I've suggested something like that before -- a micropayment made for downloading, AND a micropayment received for being a seed, all dependent on actual use. As you say it should be fairly easy to connect to a BT site; after all some of them already track ratios, and this is pretty much the same thing.
That's a really good idea. And people who can't be arsed to twiddle the amounts wouldn't have to bother, either.
Tho I would ensure that it isn't some flash app that not everyone can use -- a text interface where it automagically juggles the total as you change the sub-amounts would be nice for non-flash types. (This can be done easily enough; survey sites do it regularly with javascript.)
Another option might be customizable default account settings, where I could weight movies, music, or whatever, higher or lower as I see fit, then not have to juggle anything again.
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
Actually there are studies (you can probably find them on thenewspaper.com) showing that *serious* injury-accidents increased by 30% to 50% or so at most intersections where redlight cameras were implemented. (I may misremember the figures but it was something in that range.)
Conversely, there are several studies showing that somewhere around 90-95% of redlight running *and* accidents go away if you just give people another half-second of yellow-light time in which to make a decision.
That the whole thing is absolutely about money and NOT about safety is well-illustrated by the fact that so many of the camera-infested lights have had their yellow time SHORTENED, sometimes below the legal minimum, because this is likewise documented to cause an increase in unintentional redlight-running, and therefore of ticket revenue.
Certainly they could. All it would take is targeting any citizens who act in a specified manner, such as running down the street, or jaywalking, or whatever is this week's "antisocial" behaviour. Or alternatively, targeting everyone who deviates from the allowed activities. No need to make lame personal excuses for a robot, either... you can always blame a malfunction.
There is also an accelerating tendency in the U.S. to report every little offense as a "crime", and to promote misdemeanors to felonies under the law, because it makes plea-bargain convictions easier.
If one were to remove all the "new crimes" (such as tethering your dog, yes that is now a crime in some places) from the stats, I'd guess the U.S. is somewhat less violent, on average, than most of Europe.
Good ideas, true. Also has the benefit of throwing old characters into a new light *without* breaking them, so to speak. Now that I've read this, it's the story I want to see.
You nailed it. The first film got everything RIGHT. The original was also the only time I've ever seen a whole audience -- mostly adults -- spontaneously stand and cheer at the film's climax.
Since then it's wobbled and finally fallen down.
And then there's things like III just whizzing on by the critical character-changing scenes involving Anakin's transition to Vader, as if they meant nothing. (I never did go see I or II, and I'm not sure I missed anything.)
If a TV series can get back to the character-driven grit of the first film, perhaps Lucas will finally come back from the Dark Side.
Agreed... and occurs to me that the content owners of the "illicit" material could set up a system of rotating mirrors and redirectors and whatever else is used to mask IP addresses, then shuffle stuff about at random. So you'd never really know what was where in the first place. NOW try to prove your innocence!!
But when, as another reply points out, the social contract of copyright has been skewed to where advantage is all in one direction, and the *intended public benefit* no longer exists. ALL benefit now goes to the copyright holder, which was not the original idea at all. (Remember those words, "to enrich the public domain"??)
Hence I'd say that to be truly fair, one should abstain from infringement *during the period set forth in =original= copyright law*, being a reasonable period in which to earn whatever the content is worth. But after that -- since the content holders have broken their side of the agreement by indefinitely and unilaterally extending copyright, society should not be required to hold to their side of the social contract beyond the original agreement. This is no different than any contract where one party has broken faith -- after that point the second party is no longer obligated either.
And this is not at all the same thing as your assertion that it's the same as "working for nothing" (copyright was never intended to ensure income in any case, only to give a fair chance at it -- NOT an effectively infinite chance, either). As it stands, we-the-people are in the same position as an employer who is prohibited from firing an increasingly costly employee, because the employee is allowed to unilaterally extend the terms of his employment contract.
While I'm not really a fan of gov't intervention or protectionism either, what we're doing now is clearly worse -- we've destroyed our own industry by shipping everything overseas in the name of saving a buck, and now what are our own people going to do for jobs, let alone money to buy imported goods? I just read that now we're a net food importer too (don't know if it's true, but the trend toward that has been there for some time now).
