You might want to look a little more into your assertion that oil came into its own without a ton of federal help. And in case you want to specifically focus on the real no kidding "birth" of the petroleum revolution that is fine. But make no mistake oil has and still does get a TON of federal help. I think a lot of people would be fine cutting alternative energy subsidies if only the petroleum ones were cut as well.
The problem as I understand it though is that the US petroleum industry "needs" all that help in order to compete with the rest of the world. I can't say for sure if that assessment of "need" is really valid, but non-US petroleum production and refining does get some non-trivial level of government support and so it would harm the US if they did not do the same in order to compete.
So given that, you have to ask the question, "how can a nascent industry like solar/wind/storage/any other renewable" have a chance to compete in a market where the entrenched incumbent has the advantage of both a lock on the market and government support?" Easy answer, it cannot.
As to picking winners and losers, that only applies where the government is specifically choosing a technology/company to the exclusion of others. I'm pretty sure that has only happened in one case; Ethanol and specifically corn-based Ethanol. Barring that, or in case we have been a little too specific, then the easy solution is you fund basic research,the kind that is high risk-long lead and not suitable for most commercial ventures, and you create pots of money that can be applied for (loans, grants, whatever) by anyone looking to demonstrate commercial-sized production.
Everything below here is more a response to other posts above yours, so if my comments don't apply to you, please don't take offense:)
Everyone likes to point to Solyndra and say, "SEE!!! That is what is wrong with renewable energy and picking winners and losers!!!" No, that is just what happens when you decide to spend money to find the right solution out of many. Some fail, some succeed, and some fail only to be picked up by smarter/better/better-timed people to finally succeed. And while Solyndra itself might also be an example of bad politics (I think the final post-mortem showed it actually wasn't), it is also proof that politics should be kept out of that sort of thing. The government should not feel the need to find a poster child for what amounts to good general policy of a country investing in its energy future.
Right. And because they cannot deny coverage, AND reality means many people cannot pay for that emergency service, it means we should be REALISTIC about how we manage a sustainable system. That means not allowing people to be de facto covered via the most expensive health care possible, emergency services, without demanding that they contribute, upfront and for cheaper services than emergency care. Or how about preventing unwanted pregnancies via inexpensive contraception so that society doesn't have to bare the burden of an expensive person.
As to the large banking institutions... That is because large banking institutions are not the same as healthcare. If you don't know that already I can't explain it to you. But I'll give you a hint: when was the last time you had to have an emergency banking procedure? And when you did, how much time did you have and many banks did you research before obtaining service for your life-or-death emergency banking procedure?
Sadly the financial bail-out, for all the ways it should have been done differently (like exerting more control over banks receiving support and consequences for people), was at its core necessary to prevent more damage. It sucks but that is the truth. We made our bed via deregulation and we had no choice but to solve the short term problem of the liquidity markets freezing up. The important question is not should we or shouldn't we have done it (or how should we have done it differently)? The question is, what are we doing now so we don't ever have to do it again!?!?! I was appalled that the banks were not allowed to fail. I was even more appalled that they COULD NOT be allowed to fail, and I'm down right disgusted that for the most part they STILL CANNOT be allowed to fail.
and I'd like to put in a plug for Hugh Howey's "I, Zombie". Hugh has made a good name for himself in the self-publishing arena and his success continues to snowball. Not the least of which is due to his amazing stories like Wool, Moly Fyde, and my personal favorite the underdog Halfway Home, but also because he seems to be a genuinely good guy.
As for I, Zombie... it is not a human story about zombies. It is a zombie story about being a zombie. Check it out.
Then start an annual odo inspection and use existing auto mechanic / dealers as the inspection points with huge penalties for fraud.
I'm not a fan of Virginia's safety inspections because I know they are pointless, but at least they let you do them, along with emissions inspections, at any number of local mechanic shops. So the infrastructure is built in and usually pretty speedy. That is as opposed to NJ inspections which at least in the 80's was a huge state run building with long lines that was dreaded by all.
