I used instant messaging programs to converse with my wife back when we were dating (1998 - 2001). We also met in a chat room. Can I count our marriage and 2 kids as prior art?
When we flew to Disney World a few months back, I was quite nervous about the security screenings. We're always telling our kids about the appropriate kinds of touching. If someone touches you "there", it's not Ok unless it's mommy, daddy or your doctor. (Our kids are still young enough that we bathe them and help them with potty matters.) How do you explain that stranger from the TSA touching them there? It's ok unless it's mommy, daddy, your doctor or a random TSA agent?!! Luckily, we had no issues. (No rapiscanning or groping.) Still, I'm going to be nervous any time we have to fly.
You are obviously not a parent with small children. We sometimes travel 300 miles to visit my wife's brother. This trip takes about six hours once restroom and food breaks are factored in. (It was even worse when the kids were babies. We had to stop every 2 hours to change diapers.) At the end of the trip, our sanity is wearing down. Still, a car trip of this magnitude is doable.
Now, suppose we were travelling to Disney World instead of my brother-in-law's house. That's about 1,200 miles away from us. At our rate of travel, this would take us 4 days. Each way. If I get a week off of work for vacation, we'd drive down to Disney World, have to turn around the minute we arrived and head home. "Hey kids! See Disney World? Take a good look because we're not going in, we're going back home!"
Compare that with a three hour flight. Keeping the kids entertained and well behaved for six hours (3 hours each way) is simple compared to 48 hours (6 hours a day x 4 days each way).
Getting back to the TSA topic, I reject the false dichotomy that you either put up with the TSA gropings or you drive to your destination. The TSA gropings are "meant" to increase security (and by "meant", I really mean "claimed to be justified by the TSA for this purpose"). They don't actually increase security, though. Neither do the radiation machines. We could drop the security back to pre-911 levels (except for the reinforced cockpit doors and perhaps one or two other actual security improvements) and we'd be just fine. The TSA seems to feel the need to justify themselves, though, and they do this by inventing new things to do to show that they are "keeping us safe."
Don't worry. The LizardFrogs will eat the DragonBees. And the BirdSnakes will eat the LizardFrogs. The GorillaBears will eat the BirdSnakes and then will die when winter rolls around.
One option that may be available to you is the public library. We've been getting a lot of DVDs from our local library recently. Yes, you need to drive there to pick up the discs and return them, but considering that the rental is free (or, at least, included in taxes that you'd pay anyway), it's worth it. No, it won't completely replace Netflix's DVD selection, but it helps.
What's happening is that Netflix is being squeezed on two ends.
On one side are the content companies. They don't like that people are skipping buying DVDs, going to movie theaters and paying for premium cable channels in lieu of just getting a Netflix subscription. Plus, the idea that people could see content whenever/where ever the viewer wants to see it scares them (the content owners). After all, they reason, if people can see it anytime, the scarcity drops to zero and so does the value of the content. (What they don't see is that making content easily available to more people will mean more viewers which raises the value of good content.)
On the other site are ISPs. Mainly those with video offerings of their own. (Read: Cable companies.) These companies don't like that they're "losing revenue" because people aren't buying premium channels from the cable companies and instead are getting Netflix subscriptions. So they're instituting caps. This way, they can kill Netflix off by making it much too expensive to have. (If your cap is 50GB and there are high overages, just how many HD video streams will you be able to view per month before you wind up paying a lot of extra $$$.) Even if people stick with Netflix and pay the overage fees, the cable company wins since they're now getting more money from Netflix subscribers.
The problem with this reasoning is that Netflix would *LOVE* to offer all the content on streaming. The studios, however, don't want them to. They want Netflix to turn into a content wasteland so they can get back to selling us DVDs/Blu-Rays/Premium Cable Channels/etc. Netflix would load up streaming tomorrow* with every show/movie that's ever been made if it didn't mean they'd be sued out of existence.
* Or as soon as they could possibly get the videos into the right format and load them up.