A lot of companies have had extensive educational campaigns about buying quality (and buying American too). One company that I recall doing this was U.S. Steel -- and you can see how well THAT worked:( I'd say if a company that's self-motivated to toot this horn couldn't manage it, spending tax dollars (you didn't think it'd be free, did you?) to have the gov't toot the same horn isn't going to do any better... not unless it's done as indoctrination at the gradeschooler level. Which, as I recall, is precisely how China does it.
Wish I could recall who that was in the interview, but it was probably something I read 40 years ago. Can't truly argue with his point, no:)
I remember people complaining about how mean-spirited some of the old spaghetti westerns were, what with lots of shootin' in the back and such... but seems they got it more right than the John Wayne epics ever did!
From what I've heard from my German friends, they're already far ahead of us in back to the bad old days... you're not immune to it over there yourselves:(
I've noticed the following over the years (I buy enough tools to notice):
Back in the early days of imported tools (and the same applies to computer parts), Chinese products were such garbage that they weren't worth buying at ANY price.
Then they got better, until they were at least usable, if not as durable as we were accustomed to in American and European-made tools.
About the time Chinese tools got a near-total market monopoly, quality started going back downhill, and is now, on average, about at the same poor level where it started -- they are now cosmetically better than in the early days, but the functional parts are worse than ever. What's more, prices have gone up to where they are about the same as the better tools were at when they finally got driven out of the market.
I will no longer buy a Chinese-made tool unless I have absolutely no alternative, because I'm sick of having to replace them after such a short lifespan.
Real example: You can get Fiskars-brand shears made in Finland (good quality) or made in China (poor quality). One Finnish set at $20 will last you about the same time as half a dozen or more of the Chinese-made model at $8. Which makes the Chinese model a poor bargain.
Another real example: Chinese rubber bungee cords are not vulcanized, so the first time they're exposed to the sun, they start to fall apart. This isn't just annoying and expensive, it's hazardous. Yet after an initial period of being cheaper, they now cost more than American-made bungees ever did (yet those had a working lifespan measurable in years, not days or weeks as do the new Chinese ones). Meanwhile, American-made bungees have disappeared from the market. And now I either spend several times as much to get far less value over the same timeframe, or I do without.
I'd rather have "protectionism" than this crap, thank you very much.
Oh, I believe you... I wasn't talking about the Wild West; I was talking about European style dueling, as practiced by the upper class -- the "gentlemanly" duels you mention, which seem to have coloured Hollywood's perceptions of the Wild West duel as well. As you say, even in those gentlemen's duels, where everyone had plenty of time to aim and fire, by all reports the usual result was a good fright, rather than someone getting killed.
I recall reading an interview with some famous wild-west era gunfighter, that in brief went something like this:
Q: Why do you always shoot people in the back? A: How else would I do it? Do I look stupid??
So, yeah, lotta mythology on the Silver Screen. But westerns were written by city slickers, viewing history mainly through the eyes of other city slickers...
His findings may be perfectly accurate when it comes to initiator vs reaction time in pressing a *button*. But that's hardly a good indicator of your reaction time when you know your life is on the line. Some people will concentrate harder, others will get flustered, and everything between, depending on prior experience, ability to handle stress, and of course confidence in your ability to hit the target.
I remember reading about old-fashioned pistol dueling, and how it usually took multiple shots just to graze the other guy, let alone kill him (a rare event). Most of the time it apparently wasn't a particularly risky sport, because most of 'em couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from 20 paces, let alone a man-sized target.
So... contrary to an assertion up above, Solo shot first.;)
Name me somewhere that the police are *not* their own "oversight" ?? Or where an oversight committee has done more than rubberstamp what the cops are doing anyway?
I see this as essentially the same as if all private snailmail were opened, scanned, and archived, to be made available to the cops on demand. Or if all phone calls were recorded, archived, and available to the cops on demand.
It occurs to me that there must already be a lively behind-the-scenes police market for this sort of data, or Cox wouldn't even *have* the complex price structure for providing access to customer data, as cited in a link from TFA.
As to the keys-to-your-castle thing, they already have that -- it's called a battering ram.
Slashdot Mirror
I've suggested something like that before -- a micropayment made for downloading, AND a micropayment received for being a seed, all dependent on actual use. As you say it should be fairly easy to connect to a BT site; after all some of them already track ratios, and this is pretty much the same thing.
That's a really good idea. And people who can't be arsed to twiddle the amounts wouldn't have to bother, either.