Or Ohio who decided that the best way to start their emissions program in the late 90's (to avoid EPA sanctions for polluted counties) was to build from scratch an entire government run infrastructure at a huge cost. That was despite MANY studies showing they could do it cheaper, faster AND more effective by deploying mobile sniffers and literally paying people to fix their cars / buying out very old lost cause vehicles. Basically take care of the 10% of the cars making 90% of the pollution and let everyone else go about their day.
Anyway the point is, it does NOT have to be that hard or expensive to do an annual odo check. As to the accounting burden, it doesn't need to be DMV, it would be the treasury since they have to incorporate it into their tax system and all they need to know is one single number; miles driven. You know, EXACTLY like they have to do it using any other method of counting mileage.
Ideally they'ed even let you pre-pay with withholdings and let you adjust those withholdings based on expected miles per year. Don't own a car, don't withhold at all. Own two cars and drive 30k/yr, you might want to let them know that so you don't have sticker-shock when it comes time to pay that gas tax.
separate e-meter on in-home car chargers, tax on public car chargers, solves the taxing car electricity problem.
That is assuming the much more obvious odo reading isn't instituted as you and others have mentioned. And as someone else said, for states without annual inspections... START ONE. If all you are doing is checking the ODO then it should be very fast and not all that costly. Incorporate existing auto shops for infrastructure and huge penalties for fraud and you're done.
Worried about "sticker shock" having to pay an end of year gas tax bill? Make it part of witholdings and give people the ability to adjust it based on the number of cars / estimated annual miles just like we do now with federal W-4.
Maybe surprised, maybe not. I'll concede they happen often. But of course my point is that elective procedures are not proof that health care can function in a pure market system.
You're father-in-law's case approaches the level of "elective" from the stand point that even is his surgery was ultimately "required" for him to live / have a quality of life, he obviously had the time to do research. He also had the resources to travel far and wide to find the best outcome:cost ratio. Most people do not have the resources to do that, and more important they do not have the time in an urgent / emergency care situation.
The only problem with your comparative theory is that Lasik (which I personally paid for out of my pocket even though the military offered to pay for PRK) is for the most part elective. So I had the time to shop and research AND the info was actually out there and available. You have no such luxury when the ambulance is called, you're told you need surgery, you're too unstable to be moved to another hospital (as if you even had price/benefit info with which to make that choice), you are not given the chance to source drugs for less cost / cheaper, you are not given the option to decline to have other doctor's consult on your case (at least not without being very well informed, cognizant, and FORCEFUL), etc etc etc.
Non-elective medical care breaks all tenants of a free-market system as far as choice and access to information are concerned. To pretend otherwise is delusion.
Because punishment is the only viable deterrent to activities deemed "bad" because they are clearly too much fun, and how else can you justify a massive bureaucracy (DEA + Prisons) with the power to ruin people's lives.
DING DING DING... maybe some of those parents who are indeed buying it for their kids are doing just what we've been asking them to do, decide for themselves what is appropriate for their kids instead of asking / forcing / letting the government to do it for them based on the lowest common denominator (i.e. hyper-puritanical / violent video games = violence believers).
I'm not saying what age I believe GTAV is appropriate for, but lets not forget that like MPAA ratings, ESRB ratings are informational guides and not enforceable limits. Yes I know it is enforceable on minors, I'm talking about for legal adults they are not limits.
Perhaps. But in fairness SMS is THE MOST robust comms channel with a pretty significant link margin by virtue of being part of the control channel which needs to be robust and "up" before anything else can work. When data and voice are have no chance, SMS may still make it through. Couple that with the ability to store and retry without user intervention and suddenly texting on a flight is not THAT surprising. I'm' going to guess you hade mostly clear skies because clouds really do add to the signal path lose, but again, SMS is pretty robust, so maybe not. Also a flight "across TX" tells me you probably also weren't very high being a regional flight vice cross-country.
In any case, your experience isn't surprising, but it also doesn't change the fact that reliably hitting towers at altitude, in a metal tube, possibly with clouds between you, is unlikely especially for anything more than SMS. There is a reason there is a market for in-flight wifi and it isn't just because it would save you a TON of battery life.