I haven't put my full real name in my Google Profile, but I was caught between a rock and a hard place with Google+. I use my GMail address as a private address but much of my online interaction is via a pseudonym. (Slashdot is an exception from before I switched.) I can use my pseudonym with Google+ but then friends and family will see my e-mails as coming from that name. Or I can use my real name but then my pseudonym will be worthless since everyone will see my real name. For the moment, I've resolved this by using my initials (which I've used before online even where my pseudonym is used). Still, I wish you could show different names to different circles. (Though I'm sure that could get very complicated very quickly.)
Ah, but if we had extremely restrictive copyright rules in place benefiting big companies (where "big companies" = RIAA/MPAA and not bigger, low-copyright companies like clothing designers), that $4.5 trillion would have been $89.6 quadrillion.*
* Study funded by the RIAA/MPAA. Figured based on completely unbiased** mathematical modeling.***
** Where "unbiased" means "completely biased."
*** "mathematical modeling" means "we pulled some big numbers out of our posteriors."
Sadly, my experience was worse than yours. While flying back from Las Vegas back in 2002, our digital camera was stolen from our backpack. (I was in the restroom and my wife was distracted calling her father.) We didn't realize it was gone until we got back home but knew immediately where/when it would have been taken. We called the police, told them all of the details, and were told to fill out a police report. However, we were also informed that they wouldn't really put any effort into looking into it and the police report was more for our insurance than anything.
Our insurance got us a nice, new digital camera. Nicer than my old one. Still, I lost over 100 vacation photos thanks to my old camera being stolen. I now pack filled up memory cards separate from the camera. Let the thieves take the camera. That can be replaced. I just want to keep my photos.
Record Label: "Ok, you've signed the 4 CD contract. Here's your $1,000,000 advance." Band: "Cool! Let's record a CD!" Record Label: "Well, first you'll need a studio space to record. Luckily, you can rent our studio for only $200,000. You'll need a sound technician and [insert various other technical staff members here] as well. That'll cost you another $100,000. Plus you'll need some instruments and vocal lessons and stuff. Another $100,000." Band: "Ok, we still have $600,000. Let's record some music!" *records some songs* Record Label: "Now you need to press some CDs. You can use our facilities for the low, low price of $250,000." Band: "Ok. $350K left isn't bad." Record Label: "And we need to promote your CD or noone will buy it. A typical media campaign costs $200K." Band: "Um... ok. $150K left." Record Label: "Now let's talk tours. The contract says you need to do one tour. We'll book all the facilities and give you a fancy tour bus and staff. Only $200K." Band: "But we only have $150K left!" Record Label: "That's ok. You can pay us back from your royalties."
CD is a hit and sells a million copies.
Record Label: "You owe us $50K." Band: "But what about those royalties you talked about. Surely, that'll pay for it and get us some cash to keep." Record Label: "The CD didn't make any money." (Note lack of "don't call me Shirley" joke as record labels lack a sense of humor.) Record Label: "Don't worry though. You can make it up to us on the next CD."
Now, repeat the process with each CD the band makes. The advance is paid back to the record label for services rendered and each CD "loses" money so that the band gets little, if any, money and winds up indentured to the record label for another CD to "make up the loses."
You aren't entitled to make money selling music, but if you sell a million CDs, you should be entitled to a decent share of the profits and not have the recording industry say "Well, that million sales album actually lost ten thousand dollars so you owe us money."
The RIAA is using Hollywood accounting (and other sleazy tactics) to keep as much money to themselves and away from the artists as possible. But they don't want you to pirate because they care so much about the artists!
For most people, the process has so many hidden intermediate steps that they can mentally separate the urine from the "fresh" drinking water. In this case, we're being shown a small number of non-hidden intermediate steps which increases the "eww factor." (That "eww factor" being a handy survival skill because, before the invention of modern filtering systems, you didn't want to go about drinking your urine or anything that you had recently urinated into.
Ideal situation: Government makes some rules. If people don't like them they elect a different government which changes the rules to better benefit the people.
