Fact of the matter is, this is settled. You can make it hard for people to leech, but it will still happen, and there is nothing you can do about it. Those people are NOT your customers.
I run a small site that is mostly a personal photo blog. I keep an eye on the logs, and when one of my images gets a lot of hits, it's obviously being leeched. I just replace it with Goatse or something similar. If it happened often enough, I'd automate it.
I know you know you better than I know you but have you ever considered that the event changed less than you have? There's a lot of things I liked even 10 years ago and when I try to revisit them I think they suck. More and more I've come to the realization that what has changed really isn't that much worse and what I like that hasn't changed just doesn't appeal to me anymore. I've never been to burning man but I've done other counter culture events and I can see how much I've changed in them.
The event has changed, drastically. My first year, there were 8,000 people on the playa. The ethic of "no spectators" was strong. Very strong. Of course some people had less to contribute than others, myself included. I understood what I was supposed to do, but not to the degree. My next many years, I was much more involved in creating things for the community. One year I took a month off, and worked for the DPW - I worked on the crew (of 4 people) who made the giant spheres surrounding the man in '99. Other years, my friends and I would take our tools, and spend the day fixing art cars, bicycles, and other broken stuff.
The last time I was there, the level of participation had fallen dramatically. I won't go into great detail, but the number of people showing up for the festival has gone up in relation to the number of people creating the festival. I'm not just talking about rangers, dpw, dmv, etc. I'm talking about people setting up art, making *interactive* theme camps, and other things that involve more than just making their camp a "cool chill zone with a rad dj".
Sure, I've changed too. But the event is not what it once was.
...I loved being off the grid for a week or three.
And that is why camping to remote areas is still so much fun. You need to know where to go and what you might expect when you get there (from animals to weather) and be prepared for whatever. But you are off the grid, unless you have a satellite phone...
I had a 4 day back country, backpacking trip scheduled for last weekend. The fires in Yosemite made it impossible. Sad face.
Trust me, no one is checking Facebook or Instagram at Burning Man.
This whole, "OMG, CELL PHONES AT BURNING MAN IS GOING TO RUIN BURNING MAN" is completely over blown. Just about everyone turns off their phones at the gates and leaves them off all week. Burning Man was and still is a completely different world for one week.
Your first statement is not true. I'm getting a fairly constant flow of photos and updates from friends out there now. Most for them work for the BORG, so they have a hard line data connection.
And so as it becomes yuppified and "me too!" and too popular, there will be a sub-sub-culture for the folks that really know what is going on and why they should be there.
Many of us who have been going for a long time have stepped away as the event changed. It isn't the same as it was, so we've decided to walk away from the event. I'm not saying it isn't fun, or I'm too cool for it, but it no longer appeals to me.
My Facebook feed has slowed by 50%, so I still seem to have a bunch of friends who are going - but I'm getting photos and updates from the desert. That part I don't understand; I loved being off the grid for a week or three.
And while I understand not all pro-gun people are rabid GOP deniers of [insert topic they don't like], it's a pretty good correlation.
No, it's really not a good correlation. There are a lot of very vocal anti-gubmint gun owners, who make the rest of them look kind of loony. The vast majority of gun owners I know are somewhat left of center. NPR listening, democrat voting, pro-choice, not interested in NASCAR or truck pulls, do not believe Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate, are not members of the Klan, have mufflers on their motorcycles...
Most gun owners don't get into the public debate. For one, the anti-gun folks use lots of emotion and almost no logic to make their point, and there's not much reason to engage them. Secondly, the vocal part of the pro-gun folks use lots of emotion and almost no logic to make their point, and there's not much reason to engage them.
Rather than produce interesting movies, with good characters and great dialog, you relied on effects. Sure, a lot of people love that stuff; see Fast & Furious 27 or whatever it was. The rest of us aren't interested.