Hmmm not sure that actually works at all. I mean really, I'm not sure. Here's my thinking:
No matter how random the seed is, if you ultimately are pulling from a pseudo random algorithm you have a risk of collisions which iirc is the problem. By your description it would be valid to say, "generate a random seed and then use that to choose from a PRNG that is based on choosing a 0 or 1 depending on the seed's even/odd status" It may be an overly simplistic example, but no matter how complex the PSNG algorithm, or how you seed it, it is ultimately still an algorithm that can allow for generating collision.
But I'm willing to concede I might be missing something in your example. It just seems better to use the random seed in the first place rather than throw it into some PRNG.
I'd like it if we applied a slightly modified version of this... instead of asking the question, "what does a reasonable person *expect* to be private?" We should ask ourselves, "What do we as The People *want* to be private? Do we *want* our private correspondence, regardless of transmission or storage medium, to be subject to 4th amendment protections or not?"
Because i believe that is the question The Founders (tm) were asking themselves. And we know their answer. As time went on and society and technology advanced the courts have used various tests to draw lines. Lines that seemed reasonable until they become convoluted tortured logic paths to fit square pegs into round holes in the name of jurisprudence. At some point we need to hit the big red RESET button and ask ourselves that basic question: What do we want as a free society and how do we get there the simplest way possible?
The problem here is a question of energy STORAGE not generation. Until we have better batteries, or some other form of storage, that are comparable to hydrocarbon storage roof top solar will still not be as practical for a lot of transportation needs.
Mind you I'm not saying this is a great idea, especially if beats require "quality" arable land. But if by chance they are viable on land that is not great for other, edible, crops, then it might not be such a horrible idea. IIRC that is why everyone is/was so enthralled with switch-grass.
We need something a bit more sustainable and more carbon neutral to bridge the gap till we get a suitably dense storage medium for automotive use.
Umm yeah, right up until 4c.. then it reverses the contracting and starts to expand. By 8c the density is the same as at 0c and continues to drop (read: expand) as temp further increase.
Only if you plug them in. My Dish 722 is NOT plugged into a phone line nor into a network. So no reporting back. They tried to charge me $5 for that fact. I asked them what plugging in got me. Response: "it allows you to order PPV programs without having to use the internet." To which I said, "Oh so if i make it easier for myself to spend money with you, you'll stop making me spend $5 every month?" They repeated their initial response a few more time, I reworded mine to mirror theirs, and I now do not pay the $5 fee. In fairness they might not even charge it anymore. But for a few years they did, and I didn't pay it and they still have no idea what i watch or how i watch it.
Not to mention, even if it DID... it would have to lower it a LOT and your score would already have to be on the margain to be bumped down into a new rate range. But alas, it is NOT true.
Yes x100. My sister was an outstanding teacher for 18 years... with math as a specialty. Then she got divorced and realized, "Oh crap I can't afford to keep teaching without someone else supplementing my income." So she went back to serving food, was soon tapped to be a local and then regional trainer, and soon after put into the management program. Now she's making a decent living wage without the physical demands (her age made lugging trays around for 8 hours / 6 days a week unsustainable). The ultimate irony IMO is that her teach abilities, and her work ethic, are what drive her rise to management so quickly. I don't know what number $$$ would have conviced her to stay in teaching, but it was a not even a difficult calculation to make when she was looking to rebuild her life.
"In broad strokes yes"... the point about my analogy is that OP says that it is not some parasitic relationship. She wants data to help better sell her product. That is fine, but don't sell it as some altruistic attempt to help the customer. It is a business trying to improve their targeted marketing. Call it what it is, and suddenly it doesn't sound quite so innocuous. At least to me it doesn't.
But the galling part about it, because I agree fully anonymous data is fine with me, is her attitude that it is "her data". It is NOT her data. It is the retailers and it is mine.
So if they don't "know ANYTHING about [me]" then exactly what are we talking about? What data is being used to make this widget / art better "for me".
You specify "where there are large numbers of fans" but that isn't all she is asking for. Whats more, the attitude that it is "her data" breeds the idea that she is 1) entitled to it and 2) implies that there is more than just 'fan location data' she feels entiteled to. I personally disagree and since it is MY data, and MY relationship with the retailer, not hers. In fact, I might intentionally choose a retailer based on their attitude about collecting data about me (read: they don't and when/if they do they don't share it).
