summary tells us who won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Song, and Best Supporting actor, and leaves out practically every nerdy award there is...
From responses made to one of my comments elsewhere in this thread, it's become clear to me that I don't know the first thing about swingers mags, so I'm going to leave this one to the experts....
If you were going to advertise in a swingers magazine, would you care that your name and proof that you did so were to remain on file for an extended period? Do you see how somebody might mind? Might choose not to place the ad for that reason?
Now... If you published the magazine the ads are placed in, wouldn't you mind if you were required to do something that scared off your customers?
I would guess that a publication such as this would be afraid it would lose customers if those customers knew their names were going to be on file for an extended period just waiting for somebody to go trying to dig up some dirt on them.
So, are you arguing that 50 years is not "very long"?
Reports of the demise of the current *PAAs has been greatly exaggerated. It will continue to be so as long as people like you are willing to take the "it's not so bad", or "they're a necessary evil" position. (Not sure if that's what you were intending to do, but look at your posts in this thread so far...)
'cause there're really no middle ground for "takes most of the money, shakes down competitors, and monopolizes the channel" and "the artist does all the infrastructure work him/herself"?
Oh, wait. There is. It's something along the lines of "sells art online for a minimal margin".
Well, I agree with you. The old way to charge people for _media_ itself is becoming more and more difficult. But I see a new problem: What can content producers (be it artists or moviemakers) do to earn money?
Perform live? Sell originals? Dig ditches?
Let's be honest here. This has nothing to do with changing how artists earn a living. This has to do with how distributors - middlemen - earn a living. And if you ask me, they can perform some sort of labor, or they can rot.
What time was this? As far as I'm aware, they've never been disallowed. (That doesn't mean they were never confiscated...)
I didn't assume you were a big idiot. It seems pretty natural to assume that something dangerous like a lighter wouldn't be allowed considering all the benign things that are banned.
I hated (hated. Was that strong enough? I Don't think it was...) I FUCKING HATED the removable batteries. At the least opportune times, you could somehow manage to catch your shirt or something on the battery eject lever. It happend maybe a dozen times to me, and there's never really a good moment for your system to suddenly lose power.
I haven't owned an Apple laptop since. And I can't say I've ever removed the battery from the other laptops I've had except to replace it when it wouldn't charge anymore. If you're one of the few that take long flights or something and need to swap batteries, then there are laptops for that. I don't think easily removable *anything* belongs on a mass-market laptop though.
No, that would promote incarceration of innocent people even more than the current system. People who never committed a crime in the first place are certainly less likely to do so when they get out than actual criminals.
it's a prison - their job is to lock people up - how do you make a private prison without paying them for locking people up?
Flat fee.
and before you say flat fee
Too late.
- what happens when the prison is full and you need another one?
Open bidding on a new contract for another one. There would never be a guarantee that getting your facility to overflow would net you another contract.
The problem isn't that it was a commercially operated prison.
It is the sole duty of the operators of a commercial prison to maximize revenue for the shareholders.
Even if that were true, if revenues and profits for the company running the prison weren't linked to the number of prisoners, then there's no conflict of interest. In fact, if the contract specified a fixed fee for running the facility, the company would have incentive to keep people out rather than trying to get more people in.
Prison Guards benefit from having a job, because someone was found guilty.
That's an indirect benefit. Much different from a contract that essentially says "you get paid $x * number of prisoners" or "you get promoted if you prosecute x number of cases that hand down a guilty verdict" or even "You have a quota. Hand out x number of speeding tickets this week or you're fired". There's no way for an individual guard to know that they're going to benefit from an incarceration without conspiring with a third party.
Victims benefit from knowing justice was served in a case where someone was found guilty.
Last I checked, we had a criminal justice system, not a criminal vengeance system. The feelings of the victims should never be taken into account in the prosecution of a case. The courts should do what is best for our society, and apply the laws of the land. In a criminal case, if they're taking anybody's feelings into account, they're doing it wrong.
Oh, you don't mean that... you mean the OTHER people that benefit...
You don't need to put words in my mouth just because you can't comprehend that I actually meant what I said.
One of the better suggestion on how to restructure the SEC was to give incentives to investigators for each big case they successfully prosecute. Without this, we will never see SEC investigators constantly willing to take down billionaires like Madoff due to the consequences/blacklisting they face from doing so.