Realistic situation: Government gets paid by... I mean listens to a lobbying group and then makes some rules. If people don't like them they elect a different government which... then does the exact same thing as the previous one did!
We already have instances of TSA workers pulling women for additional screening by the "nude photo scanner" (for our safety, of course). Are they now going to claim that any large chested woman be "examined in detail" to make sure her breasts aren't hiding bombs? "Ma'am you can either take off your shirt and bra and let us feel up your boobs... for safety... or you are confirming that you are a terrorist that hates America. Which is it?"
I just wish I was joking. I wouldn't put it past some TSA folks to do this.
Perhaps, then, legal fees should be capped at 2x the rate that the losing side is paying. This way if you're paying $5,000 for legal representation and they're paying $1,000,000 (just to pull numbers out of thin air), you'll be responsible for $15,000 ($5K for your lawyer and $10K for theirs).
Not to mention there's a distinct lack of competition in most areas. "Oh you don't like our security? Well, you're free to drive to our nearest competitor. Of course, that's an eight hour trip. Is that a problem?"
I would add one more thing: The FBI. They've stopped some actual terrorist plots from getting past the planning stages. But if a terrorist manages to elude the FBI, the TSA isn't going to be more than a minor inconvenience.
Slashdot Mirror
I used instant messaging programs to converse with my wife back when we were dating (1998 - 2001). We also met in a chat room. Can I count our marriage and 2 kids as prior art?
I could see the bill now:
Ordered: 1 Widget ($5 ea) ...etc...
Subtotal: $5
Shipping: $2
Sales Taxes:
Alabama: $0.20
Alaska: $0.25
Arizona: $0.22
Arkansas: $0.18
Total: $23.34
Stop giving them ideas!
"New announcement from the TSA: All passengers boarding flights will be required to undergo full body cavity searches regardless of age or infirmity."
Too late!
Sometimes I think it'd be an improvement if we elected a comic book villain.
When we flew to Disney World a few months back, I was quite nervous about the security screenings. We're always telling our kids about the appropriate kinds of touching. If someone touches you "there", it's not Ok unless it's mommy, daddy or your doctor. (Our kids are still young enough that we bathe them and help them with potty matters.) How do you explain that stranger from the TSA touching them there? It's ok unless it's mommy, daddy, your doctor or a random TSA agent?!! Luckily, we had no issues. (No rapiscanning or groping.) Still, I'm going to be nervous any time we have to fly.
That's it. We need a War On Relatives! All relatives will now be rounded up, starting with the mother-in-laws.*
* Apologies to my mother-in-law who is actually a very nice lady.
You are obviously not a parent with small children. We sometimes travel 300 miles to visit my wife's brother. This trip takes about six hours once restroom and food breaks are factored in. (It was even worse when the kids were babies. We had to stop every 2 hours to change diapers.) At the end of the trip, our sanity is wearing down. Still, a car trip of this magnitude is doable.
Now, suppose we were travelling to Disney World instead of my brother-in-law's house. That's about 1,200 miles away from us. At our rate of travel, this would take us 4 days. Each way. If I get a week off of work for vacation, we'd drive down to Disney World, have to turn around the minute we arrived and head home. "Hey kids! See Disney World? Take a good look because we're not going in, we're going back home!"
Compare that with a three hour flight. Keeping the kids entertained and well behaved for six hours (3 hours each way) is simple compared to 48 hours (6 hours a day x 4 days each way).
Getting back to the TSA topic, I reject the false dichotomy that you either put up with the TSA gropings or you drive to your destination. The TSA gropings are "meant" to increase security (and by "meant", I really mean "claimed to be justified by the TSA for this purpose"). They don't actually increase security, though. Neither do the radiation machines. We could drop the security back to pre-911 levels (except for the reinforced cockpit doors and perhaps one or two other actual security improvements) and we'd be just fine. The TSA seems to feel the need to justify themselves, though, and they do this by inventing new things to do to show that they are "keeping us safe."