I honestly do get her / your point about customer feedback and info being very useful for a business. But lately the attitude about their "right" to the data is just getting annoying and I for one am not willing to just accept it. Resistance may be futile, but I will still resist.
So by that same logic, it benefits me when Company X learns everything about me so they can create a better Widget for me to buy? Because that is exactly what you just said. The only difference is that I've removed "artist" from the equation to acknowledge there is nothing special about an "artist" in this equation.
Specifically you are correct with regards to "first sale". Generally you are not with regards to the "relationship". That is to say, I paid the rights to have music streamed to me in consideration for monies paid. What I did not pay for is a relationship. What's more, if that data IS provided then I expect some consideration in return. Pandora should not have to provide it free of charge, so they should get a discount on royalties paid, and in return I should not have to pay as much for the service be it fewer ads or lower fees.
I get her point. She is an artist trying to make a living. As an artist (her not me) I believe she genuinely wants to know who her fans are so she can engage with them more and expand her fan base. Artists want to be seen/heard/etc. That is a very personal thing for an artist. As a person trying to make a living out of it, I also understand her desire to use that very same data to help her market herself.
What she doesn't get is that it isn't her "right" to know who I am without my explicite agreement. She doesn't have to sell to me, and I don't have to buy from her. We BOTH have the right to demand terms bilaterally.
To be blunt, I don't give a shit. UW's Basketball program is not entiteled to revenue. It is entitled to use old world revenue streams. And it is not entitled to protection of those revenue streams through threats of force (read: the courts). They are 100% entitled to revoke media cred, that is their right and their choice. However, when the "modern world" routes around their choice in a legal and moral (yes moral) manner, they do not have the right to prevent it. Well yes in some ways they do, they can ban cell phones from the stadium, employ jammers (where legal), add a EULA to all tickets saying you agree to not tweet and then agressively enforce it via force (again, read: the courts) etc. But they will also have to live with the consequences of said actions from further circumvention all the way to loss of ticket sales.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to look a little more into your assertion that oil came into its own without a ton of federal help. And in case you want to specifically focus on the real no kidding "birth" of the petroleum revolution that is fine. But make no mistake oil has and still does get a TON of federal help. I think a lot of people would be fine cutting alternative energy subsidies if only the petroleum ones were cut as well.
The problem as I understand it though is that the US petroleum industry "needs" all that help in order to compete with the rest of the world. I can't say for sure if that assessment of "need" is really valid, but non-US petroleum production and refining does get some non-trivial level of government support and so it would harm the US if they did not do the same in order to compete.
So given that, you have to ask the question, "how can a nascent industry like solar/wind/storage/any other renewable" have a chance to compete in a market where the entrenched incumbent has the advantage of both a lock on the market and government support?" Easy answer, it cannot.
As to picking winners and losers, that only applies where the government is specifically choosing a technology/company to the exclusion of others. I'm pretty sure that has only happened in one case; Ethanol and specifically corn-based Ethanol. Barring that, or in case we have been a little too specific, then the easy solution is you fund basic research,the kind that is high risk-long lead and not suitable for most commercial ventures, and you create pots of money that can be applied for (loans, grants, whatever) by anyone looking to demonstrate commercial-sized production.
Everything below here is more a response to other posts above yours, so if my comments don't apply to you, please don't take offense :)
Everyone likes to point to Solyndra and say, "SEE!!! That is what is wrong with renewable energy and picking winners and losers!!!" No, that is just what happens when you decide to spend money to find the right solution out of many. Some fail, some succeed, and some fail only to be picked up by smarter/better/better-timed people to finally succeed. And while Solyndra itself might also be an example of bad politics (I think the final post-mortem showed it actually wasn't), it is also proof that politics should be kept out of that sort of thing. The government should not feel the need to find a poster child for what amounts to good general policy of a country investing in its energy future.
Right. And because they cannot deny coverage, AND reality means many people cannot pay for that emergency service, it means we should be REALISTIC about how we manage a sustainable system. That means not allowing people to be de facto covered via the most expensive health care possible, emergency services, without demanding that they contribute, upfront and for cheaper services than emergency care. Or how about preventing unwanted pregnancies via inexpensive contraception so that society doesn't have to bare the burden of an expensive person.