Letting guilty people get away with it is preferable to giving prosecutors incentive to take down innocent people. This is one of the founding principles of our government.
What you have listed isn't one of the "better" suggestions. It's unconscionable.
The problem isn't that it was a commercially operated prison. The problem is that the payment structure was set up in such a way as to benefit the operator for an increased number of incarcerations. It shouldn't just be illegal, it should be unconstitutional for any contract or law to provide benefit to one party when another is found guilty of a crime.
We threw them out 12 years ago. Apparently that was how long it took for us to forget why we didn't want a Democratic majority anymore. It's the same people with a new face at the top. Do you really think one person can change that much?
These guys are professionally corrupt. The US citizens threw them out of power, so they systematically discredited all of the leaders of the newly chosen majority. Once the smart people were gone it was only a matter of time before the Republicans that were left screwed things up, and now we have the same jerks we hated so much in '96 back again.
Repealing Open Access is a protectionist economic policy that has long been associated with the American Left. This shouldn't surprise anybody. Just like it shouldn't surprise anybody when the Democrats start opposing Net Neutrality, having the government police online copyright violations to prop up the established content distribution industries, and do everything in their power to keep Detroit auto makers in business.
It's amusing to me that we have a "liberal" and "conservative" party when it comes to social/wedge issues, but when it comes to just about everything else the two parties swap sides.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the current stuff is either refined, or regressed versions of what we had back then.
Digg => Slashdot
Huffington Post => There wasn't any shortage of bullshit artists back then either
Google => Yahoo, AltaVista, etc..
Twitter => IRC > Twitter. Twitter is like IRC, except there's only one channel, and everybody's on ignore by default.
Wikipedia => Everything (up to the reader whether this was progress or regression)
And there's the things that social networks and tag clouds replaced..... AOL, Web Rings, Geocities, etc...
What should be more shocking is that in 12 years, there isn't actually all that much out there that is truely new.
So true in 90% of cases.
Too insecure to be seen in a mini-van, and too lazy to deal with the hassle of cramming the kids in the back of a sedan.
Do that 100 more times, and maybe - maybe - they'll have made up for "Titanic".
I completely agree with you.
Too bad the summary tells us who won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Song, and Best Supporting actor, and leaves out practically every nerdy award there is...
So, the parent is right. EPIC FAIL.
From responses made to one of my comments elsewhere in this thread, it's become clear to me that I don't know the first thing about swingers mags, so I'm going to leave this one to the experts....
If you were going to advertise in a swingers magazine, would you care that your name and proof that you did so were to remain on file for an extended period? Do you see how somebody might mind? Might choose not to place the ad for that reason?
Now... If you published the magazine the ads are placed in, wouldn't you mind if you were required to do something that scared off your customers?
I would guess that a publication such as this would be afraid it would lose customers if those customers knew their names were going to be on file for an extended period just waiting for somebody to go trying to dig up some dirt on them.
Isn't proof of age up front enough?
So, are you arguing that 50 years is not "very long"?
Reports of the demise of the current *PAAs has been greatly exaggerated. It will continue to be so as long as people like you are willing to take the "it's not so bad", or "they're a necessary evil" position. (Not sure if that's what you were intending to do, but look at your posts in this thread so far...)
Luckily, society deals with those people and they don't last very long.
If that were true in this particular case, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
'cause there're really no middle ground for "takes most of the money, shakes down competitors, and monopolizes the channel" and "the artist does all the infrastructure work him/herself"?
Oh, wait. There is. It's something along the lines of "sells art online for a minimal margin".
Would you find it acceptable if I converted your percentages to absolute quantities and submitted your own post as reason why you're wrong?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Well, I agree with you. The old way to charge people for _media_ itself is becoming more and more difficult. But I see a new problem: What can content producers (be it artists or moviemakers) do to earn money?
Perform live?
Sell originals?
Dig ditches?
Let's be honest here. This has nothing to do with changing how artists earn a living. This has to do with how distributors - middlemen - earn a living. And if you ask me, they can perform some sort of labor, or they can rot.
What time was this? As far as I'm aware, they've never been disallowed. (That doesn't mean they were never confiscated...)