You attack your fans. You make me sit through a barrage of crap to watch a DVD if I purchase it (so I don't). You use the federal government to be your cop. You won't let me see movies how I want. You penalize Netflix when they try and give me what I want. The prices at the theater keep going up (I paid $12 to see Star Trek in 3D?) You rely on gimmicks, rather than content (see 3D).
If the subject is complex enough, the reviewer may not understand the book, and be forced to give it a superficial review.
Amazon is making the problem worse. When I first started writing reviews for Vine, I had to review 75% of the items I received in order to be able to receive additional items. Seems fair. Then it was raised to 80%, and was recently raised to 100%.
If I don't review it in 30 days, I am barred from ordering another item until I review it. So, if somebody orders a book, and finds it way over their head, they still have to review it. Now we have a problem.
True, but I think that sort of thing can work. For example, I use Evernote and have it sync between my Windows laptop, iPad and iPhone. If Evernote goes away, I'll still have all my notes, and a way to create new ones. All I will lose is the ability to sync.
Will I store all my data in the cloud with a single service? Hell no! But I'll use it however I gain the most from it.
Not buying this argument
on
How DRM Won
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
20 years ago we all watched TV, went to the movies, and had no problem not owning the content. Currently, I subscribe to Netflix and have Amazon Prime - just like TV, but on demand. I simply do not care about the DRM.I am renting content from them. It's easy, and it follows me wherever I go (TV at home, iPad when I travel). It's just like it has always been, but with added convenience. I also rent music from Pandora. I listen to music on BART, while driving, traveling. Again, no problem.
I generally don't buy video, but I do buy music. I buy used CDs or "new" MP3s from Amazon, Google or Apple - with no DRM. I own that music. If it's a physical disk when it arrives, I made a digital copy and put it on a hard drive, iPhone and/or USB stick in the car stereo. Then I make a backup. Some of it goes to the cloud, for playback while traveling. Even if Apple, Amazon and/or Google go out of business in my lifetime (not gonna happen) I still have my DRM free music.
Yes, keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens (which are very difficult to tell from the hands of law-breaking citizens, especially when you try to prevent background checks and waiting periods)
Yes, but we do have background checks and waiting periods.
When you can pick up guns and ammo cheap at Wal*Mart, instead of paying inflated black-market prices, then more folks in precarious enough financial situations to consider knocking over a liquor store can get them.
There is no such thing as cheap ammo any more. It's about a $1 a shot, except for.22, which doesn't mean much if you're robbing a liquor store, but is expensive for recreational shooters. Wal*Mart does not sell handguns (although there are rumored exceptions in places like Alaska) - the vast majority of killings by gun in the US are handguns. Killing by rifle and shotgun is about 350 people per year in the US.
Using WalMart as an example is a bad idea if you fact check.
When there's little or no risk or penalty associated with owning/carrying a gun while not in the middle of committing a crime, criminals can breathe easy while carrying a gun and scouting out their next target.
As a convicted felon, it's difficult to legally carry a gun in the US. In most cities, it's against the law to carry a loaded gun, unless you have a CCW - which includes a serious background check and training. Your logic isn't great here.
When the criminals have to assume that everyone else around them might be packing, they'll be more likely/willing to start shooting everyone in sight (just to be safe) if they feel things are going wrong.
This would explain why cities like SF, NY, Baltimore, DC and other places with very restrictive firearm laws and no CCW (unless you're a VIP) have lower crime than places with more lax gun laws? Oh, wait, that isn't the case.
Not to mention, a lot of gun deaths aren't just due to hardened criminals --- they're from negligent "law abiding" citizens who've been convinced they need a loaded gun under every pillow to keep the bad guys out. Then, a domestic dispute turns into a gun murder; or their kid's playmate finds a cool "toy" in the dresser drawer, or an over-zealous petty authoritarian goon "protects" his neighborhood from "suspicious" people with the wrong skin color; or, cops gun down a civilian reaching for their ID because they've been trained to assume everyone else has guns; or, a half-hearted suicide attempt by a depressed person (who would have survived and gotten help in most other cases) is made point-and-click easy.