As to the large banking institutions ... That is because large banking institutions are not the same as healthcare. If you don't know that already I can't explain it to you. But I'll give you a hint: when was the last time you had to have an emergency banking procedure? And when you did, how much time did you have and many banks did you research before obtaining service for your life-or-death emergency banking procedure?
Sadly the financial bail-out, for all the ways it should have been done differently (like exerting more control over banks receiving support and consequences for people), was at its core necessary to prevent more damage. It sucks but that is the truth. We made our bed via deregulation and we had no choice but to solve the short term problem of the liquidity markets freezing up. The important question is not should we or shouldn't we have done it (or how should we have done it differently)? The question is, what are we doing now so we don't ever have to do it again!?!?! I was appalled that the banks were not allowed to fail. I was even more appalled that they COULD NOT be allowed to fail, and I'm down right disgusted that for the most part they STILL CANNOT be allowed to fail.
and I'd like to put in a plug for Hugh Howey's "I, Zombie". Hugh has made a good name for himself in the self-publishing arena and his success continues to snowball. Not the least of which is due to his amazing stories like Wool, Moly Fyde, and my personal favorite the underdog Halfway Home, but also because he seems to be a genuinely good guy.
As for I, Zombie ... it is not a human story about zombies. It is a zombie story about being a zombie. Check it out.
Then start an annual odo inspection and use existing auto mechanic / dealers as the inspection points with huge penalties for fraud.
I'm not a fan of Virginia's safety inspections because I know they are pointless, but at least they let you do them, along with emissions inspections, at any number of local mechanic shops. So the infrastructure is built in and usually pretty speedy. That is as opposed to NJ inspections which at least in the 80's was a huge state run building with long lines that was dreaded by all.
Or Ohio who decided that the best way to start their emissions program in the late 90's (to avoid EPA sanctions for polluted counties) was to build from scratch an entire government run infrastructure at a huge cost. That was despite MANY studies showing they could do it cheaper, faster AND more effective by deploying mobile sniffers and literally paying people to fix their cars / buying out very old lost cause vehicles. Basically take care of the 10% of the cars making 90% of the pollution and let everyone else go about their day.
Anyway the point is, it does NOT have to be that hard or expensive to do an annual odo check. As to the accounting burden, it doesn't need to be DMV, it would be the treasury since they have to incorporate it into their tax system and all they need to know is one single number; miles driven. You know, EXACTLY like they have to do it using any other method of counting mileage.
Ideally they'ed even let you pre-pay with withholdings and let you adjust those withholdings based on expected miles per year. Don't own a car, don't withhold at all. Own two cars and drive 30k/yr, you might want to let them know that so you don't have sticker-shock when it comes time to pay that gas tax.
separate e-meter on in-home car chargers, tax on public car chargers, solves the taxing car electricity problem.
That is assuming the much more obvious odo reading isn't instituted as you and others have mentioned. And as someone else said, for states without annual inspections ... START ONE. If all you are doing is checking the ODO then it should be very fast and not all that costly. Incorporate existing auto shops for infrastructure and huge penalties for fraud and you're done.
Worried about "sticker shock" having to pay an end of year gas tax bill? Make it part of witholdings and give people the ability to adjust it based on the number of cars / estimated annual miles just like we do now with federal W-4.
Maybe surprised, maybe not. I'll concede they happen often. But of course my point is that elective procedures are not proof that health care can function in a pure market system.
You're father-in-law's case approaches the level of "elective" from the stand point that even is his surgery was ultimately "required" for him to live / have a quality of life, he obviously had the time to do research. He also had the resources to travel far and wide to find the best outcome:cost ratio. Most people do not have the resources to do that, and more important they do not have the time in an urgent / emergency care situation.
The only problem with your comparative theory is that Lasik (which I personally paid for out of my pocket even though the military offered to pay for PRK) is for the most part elective. So I had the time to shop and research AND the info was actually out there and available. You have no such luxury when the ambulance is called, you're told you need surgery, you're too unstable to be moved to another hospital (as if you even had price/benefit info with which to make that choice), you are not given the chance to source drugs for less cost / cheaper, you are not given the option to decline to have other doctor's consult on your case (at least not without being very well informed, cognizant, and FORCEFUL), etc etc etc.