Don't worry. The LizardFrogs will eat the DragonBees. And the BirdSnakes will eat the LizardFrogs. The GorillaBears will eat the BirdSnakes and then will die when winter rolls around.
Hey, if Superman can be put to work as a clean energy source, then SuperBee can be put to work pollinating our crops.
One option that may be available to you is the public library. We've been getting a lot of DVDs from our local library recently. Yes, you need to drive there to pick up the discs and return them, but considering that the rental is free (or, at least, included in taxes that you'd pay anyway), it's worth it. No, it won't completely replace Netflix's DVD selection, but it helps.
What's happening is that Netflix is being squeezed on two ends.
On one side are the content companies. They don't like that people are skipping buying DVDs, going to movie theaters and paying for premium cable channels in lieu of just getting a Netflix subscription. Plus, the idea that people could see content whenever/where ever the viewer wants to see it scares them (the content owners). After all, they reason, if people can see it anytime, the scarcity drops to zero and so does the value of the content. (What they don't see is that making content easily available to more people will mean more viewers which raises the value of good content.)
On the other site are ISPs. Mainly those with video offerings of their own. (Read: Cable companies.) These companies don't like that they're "losing revenue" because people aren't buying premium channels from the cable companies and instead are getting Netflix subscriptions. So they're instituting caps. This way, they can kill Netflix off by making it much too expensive to have. (If your cap is 50GB and there are high overages, just how many HD video streams will you be able to view per month before you wind up paying a lot of extra $$$.) Even if people stick with Netflix and pay the overage fees, the cable company wins since they're now getting more money from Netflix subscribers.
The problem with this reasoning is that Netflix would *LOVE* to offer all the content on streaming. The studios, however, don't want them to. They want Netflix to turn into a content wasteland so they can get back to selling us DVDs/Blu-Rays/Premium Cable Channels/etc. Netflix would load up streaming tomorrow* with every show/movie that's ever been made if it didn't mean they'd be sued out of existence.
* Or as soon as they could possibly get the videos into the right format and load them up.
Or, for the Disney/Goofy fans: Yaaaaaaa-hoo-hoo-hoo-hooey!!!!
I haven't put my full real name in my Google Profile, but I was caught between a rock and a hard place with Google+. I use my GMail address as a private address but much of my online interaction is via a pseudonym. (Slashdot is an exception from before I switched.) I can use my pseudonym with Google+ but then friends and family will see my e-mails as coming from that name. Or I can use my real name but then my pseudonym will be worthless since everyone will see my real name. For the moment, I've resolved this by using my initials (which I've used before online even where my pseudonym is used). Still, I wish you could show different names to different circles. (Though I'm sure that could get very complicated very quickly.)
Ah, but if we had extremely restrictive copyright rules in place benefiting big companies (where "big companies" = RIAA/MPAA and not bigger, low-copyright companies like clothing designers), that $4.5 trillion would have been $89.6 quadrillion.*
* Study funded by the RIAA/MPAA. Figured based on completely unbiased** mathematical modeling.***
** Where "unbiased" means "completely biased."
*** "mathematical modeling" means "we pulled some big numbers out of our posteriors."
Sadly, my experience was worse than yours. While flying back from Las Vegas back in 2002, our digital camera was stolen from our backpack. (I was in the restroom and my wife was distracted calling her father.) We didn't realize it was gone until we got back home but knew immediately where/when it would have been taken. We called the police, told them all of the details, and were told to fill out a police report. However, we were also informed that they wouldn't really put any effort into looking into it and the police report was more for our insurance than anything.
Our insurance got us a nice, new digital camera. Nicer than my old one. Still, I lost over 100 vacation photos thanks to my old camera being stolen. I now pack filled up memory cards separate from the camera. Let the thieves take the camera. That can be replaced. I just want to keep my photos.
I think the actual deal is more like this:
Record Label: "Ok, you've signed the 4 CD contract. Here's your $1,000,000 advance."