Indeed, new regulations that leave the same current number of handguns floating around as before won't particularly decrease the deaths caused by those guns (though they will prevent increasing risk by introducing even more guns). You'll also want policies that reduce the number of cheap, easy-to-get guns floating around in the first place --- by mandating better stewardship practices by gun owners (firearm safes, trigger locks, restrictions on private transfers, etc.), by restricting access to ammunition, and by (voluntary) disarmament and destruction of weapons.
You have some valid point, and some anger issues. 1) Kids and guns. I agree that too many kids get hurt with guns. Parents should teach their kids what to do when they find dangerous items, like guns. Do you remember when the NRA tried to introduce "gun curriculum" to public schools? The left went completely bonkers and claimed the NRA was trying to indoctrinate kids to be pro gun (just like the right goes bonkers and claims that Bert & Ernie are trying to indoctrinate kids to be gay). The program the NRA put together is for small kids and has 4 steps - Stop, Don't touch, Leave the area, Tell and adult. It became so politicized that many schools are afraid to use it, even though it could save lives. The left is ju
I enjoy target shooting. Is that a legitimate purpose? If not, should we ban snowboards, since they have no legitimate purpose, and injure people all the time?
Don't forget swimming pools! Those things are deadly, and kill more innocent white kids (which is all the media pays attention to) than bullets.
While addressing the underlying violence problem itself is fundamental, fixing the gun problem at least significantly ameliorates the symptoms of the underlying disease.
Please define "fixing the gun problem".
The guns are out there, and keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't do a damn thing to stop crime. Do you think a guy holding up a liquor store gives a shit about carrying an illegally large magazine? No. Do you think he cares if his gun is registered? No. Does he care if his gun is stolen? No. Do you think he cares about an assault rifle law? No, because he's using a stolen handgun.
Pass all the gun laws you want, but only a fool will think there will be a measurable drop in crime, or a fix for the gun problem.
I no longer go to the MegaPlex. Why? Smaller, independent theaters (at least in my town) have big screens, comfy seats, better food, *and* they give their employees the power to remove stupid people.
There isn't anybody on the phone at my local theater. I still don't go that often, but I go more frequently than when I went to chain theaters. Also, avoid theaters in the mall.
You are not required to have a driver's permit, thus this example is not valid.
You are not required to build something, thus this example is not valid.
You are not required to create garbage, thus this example is not valid.
Sorry, but if you do something that influences other people (and all three, driving, building and creating garbage do so massively), you are required to follow rules negotiated by the people (maY it be by elections, petitions and writing your member of congress, or via written or unwritten contracts) you are influencing.
If you want to drive around, build something or litter as you want without any restrictions, go, find some place where you are disturbing no one else, and do it there.
I am not required to create garbage, but the city I live in has mandatory garbage collection. You must (by law) subscribe to the service, and pay for it.
If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this? If nothing else, why don't we at least label foods as GMO, so the consumer can decide?
Hell, Bloomberg and others want lables on every french fry that comes out of a fast food joint, why is there so much pushback on the more raw ingredient foodstuffs?
We're gonna start labeling meat from source to shelf, why not GMO foods?
Because Monsanto has more money and power than we do. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder, and we have all lost.
I'm pretty sure in this case Monsanto couldn't sue.
Of course they can sue. If they do, they will win. Farmers in Eastern Oregon do not have the cash to fight a lawsuit against an entity with unlimited funds. All Monsanto has to do is stay in the fight long enough for the farmer to go broke.
This farmer's life just got fucked. He should have burned the crops and kept his mouth shut. Sadly.
You know, you're working this technology all crabbed. A police officer could be issued a gun with a RF component in it that operated around 800 MHz or so. At this frequency, the signal clings to a person's skin and clothing. A low-power, short-range transmitter, perhaps embedded in the officer's radio, could complete the circuit. Thus if the officer was not in physical contact with the gun, it wouldn't fire.