I didn't assume you were a big idiot. It seems pretty natural to assume that something dangerous like a lighter wouldn't be allowed considering all the benign things that are banned.
It's dumber than that. You're actually allowed to bring lighters. You can even buy them at news stands past security.
If you check the list, you'll see that you can carry up to two on, but you can't have them in your checked baggage.
I had a lombard.
I hated (hated. Was that strong enough? I Don't think it was...) I FUCKING HATED the removable batteries. At the least opportune times, you could somehow manage to catch your shirt or something on the battery eject lever. It happend maybe a dozen times to me, and there's never really a good moment for your system to suddenly lose power.
I haven't owned an Apple laptop since. And I can't say I've ever removed the battery from the other laptops I've had except to replace it when it wouldn't charge anymore. If you're one of the few that take long flights or something and need to swap batteries, then there are laptops for that. I don't think easily removable *anything* belongs on a mass-market laptop though.
No, that would promote incarceration of innocent people even more than the current system. People who never committed a crime in the first place are certainly less likely to do so when they get out than actual criminals.
maximize their bang for the buck
You must live under a different government than me.
it's a prison - their job is to lock people up - how do you make a private prison without paying them for locking people up?
Flat fee.
and before you say flat fee
Too late.
- what happens when the prison is full and you need another one?
Open bidding on a new contract for another one. There would never be a guarantee that getting your facility to overflow would net you another contract.
The problem isn't that it was a commercially operated prison.
It is the sole duty of the operators of a commercial prison to maximize revenue for the shareholders.
Even if that were true, if revenues and profits for the company running the prison weren't linked to the number of prisoners, then there's no conflict of interest. In fact, if the contract specified a fixed fee for running the facility, the company would have incentive to keep people out rather than trying to get more people in.
Prison Guards benefit from having a job, because someone was found guilty.
That's an indirect benefit. Much different from a contract that essentially says "you get paid $x * number of prisoners" or "you get promoted if you prosecute x number of cases that hand down a guilty verdict" or even "You have a quota. Hand out x number of speeding tickets this week or you're fired". There's no way for an individual guard to know that they're going to benefit from an incarceration without conspiring with a third party.
Victims benefit from knowing justice was served in a case where someone was found guilty.
Last I checked, we had a criminal justice system, not a criminal vengeance system. The feelings of the victims should never be taken into account in the prosecution of a case. The courts should do what is best for our society, and apply the laws of the land. In a criminal case, if they're taking anybody's feelings into account, they're doing it wrong.
Oh, you don't mean that... you mean the OTHER people that benefit...
You don't need to put words in my mouth just because you can't comprehend that I actually meant what I said.
One of the better suggestion on how to restructure the SEC was to give incentives to investigators for each big case they successfully prosecute. Without this, we will never see SEC investigators constantly willing to take down billionaires like Madoff due to the consequences/blacklisting they face from doing so.
Letting guilty people get away with it is preferable to giving prosecutors incentive to take down innocent people. This is one of the founding principles of our government.
What you have listed isn't one of the "better" suggestions. It's unconscionable.
Fixed fees.
More prisoners, same dollars.
The problem isn't that it was a commercially operated prison. The problem is that the payment structure was set up in such a way as to benefit the operator for an increased number of incarcerations. It shouldn't just be illegal, it should be unconstitutional for any contract or law to provide benefit to one party when another is found guilty of a crime.
We threw them out 12 years ago. Apparently that was how long it took for us to forget why we didn't want a Democratic majority anymore. It's the same people with a new face at the top. Do you really think one person can change that much?
These guys are professionally corrupt. The US citizens threw them out of power, so they systematically discredited all of the leaders of the newly chosen majority. Once the smart people were gone it was only a matter of time before the Republicans that were left screwed things up, and now we have the same jerks we hated so much in '96 back again.
Repealing Open Access is a protectionist economic policy that has long been associated with the American Left. This shouldn't surprise anybody. Just like it shouldn't surprise anybody when the Democrats start opposing Net Neutrality, having the government police online copyright violations to prop up the established content distribution industries, and do everything in their power to keep Detroit auto makers in business.
It's amusing to me that we have a "liberal" and "conservative" party when it comes to social/wedge issues, but when it comes to just about everything else the two parties swap sides.