Non-elective medical care breaks all tenants of a free-market system as far as choice and access to information are concerned. To pretend otherwise is delusion.
Because punishment is the only viable deterrent to activities deemed "bad" because they are clearly too much fun, and how else can you justify a massive bureaucracy (DEA + Prisons) with the power to ruin people's lives.
DING DING DING ... maybe some of those parents who are indeed buying it for their kids are doing just what we've been asking them to do, decide for themselves what is appropriate for their kids instead of asking / forcing / letting the government to do it for them based on the lowest common denominator (i.e. hyper-puritanical / violent video games = violence believers).
I'm not saying what age I believe GTAV is appropriate for, but lets not forget that like MPAA ratings, ESRB ratings are informational guides and not enforceable limits. Yes I know it is enforceable on minors, I'm talking about for legal adults they are not limits.
Perhaps. But in fairness SMS is THE MOST robust comms channel with a pretty significant link margin by virtue of being part of the control channel which needs to be robust and "up" before anything else can work. When data and voice are have no chance, SMS may still make it through. Couple that with the ability to store and retry without user intervention and suddenly texting on a flight is not THAT surprising. I'm' going to guess you hade mostly clear skies because clouds really do add to the signal path lose, but again, SMS is pretty robust, so maybe not. Also a flight "across TX" tells me you probably also weren't very high being a regional flight vice cross-country.
In any case, your experience isn't surprising, but it also doesn't change the fact that reliably hitting towers at altitude, in a metal tube, possibly with clouds between you, is unlikely especially for anything more than SMS. There is a reason there is a market for in-flight wifi and it isn't just because it would save you a TON of battery life.
Hmmm not sure that actually works at all. I mean really, I'm not sure. Here's my thinking:
No matter how random the seed is, if you ultimately are pulling from a pseudo random algorithm you have a risk of collisions which iirc is the problem. By your description it would be valid to say, "generate a random seed and then use that to choose from a PRNG that is based on choosing a 0 or 1 depending on the seed's even/odd status" It may be an overly simplistic example, but no matter how complex the PSNG algorithm, or how you seed it, it is ultimately still an algorithm that can allow for generating collision.
But I'm willing to concede I might be missing something in your example. It just seems better to use the random seed in the first place rather than throw it into some PRNG.
Plex Media Server can run natively on many NAS boxes. I personally run it on UnRaid, but i know it works with Synology and a few others
I'd like it if we applied a slightly modified version of this ... instead of asking the question, "what does a reasonable person *expect* to be private?" We should ask ourselves, "What do we as The People *want* to be private? Do we *want* our private correspondence, regardless of transmission or storage medium, to be subject to 4th amendment protections or not?"
Because i believe that is the question The Founders (tm) were asking themselves. And we know their answer. As time went on and society and technology advanced the courts have used various tests to draw lines. Lines that seemed reasonable until they become convoluted tortured logic paths to fit square pegs into round holes in the name of jurisprudence. At some point we need to hit the big red RESET button and ask ourselves that basic question: What do we want as a free society and how do we get there the simplest way possible?
The problem here is a question of energy STORAGE not generation. Until we have better batteries, or some other form of storage, that are comparable to hydrocarbon storage roof top solar will still not be as practical for a lot of transportation needs.
Mind you I'm not saying this is a great idea, especially if beats require "quality" arable land. But if by chance they are viable on land that is not great for other, edible, crops, then it might not be such a horrible idea. IIRC that is why everyone is/was so enthralled with switch-grass.
We need something a bit more sustainable and more carbon neutral to bridge the gap till we get a suitably dense storage medium for automotive use.
Umm yeah, right up until 4c .. then it reverses the contracting and starts to expand. By 8c the density is the same as at 0c and continues to drop (read: expand) as temp further increase.