Biometric identification isn't the only way of securing a weapon.
So this tech could save the lives of cops, right? I am willing to bet that the vast majority of cops on the street or in patrol cars (not their supervisors and chiefs) want this.
The main problem with the laws about gun control is that the people making them don't know *anything* about guns, so they come up with things gun owners know are stupid or won't work. For example, her's a little video (with a bit of stupidity tacked on the end). US Rep Diana DeGette is a co-sponsor of a bill to ban high cap mags. Watch the video and see her complete lack of knowledge on the subject. She actually says that a mag is a *one time use* item, and she's the co-sponsor of the bill.
This is going to be a market failure, because the only people to support things like this are the people who don't buy guns.
To all the anti-gun folks out there... you may wonder why gun laws are universally hated by gun owners. It's mostly because the laws are proposed by people who know nothing about guns. As an example, here's a woman who has been her career trying to "stop gun violence". She's the co-sponsor of a bill to outlaw high capacity magazines. US Rep Diana DeGette, from Denver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfngrMVzH0s
In this snip of video she's asked how banning large capacity magazines will change the current situation, because there are so many of them out there. Her response is that as people shoot, the number will decrease as they are used up. She's co-sponsoring legislation to ban a product that she has no clue about. Hint for the non shooters out there: magazines are re-loadable. Much like you can put more gas into the gas tank of your car, you can also put more bullets into a magazine. I wonder if she buys a new gar every time she uses all the gas in it?
Her response to the criticism? Blaming the NRA for twisting her words. WTF? Until the anti-gun crowd finds some people with a clue, they just aren't going to get support from the gun people.
For streaming, it's fine. I don't care that Pandora and Netflix have DRM on their product. I know that streaming a Netflix movie is a rental, and there's no legitimate reason to make a copy of it. However, I don't have Linux on my media computer, so I have no idea if the big streaming services work with it. That's the only reason I can think of to not use DRM on streaming media.
DRM on things I own is unacceptable. I just don't buy thing with DRM.
I've seen a few 3D films every time it's "the new thing", and it's usually a letdown. Because it's filmed in 3D, there has to be "3D moments", like when a spear comes flying at your head. They don't add to the plot; they only add to the 3D part of the film. Because of that, they are distracting.
I can only see this technology being used the same way. "Hey, let's add some scenes so that this new crap we are using gets used. Who cares if they don't add to he plot or make the movie better. We paid for this stuff, so let's use it."
What will it add? Probably $5 to the cost of a ticket, and not much else. Incorporated into a ride, or "experience", it could be fun. But for a regular movie on a Saturday night? No thanks.
It's rare to see a low wage employee put themselves in a position of potential danger at work - like telling an urban thug to put down his phone, especially if he has friends with him.
Heh, an "urban thug?" Are rural thugs comparatively docile, or uncoordinated in their flouting of authority?
I've lived in small towns, and big cities. Yeah, there's a difference. Mostly, in my opinion, is because in small towns people know each other. The person sitting 3 aisles away in a small town theater may be your girlfriend's boss, or your dad's barber. In a large city, you're anonymous, so there's no public shame in being an asshole.
I grew up 10 miles outside of a town of 13,000 where my mom was an elementary school teacher. I was *always* on good behavior in town. When I moved to a huge city, I had more freedom, but so did everybody else. It's a compromise.
Thanks for the answer. Mom and pop theaters are the only ones I go to, and that's somewhat rare. The larger the group, the dumber it gets. I avoid crowds.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact of the matter is, this is settled. You can make it hard for people to leech, but it will still happen, and there is nothing you can do about it. Those people are NOT your customers.
I run a small site that is mostly a personal photo blog. I keep an eye on the logs, and when one of my images gets a lot of hits, it's obviously being leeched. I just replace it with Goatse or something similar. If it happened often enough, I'd automate it.