Tho I would ensure that it isn't some flash app that not everyone can use -- a text interface where it automagically juggles the total as you change the sub-amounts would be nice for non-flash types. (This can be done easily enough; survey sites do it regularly with javascript.)
Another option might be customizable default account settings, where I could weight movies, music, or whatever, higher or lower as I see fit, then not have to juggle anything again.
I completely agree. The most benefit for the least trouble and bother. And if the rates are as low as TFA indicates, very well worth it.
Perhaps not coincidentally, those Zones greatly resemble an, um, "urban renewal project".
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
That's true, but why provide the ammunition that makes it easier for a potential tyrant to achieve his goals? at least make him work for it!
Actually there are studies (you can probably find them on thenewspaper.com) showing that *serious* injury-accidents increased by 30% to 50% or so at most intersections where redlight cameras were implemented. (I may misremember the figures but it was something in that range.)
Conversely, there are several studies showing that somewhere around 90-95% of redlight running *and* accidents go away if you just give people another half-second of yellow-light time in which to make a decision.
That the whole thing is absolutely about money and NOT about safety is well-illustrated by the fact that so many of the camera-infested lights have had their yellow time SHORTENED, sometimes below the legal minimum, because this is likewise documented to cause an increase in unintentional redlight-running, and therefore of ticket revenue.
Certainly they could. All it would take is targeting any citizens who act in a specified manner, such as running down the street, or jaywalking, or whatever is this week's "antisocial" behaviour. Or alternatively, targeting everyone who deviates from the allowed activities. No need to make lame personal excuses for a robot, either... you can always blame a malfunction.
"My point was simply that there are probably some simple and inexpensive to defeat these expensive anti-personnel technologies."
And I think it's important for a free people to understand HOW to defeat anti-citizenry technologies, too. Thanks for the informative posts.
There is also an accelerating tendency in the U.S. to report every little offense as a "crime", and to promote misdemeanors to felonies under the law, because it makes plea-bargain convictions easier.
If one were to remove all the "new crimes" (such as tethering your dog, yes that is now a crime in some places) from the stats, I'd guess the U.S. is somewhat less violent, on average, than most of Europe.
Good ideas, true. Also has the benefit of throwing old characters into a new light *without* breaking them, so to speak. Now that I've read this, it's the story I want to see.
You nailed it. The first film got everything RIGHT. The original was also the only time I've ever seen a whole audience -- mostly adults -- spontaneously stand and cheer at the film's climax.
Since then it's wobbled and finally fallen down.
And then there's things like III just whizzing on by the critical character-changing scenes involving Anakin's transition to Vader, as if they meant nothing. (I never did go see I or II, and I'm not sure I missed anything.)
If a TV series can get back to the character-driven grit of the first film, perhaps Lucas will finally come back from the Dark Side.
Agreed... and occurs to me that the content owners of the "illicit" material could set up a system of rotating mirrors and redirectors and whatever else is used to mask IP addresses, then shuffle stuff about at random. So you'd never really know what was where in the first place. NOW try to prove your innocence!!
http://snowflakebentley.com/snowflakes.htm
But when, as another reply points out, the social contract of copyright has been skewed to where advantage is all in one direction, and the *intended public benefit* no longer exists. ALL benefit now goes to the copyright holder, which was not the original idea at all. (Remember those words, "to enrich the public domain"??)
Hence I'd say that to be truly fair, one should abstain from infringement *during the period set forth in =original= copyright law*, being a reasonable period in which to earn whatever the content is worth. But after that -- since the content holders have broken their side of the agreement by indefinitely and unilaterally extending copyright, society should not be required to hold to their side of the social contract beyond the original agreement. This is no different than any contract where one party has broken faith -- after that point the second party is no longer obligated either.
And this is not at all the same thing as your assertion that it's the same as "working for nothing" (copyright was never intended to ensure income in any case, only to give a fair chance at it -- NOT an effectively infinite chance, either). As it stands, we-the-people are in the same position as an employer who is prohibited from firing an increasingly costly employee, because the employee is allowed to unilaterally extend the terms of his employment contract.
While I'm not really a fan of gov't intervention or protectionism either, what we're doing now is clearly worse -- we've destroyed our own industry by shipping everything overseas in the name of saving a buck, and now what are our own people going to do for jobs, let alone money to buy imported goods? I just read that now we're a net food importer too (don't know if it's true, but the trend toward that has been there for some time now).