Band: "Cool! Let's record a CD!"
Record Label: "Well, first you'll need a studio space to record. Luckily, you can rent our studio for only $200,000. You'll need a sound technician and [insert various other technical staff members here] as well. That'll cost you another $100,000. Plus you'll need some instruments and vocal lessons and stuff. Another $100,000."
Band: "Ok, we still have $600,000. Let's record some music!" *records some songs*
Record Label: "Now you need to press some CDs. You can use our facilities for the low, low price of $250,000."
Band: "Ok. $350K left isn't bad."
Record Label: "And we need to promote your CD or noone will buy it. A typical media campaign costs $200K."
Band: "Um... ok. $150K left."
Record Label: "Now let's talk tours. The contract says you need to do one tour. We'll book all the facilities and give you a fancy tour bus and staff. Only $200K."
Band: "But we only have $150K left!"
Record Label: "That's ok. You can pay us back from your royalties."
CD is a hit and sells a million copies.
Record Label: "You owe us $50K."
Band: "But what about those royalties you talked about. Surely, that'll pay for it and get us some cash to keep."
Record Label: "The CD didn't make any money." (Note lack of "don't call me Shirley" joke as record labels lack a sense of humor.)
Record Label: "Don't worry though. You can make it up to us on the next CD."
Now, repeat the process with each CD the band makes. The advance is paid back to the record label for services rendered and each CD "loses" money so that the band gets little, if any, money and winds up indentured to the record label for another CD to "make up the loses."
You aren't entitled to make money selling music, but if you sell a million CDs, you should be entitled to a decent share of the profits and not have the recording industry say "Well, that million sales album actually lost ten thousand dollars so you owe us money."
The RIAA is using Hollywood accounting (and other sleazy tactics) to keep as much money to themselves and away from the artists as possible. But they don't want you to pirate because they care so much about the artists!
For most people, the process has so many hidden intermediate steps that they can mentally separate the urine from the "fresh" drinking water. In this case, we're being shown a small number of non-hidden intermediate steps which increases the "eww factor." (That "eww factor" being a handy survival skill because, before the invention of modern filtering systems, you didn't want to go about drinking your urine or anything that you had recently urinated into.
Ideal situation: Government makes some rules. If people don't like them they elect a different government which changes the rules to better benefit the people.
Realistic situation: Government gets paid by... I mean listens to a lobbying group and then makes some rules. If people don't like them they elect a different government which... then does the exact same thing as the previous one did!
We already have instances of TSA workers pulling women for additional screening by the "nude photo scanner" (for our safety, of course). Are they now going to claim that any large chested woman be "examined in detail" to make sure her breasts aren't hiding bombs? "Ma'am you can either take off your shirt and bra and let us feel up your boobs... for safety... or you are confirming that you are a terrorist that hates America. Which is it?"
I just wish I was joking. I wouldn't put it past some TSA folks to do this.
I don't think a question filter is a bad idea. Otherwise, President Obama would be faced with questions like:
"Why have you lied about your birth certificate? Tell us the truth that you were born in Kenya."
"What is the real story behind the UFO's from Area 51?"
"My neighbor's dog barks so loud that it keeps me up all night. What're you gonna do 'bout it?"
"Do you prefer Disney World or Disneyland?"
"I don't really have a question but I just wanted to say 'Hi mom!' Ok, I'm done."
Perhaps, then, legal fees should be capped at 2x the rate that the losing side is paying. This way if you're paying $5,000 for legal representation and they're paying $1,000,000 (just to pull numbers out of thin air), you'll be responsible for $15,000 ($5K for your lawyer and $10K for theirs).
Not to mention there's a distinct lack of competition in most areas. "Oh you don't like our security? Well, you're free to drive to our nearest competitor. Of course, that's an eight hour trip. Is that a problem?"
I would add one more thing: The FBI. They've stopped some actual terrorist plots from getting past the planning stages. But if a terrorist manages to elude the FBI, the TSA isn't going to be more than a minor inconvenience.