I know you know you better than I know you but have you ever considered that the event changed less than you have? There's a lot of things I liked even 10 years ago and when I try to revisit them I think they suck. More and more I've come to the realization that what has changed really isn't that much worse and what I like that hasn't changed just doesn't appeal to me anymore. I've never been to burning man but I've done other counter culture events and I can see how much I've changed in them.
The event has changed, drastically.
My first year, there were 8,000 people on the playa. The ethic of "no spectators" was strong. Very strong. Of course some people had less to contribute than others, myself included. I understood what I was supposed to do, but not to the degree. My next many years, I was much more involved in creating things for the community. One year I took a month off, and worked for the DPW - I worked on the crew (of 4 people) who made the giant spheres surrounding the man in '99. Other years, my friends and I would take our tools, and spend the day fixing art cars, bicycles, and other broken stuff.
The last time I was there, the level of participation had fallen dramatically. I won't go into great detail, but the number of people showing up for the festival has gone up in relation to the number of people creating the festival. I'm not just talking about rangers, dpw, dmv, etc. I'm talking about people setting up art, making *interactive* theme camps, and other things that involve more than just making their camp a "cool chill zone with a rad dj".
Sure, I've changed too. But the event is not what it once was.
...I loved being off the grid for a week or three.
And that is why camping to remote areas is still so much fun. You need to know where to go and what you might expect when you get there (from animals to weather) and be prepared for whatever. But you are off the grid, unless you have a satellite phone. ..
I had a 4 day back country, backpacking trip scheduled for last weekend. The fires in Yosemite made it impossible.
Sad face.
Trust me, no one is checking Facebook or Instagram at Burning Man.
This whole, "OMG, CELL PHONES AT BURNING MAN IS GOING TO RUIN BURNING MAN" is completely over blown. Just about everyone turns off their phones at the gates and leaves them off all week. Burning Man was and still is a completely different world for one week.
Your first statement is not true. I'm getting a fairly constant flow of photos and updates from friends out there now. Most for them work for the BORG, so they have a hard line data connection.
But yeah, most people turn off their phone.
And so as it becomes yuppified and "me too!" and too popular, there will be a sub-sub-culture for the folks that really know what is going on and why they should be there.
Many of us who have been going for a long time have stepped away as the event changed. It isn't the same as it was, so we've decided to walk away from the event.
I'm not saying it isn't fun, or I'm too cool for it, but it no longer appeals to me.
My Facebook feed has slowed by 50%, so I still seem to have a bunch of friends who are going - but I'm getting photos and updates from the desert. That part I don't understand; I loved being off the grid for a week or three.
Damn right we are.
I fucking hate straight piped bikes. "Freedom" my ass.
I've been on /. since '98 or '99, and have been modded as a troll once or twice.
Figures.
And while I understand not all pro-gun people are rabid GOP deniers of [insert topic they don't like], it's a pretty good correlation.
No, it's really not a good correlation. There are a lot of very vocal anti-gubmint gun owners, who make the rest of them look kind of loony. The vast majority of gun owners I know are somewhat left of center. NPR listening, democrat voting, pro-choice, not interested in NASCAR or truck pulls, do not believe Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate, are not members of the Klan, have mufflers on their motorcycles...
Most gun owners don't get into the public debate. For one, the anti-gun folks use lots of emotion and almost no logic to make their point, and there's not much reason to engage them. Secondly, the vocal part of the pro-gun folks use lots of emotion and almost no logic to make their point, and there's not much reason to engage them.
Fuck you. You earned it.
Rather than produce interesting movies, with good characters and great dialog, you relied on effects. Sure, a lot of people love that stuff; see Fast & Furious 27 or whatever it was. The rest of us aren't interested.