Only if you plug them in. My Dish 722 is NOT plugged into a phone line nor into a network. So no reporting back. They tried to charge me $5 for that fact. I asked them what plugging in got me. Response: "it allows you to order PPV programs without having to use the internet." To which I said, "Oh so if i make it easier for myself to spend money with you, you'll stop making me spend $5 every month?" They repeated their initial response a few more time, I reworded mine to mirror theirs, and I now do not pay the $5 fee. In fairness they might not even charge it anymore. But for a few years they did, and I didn't pay it and they still have no idea what i watch or how i watch it.
Not to mention, even if it DID ... it would have to lower it a LOT and your score would already have to be on the margain to be bumped down into a new rate range. But alas, it is NOT true.
Yes x100. My sister was an outstanding teacher for 18 years ... with math as a specialty. Then she got divorced and realized, "Oh crap I can't afford to keep teaching without someone else supplementing my income." So she went back to serving food, was soon tapped to be a local and then regional trainer, and soon after put into the management program. Now she's making a decent living wage without the physical demands (her age made lugging trays around for 8 hours / 6 days a week unsustainable). The ultimate irony IMO is that her teach abilities, and her work ethic, are what drive her rise to management so quickly. I don't know what number $$$ would have conviced her to stay in teaching, but it was a not even a difficult calculation to make when she was looking to rebuild her life.
"In broad strokes yes" ... the point about my analogy is that OP says that it is not some parasitic relationship. She wants data to help better sell her product. That is fine, but don't sell it as some altruistic attempt to help the customer. It is a business trying to improve their targeted marketing. Call it what it is, and suddenly it doesn't sound quite so innocuous. At least to me it doesn't.
But the galling part about it, because I agree fully anonymous data is fine with me, is her attitude that it is "her data". It is NOT her data. It is the retailers and it is mine.
So if they don't "know ANYTHING about [me]" then exactly what are we talking about? What data is being used to make this widget / art better "for me".
You specify "where there are large numbers of fans" but that isn't all she is asking for. Whats more, the attitude that it is "her data" breeds the idea that she is 1) entitled to it and 2) implies that there is more than just 'fan location data' she feels entiteled to. I personally disagree and since it is MY data, and MY relationship with the retailer, not hers. In fact, I might intentionally choose a retailer based on their attitude about collecting data about me (read: they don't and when/if they do they don't share it).
I honestly do get her / your point about customer feedback and info being very useful for a business. But lately the attitude about their "right" to the data is just getting annoying and I for one am not willing to just accept it. Resistance may be futile, but I will still resist.
So by that same logic, it benefits me when Company X learns everything about me so they can create a better Widget for me to buy? Because that is exactly what you just said. The only difference is that I've removed "artist" from the equation to acknowledge there is nothing special about an "artist" in this equation.
Specifically you are correct with regards to "first sale". Generally you are not with regards to the "relationship". That is to say, I paid the rights to have music streamed to me in consideration for monies paid. What I did not pay for is a relationship. What's more, if that data IS provided then I expect some consideration in return. Pandora should not have to provide it free of charge, so they should get a discount on royalties paid, and in return I should not have to pay as much for the service be it fewer ads or lower fees.
I get her point. She is an artist trying to make a living. As an artist (her not me) I believe she genuinely wants to know who her fans are so she can engage with them more and expand her fan base. Artists want to be seen/heard/etc. That is a very personal thing for an artist. As a person trying to make a living out of it, I also understand her desire to use that very same data to help her market herself.
What she doesn't get is that it isn't her "right" to know who I am without my explicite agreement. She doesn't have to sell to me, and I don't have to buy from her. We BOTH have the right to demand terms bilaterally.
miss-edit: ... is NOT entitled to old world revenue
To be blunt, I don't give a shit. UW's Basketball program is not entiteled to revenue. It is entitled to use old world revenue streams. And it is not entitled to protection of those revenue streams through threats of force (read: the courts). They are 100% entitled to revoke media cred, that is their right and their choice. However, when the "modern world" routes around their choice in a legal and moral (yes moral) manner, they do not have the right to prevent it. Well yes in some ways they do, they can ban cell phones from the stadium, employ jammers (where legal), add a EULA to all tickets saying you agree to not tweet and then agressively enforce it via force (again, read: the courts) etc. But they will also have to live with the consequences of said actions from further circumvention all the way to loss of ticket sales.