A lot of companies have had extensive educational campaigns about buying quality (and buying American too). One company that I recall doing this was U.S. Steel -- and you can see how well THAT worked :( I'd say if a company that's self-motivated to toot this horn couldn't manage it, spending tax dollars (you didn't think it'd be free, did you?) to have the gov't toot the same horn isn't going to do any better... not unless it's done as indoctrination at the gradeschooler level. Which, as I recall, is precisely how China does it.
Wish I could recall who that was in the interview, but it was probably something I read 40 years ago. Can't truly argue with his point, no :)
I remember people complaining about how mean-spirited some of the old spaghetti westerns were, what with lots of shootin' in the back and such... but seems they got it more right than the John Wayne epics ever did!
From what I've heard from my German friends, they're already far ahead of us in back to the bad old days... you're not immune to it over there yourselves :(
I've noticed the following over the years (I buy enough tools to notice):
Back in the early days of imported tools (and the same applies to computer parts), Chinese products were such garbage that they weren't worth buying at ANY price.
Then they got better, until they were at least usable, if not as durable as we were accustomed to in American and European-made tools.
About the time Chinese tools got a near-total market monopoly, quality started going back downhill, and is now, on average, about at the same poor level where it started -- they are now cosmetically better than in the early days, but the functional parts are worse than ever. What's more, prices have gone up to where they are about the same as the better tools were at when they finally got driven out of the market.
I will no longer buy a Chinese-made tool unless I have absolutely no alternative, because I'm sick of having to replace them after such a short lifespan.
Real example: You can get Fiskars-brand shears made in Finland (good quality) or made in China (poor quality). One Finnish set at $20 will last you about the same time as half a dozen or more of the Chinese-made model at $8. Which makes the Chinese model a poor bargain.
Another real example: Chinese rubber bungee cords are not vulcanized, so the first time they're exposed to the sun, they start to fall apart. This isn't just annoying and expensive, it's hazardous. Yet after an initial period of being cheaper, they now cost more than American-made bungees ever did (yet those had a working lifespan measurable in years, not days or weeks as do the new Chinese ones). Meanwhile, American-made bungees have disappeared from the market. And now I either spend several times as much to get far less value over the same timeframe, or I do without.
I'd rather have "protectionism" than this crap, thank you very much.
So does China. Which do you prefer do the eavesdropping?
Oh, I believe you... I wasn't talking about the Wild West; I was talking about European style dueling, as practiced by the upper class -- the "gentlemanly" duels you mention, which seem to have coloured Hollywood's perceptions of the Wild West duel as well. As you say, even in those gentlemen's duels, where everyone had plenty of time to aim and fire, by all reports the usual result was a good fright, rather than someone getting killed.
I recall reading an interview with some famous wild-west era gunfighter, that in brief went something like this:
Q: Why do you always shoot people in the back?
A: How else would I do it? Do I look stupid??
So, yeah, lotta mythology on the Silver Screen. But westerns were written by city slickers, viewing history mainly through the eyes of other city slickers...
His findings may be perfectly accurate when it comes to initiator vs reaction time in pressing a *button*. But that's hardly a good indicator of your reaction time when you know your life is on the line. Some people will concentrate harder, others will get flustered, and everything between, depending on prior experience, ability to handle stress, and of course confidence in your ability to hit the target.
I remember reading about old-fashioned pistol dueling, and how it usually took multiple shots just to graze the other guy, let alone kill him (a rare event). Most of the time it apparently wasn't a particularly risky sport, because most of 'em couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from 20 paces, let alone a man-sized target.
So... contrary to an assertion up above, Solo shot first. ;)
Name me somewhere that the police are *not* their own "oversight" ?? Or where an oversight committee has done more than rubberstamp what the cops are doing anyway?
I see this as essentially the same as if all private snailmail were opened, scanned, and archived, to be made available to the cops on demand. Or if all phone calls were recorded, archived, and available to the cops on demand.
It occurs to me that there must already be a lively behind-the-scenes police market for this sort of data, or Cox wouldn't even *have* the complex price structure for providing access to customer data, as cited in a link from TFA.
As to the keys-to-your-castle thing, they already have that -- it's called a battering ram.
The site itself will be 'useful to terrorists', once all those reported URLs are compiled into a handy bookmark file...