You attack your fans. You make me sit through a barrage of crap to watch a DVD if I purchase it (so I don't). You use the federal government to be your cop. You won't let me see movies how I want. You penalize Netflix when they try and give me what I want. The prices at the theater keep going up (I paid $12 to see Star Trek in 3D?) You rely on gimmicks, rather than content (see 3D).
Fuck you. You earned it.
If the subject is complex enough, the reviewer may not understand the book, and be forced to give it a superficial review.
Amazon is making the problem worse. When I first started writing reviews for Vine, I had to review 75% of the items I received in order to be able to receive additional items. Seems fair. Then it was raised to 80%, and was recently raised to 100%.
If I don't review it in 30 days, I am barred from ordering another item until I review it.
So, if somebody orders a book, and finds it way over their head, they still have to review it. Now we have a problem.
True, but I think that sort of thing can work. For example, I use Evernote and have it sync between my Windows laptop, iPad and iPhone.
If Evernote goes away, I'll still have all my notes, and a way to create new ones. All I will lose is the ability to sync.
Will I store all my data in the cloud with a single service? Hell no! But I'll use it however I gain the most from it.
20 years ago we all watched TV, went to the movies, and had no problem not owning the content. Currently, I subscribe to Netflix and have Amazon Prime - just like TV, but on demand. I simply do not care about the DRM.I am renting content from them. It's easy, and it follows me wherever I go (TV at home, iPad when I travel). It's just like it has always been, but with added convenience. I also rent music from Pandora. I listen to music on BART, while driving, traveling. Again, no problem.
I generally don't buy video, but I do buy music. I buy used CDs or "new" MP3s from Amazon, Google or Apple - with no DRM. I own that music. If it's a physical disk when it arrives, I made a digital copy and put it on a hard drive, iPhone and/or USB stick in the car stereo. Then I make a backup. Some of it goes to the cloud, for playback while traveling. Even if Apple, Amazon and/or Google go out of business in my lifetime (not gonna happen) I still have my DRM free music.
I fail to see a problem here.
Yes, keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens (which are very difficult to tell from the hands of law-breaking citizens, especially when you try to prevent background checks and waiting periods)
Yes, but we do have background checks and waiting periods.
When you can pick up guns and ammo cheap at Wal*Mart, instead of paying inflated black-market prices, then more folks in precarious enough financial situations to consider knocking over a liquor store can get them.
There is no such thing as cheap ammo any more. It's about a $1 a shot, except for .22, which doesn't mean much if you're robbing a liquor store, but is expensive for recreational shooters. Wal*Mart does not sell handguns (although there are rumored exceptions in places like Alaska) - the vast majority of killings by gun in the US are handguns. Killing by rifle and shotgun is about 350 people per year in the US.
Using WalMart as an example is a bad idea if you fact check.
When there's little or no risk or penalty associated with owning/carrying a gun while not in the middle of committing a crime, criminals can breathe easy while carrying a gun and scouting out their next target.
As a convicted felon, it's difficult to legally carry a gun in the US. In most cities, it's against the law to carry a loaded gun, unless you have a CCW - which includes a serious background check and training. Your logic isn't great here.
When the criminals have to assume that everyone else around them might be packing, they'll be more likely/willing to start shooting everyone in sight (just to be safe) if they feel things are going wrong.
This would explain why cities like SF, NY, Baltimore, DC and other places with very restrictive firearm laws and no CCW (unless you're a VIP) have lower crime than places with more lax gun laws? Oh, wait, that isn't the case.
Not to mention, a lot of gun deaths aren't just due to hardened criminals --- they're from negligent "law abiding" citizens who've been convinced they need a loaded gun under every pillow to keep the bad guys out. Then, a domestic dispute turns into a gun murder; or their kid's playmate finds a cool "toy" in the dresser drawer, or an over-zealous petty authoritarian goon "protects" his neighborhood from "suspicious" people with the wrong skin color; or, cops gun down a civilian reaching for their ID because they've been trained to assume everyone else has guns; or, a half-hearted suicide attempt by a depressed person (who would have survived and gotten help in most other cases) is made point-and-click easy.
Indeed, new regulations that leave the same current number of handguns floating around as before won't particularly decrease the deaths caused by those guns (though they will prevent increasing risk by introducing even more guns). You'll also want policies that reduce the number of cheap, easy-to-get guns floating around in the first place --- by mandating better stewardship practices by gun owners (firearm safes, trigger locks, restrictions on private transfers, etc.), by restricting access to ammunition, and by (voluntary) disarmament and destruction of weapons.
You have some valid point, and some anger issues.
1) Kids and guns.
I agree that too many kids get hurt with guns. Parents should teach their kids what to do when they find dangerous items, like guns. Do you remember when the NRA tried to introduce "gun curriculum" to public schools? The left went completely bonkers and claimed the NRA was trying to indoctrinate kids to be pro gun (just like the right goes bonkers and claims that Bert & Ernie are trying to indoctrinate kids to be gay). The program the NRA put together is for small kids and has 4 steps - Stop, Don't touch, Leave the area, Tell and adult. It became so politicized that many schools are afraid to use it, even though it could save lives. The left is ju
I enjoy target shooting. Is that a legitimate purpose? If not, should we ban snowboards, since they have no legitimate purpose, and injure people all the time?
Don't forget swimming pools!
Those things are deadly, and kill more innocent white kids (which is all the media pays attention to) than bullets.
While addressing the underlying violence problem itself is fundamental, fixing the gun problem at least significantly ameliorates the symptoms of the underlying disease.
Please define "fixing the gun problem".
The guns are out there, and keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't do a damn thing to stop crime.
Do you think a guy holding up a liquor store gives a shit about carrying an illegally large magazine? No.
Do you think he cares if his gun is registered? No.
Does he care if his gun is stolen? No.
Do you think he cares about an assault rifle law? No, because he's using a stolen handgun.
Pass all the gun laws you want, but only a fool will think there will be a measurable drop in crime, or a fix for the gun problem.
I no longer go to the MegaPlex. Why?
Smaller, independent theaters (at least in my town) have big screens, comfy seats, better food, *and* they give their employees the power to remove stupid people.
There isn't anybody on the phone at my local theater. I still don't go that often, but I go more frequently than when I went to chain theaters. Also, avoid theaters in the mall.
You are not required to have a driver's permit, thus this example is not valid.
You are not required to build something, thus this example is not valid.
You are not required to create garbage, thus this example is not valid.
Sorry, but if you do something that influences other people (and all three, driving, building and creating garbage do so massively), you are required to follow rules negotiated by the people (maY it be by elections, petitions and writing your member of congress, or via written or unwritten contracts) you are influencing.
If you want to drive around, build something or litter as you want without any restrictions, go, find some place where you are disturbing no one else, and do it there.
I am not required to create garbage, but the city I live in has mandatory garbage collection. You must (by law) subscribe to the service, and pay for it.
At the bare minimum...
If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this? If nothing else, why don't we at least label foods as GMO, so the consumer can decide?
Hell, Bloomberg and others want lables on every french fry that comes out of a fast food joint, why is there so much pushback on the more raw ingredient foodstuffs?
We're gonna start labeling meat from source to shelf, why not GMO foods?
Because Monsanto has more money and power than we do.
Our government is for sale to the highest bidder, and we have all lost.
I'm pretty sure in this case Monsanto couldn't sue.
Of course they can sue.
If they do, they will win. Farmers in Eastern Oregon do not have the cash to fight a lawsuit against an entity with unlimited funds. All Monsanto has to do is stay in the fight long enough for the farmer to go broke.
This farmer's life just got fucked. He should have burned the crops and kept his mouth shut. Sadly.
You know, you're working this technology all crabbed. A police officer could be issued a gun with a RF component in it that operated around 800 MHz or so. At this frequency, the signal clings to a person's skin and clothing. A low-power, short-range transmitter, perhaps embedded in the officer's radio, could complete the circuit. Thus if the officer was not in physical contact with the gun, it wouldn't fire.
Biometric identification isn't the only way of securing a weapon.
So this tech could save the lives of cops, right? I am willing to bet that the vast majority of cops on the street or in patrol cars (not their supervisors and chiefs) want this.
The main problem with the laws about gun control is that the people making them don't know *anything* about guns, so they come up with things gun owners know are stupid or won't work.
For example, her's a little video (with a bit of stupidity tacked on the end).
US Rep Diana DeGette is a co-sponsor of a bill to ban high cap mags. Watch the video and see her complete lack of knowledge on the subject. She actually says that a mag is a *one time use* item, and she's the co-sponsor of the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfngrMVzH0s
It's like saying that when you use all the gas in your car, you need to replace the tank, rather than fill it up again.
If people want to change gun laws, they need to hire people who actually know something about the subject.
This is going to be a market failure, because the only people to support things like this are the people who don't buy guns.
To all the anti-gun folks out there... you may wonder why gun laws are universally hated by gun owners. It's mostly because the laws are proposed by people who know nothing about guns.
As an example, here's a woman who has been her career trying to "stop gun violence". She's the co-sponsor of a bill to outlaw high capacity magazines.
US Rep Diana DeGette, from Denver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfngrMVzH0s
In this snip of video she's asked how banning large capacity magazines will change the current situation, because there are so many of them out there. Her response is that as people shoot, the number will decrease as they are used up. She's co-sponsoring legislation to ban a product that she has no clue about.
Hint for the non shooters out there: magazines are re-loadable. Much like you can put more gas into the gas tank of your car, you can also put more bullets into a magazine. I wonder if she buys a new gar every time she uses all the gas in it?
Her response to the criticism? Blaming the NRA for twisting her words. WTF?
Until the anti-gun crowd finds some people with a clue, they just aren't going to get support from the gun people.
For streaming, it's fine. I don't care that Pandora and Netflix have DRM on their product. I know that streaming a Netflix movie is a rental, and there's no legitimate reason to make a copy of it. However, I don't have Linux on my media computer, so I have no idea if the big streaming services work with it. That's the only reason I can think of to not use DRM on streaming media.
DRM on things I own is unacceptable. I just don't buy thing with DRM.
I've seen a few 3D films every time it's "the new thing", and it's usually a letdown. Because it's filmed in 3D, there has to be "3D moments", like when a spear comes flying at your head. They don't add to the plot; they only add to the 3D part of the film. Because of that, they are distracting.
I can only see this technology being used the same way. "Hey, let's add some scenes so that this new crap we are using gets used. Who cares if they don't add to he plot or make the movie better. We paid for this stuff, so let's use it."
What will it add? Probably $5 to the cost of a ticket, and not much else. Incorporated into a ride, or "experience", it could be fun. But for a regular movie on a Saturday night? No thanks.
It's rare to see a low wage employee put themselves in a position of potential danger at work - like telling an urban thug to put down his phone, especially if he has friends with him.
Heh, an "urban thug?" Are rural thugs comparatively docile, or uncoordinated in their flouting of authority?
I've lived in small towns, and big cities. Yeah, there's a difference. Mostly, in my opinion, is because in small towns people know each other. The person sitting 3 aisles away in a small town theater may be your girlfriend's boss, or your dad's barber. In a large city, you're anonymous, so there's no public shame in being an asshole.
I grew up 10 miles outside of a town of 13,000 where my mom was an elementary school teacher. I was *always* on good behavior in town. When I moved to a huge city, I had more freedom, but so did everybody else. It's a compromise.
Thanks for the answer. Mom and pop theaters are the only ones I go to, and that's somewhat rare.
The larger the group, the dumber it gets. I avoid crowds.
Thanks for running a good theater.