All these other contributors are SALARIED, or in the case of the songwriter, are paid by the each for public performances (concerts, covers, radio airings, etc.) They've already either been paid in full before the music was ever released, or have a guaranteed income based on public use. Whether the CD ever sells a single copy isn't their concern, nor does it impact their income. (Except in the usual way of market forces, where if something doesn't sell, no one does it again.)
This is how it works in the film industry, too. Everyone involved in creating the work is paid a fixed amount or an hourly wage *during* production, NOT after distribution. If the film vanished the moment it was in the can, they'd be none the worse.
Terrorism isn't just being attacked; it's being attacked in some way that you can't predict and that affects primarily unarmed and unprepared civilians, rather than military targets. The object of terrorism isn't to cause destruction; it's to cause FEAR. Fear weakens resistance, given that most people behave like panicked sheep when confronted by such a threat.
If you could prevent terrorism, you'd have no need to fear it, because it wouldn't happen in the first place.
While you're right that the microprocessors and such are no more "breakable" than ever, their housings and cooling mechanisms have become more and more suspect.
Frex, PCs. The average clone continues to work until it's dispatched to the dump, too old to be worth keeping or upgrading. But the average OEM machine has a lifespan of only 3 years (there are exceptions, but they're not the rule). I've concluded that there are two reasons: firstoff, OEMs are more inclined to use components that are seconds, and power supplies that are just barely sufficient, so there's ongoing electrical damage (hence vastly more motherboard failures than with clones). But the main reason is heat. OEMs typically cram all the hot-running components together, and rely primarily on convection cooling, which in turn needs something to be hot enough to generate that air movement (usually the hapless CPU and HD). Conversely clones tend to stagger heat-producing components, and rely more on active air movement for cooling.
Is this "fixed lifespan by design"? I think so. Your opinions may vary.:)
On a similar note, I've found I can type best (faster, more accurate) in a relaxed position -- leaning back with the keyboard on my lap and my arms at rest. If I have to sit up or lean forward, I quickly notice the increased tension in my shoulders.
My computer chair is an ancient rattan deck chair, packed with old pillows and couch cushions -- it's ugly and a floor hog, but I can sit comfy in it all day long.
I did RTFA, and you're right. However... if Newt's being misinterpreted and villified got a bunch of people to think more deeply about Free Speech, then it served a noble purpose. Today's comment chains are probably the most insightful on the subject that I've seen here to date.
Likewise, anyone should be allowed to rant incoherently or plot evildoings or whatever crap they wish to spout -- because otherwise, what today is regarded as rational discussion may tomorrow be considered terrorist conspiracy, and get quashed accordingly.
[grin] Okay, so now we've got the Bill of Rights translated into Redneck... maybe we need it translated into Politician, too, so they can get a clue what their job is supposed to be.:)
Yeah. It's kindof like fighting the flu. You can improve your chances by getting vaccinated and not breathing someone else's sneezes, but you can't stop every possible exposure risk without living in a sterile bubble... which is itself at high risk from the next malicious guy armed with a hammer.
That too, but after I made that post it occurred to me that the ACLU's bread and butter is people who can't defend themselves, and by now they may have a vested interest in perpetuating their own clientele... akin to how unions have become more about perpetuating union income rather than defending workers' rights.
Given the ACLU's history of turning down cases not because of merit, but because they think the case is unwinnable, I don't have a great deal of faith in their internal motivations. If they're truly about defending the little guy, ISTM the cases that most need their help are those very cases that are likely to be toughest to win.
Speaking from experience in both venues, a rural populace is more likely to react with "Says who??" Mob mentality is much more prevalent in urban areas.
The framers' core concept was "We WILL stand up for ourselves; we will NOT be bullied by any government." And in the real world, there are plenty of bullies (from the personal to the global) who won't take NO for an answer unless they're sure you WILL defend yourself.
Defending your rights *doesn't* mean bullying back. It means drawing a line and saying "This far, and no farther," and being willing to back that up as needed. That is exactly what the Bill of Rights does: it says "Gov't may NOT encroach beyond this point," and the 2nd Amendment assures us of the means to back that up.
Not only that, but when I RTFA, I had the thought that what we need to "fight terrorism"** isn't LESS free speech, but MORE: more willingness to stand up and say what we feel needs saying, even if we make asses of ourselves in the process. Newt himself was the first example, and (irony aside) one can't fault him for saying what he thinks. That is, after all, the point you and I are making here!
** I don't believe that it's =possible= to "fight terrorism". If you can prevent it, by definition it's not terrorism.
Yep... the only thing standing between Us and Them is, truly, Amendment #2. Gov'ts are by their very nature bullies; what happens if you can't defend yourself? A: The bully has his way with you, repeatedly.
Good observation about the ACLU. But I don't think they're about civil liberties so much as they are about waving the poor-downtrodden-minority flag (where "minority" is defined as whatever presently offers the most spectacular court case). I have news for them... if you can't defend yourself, you're liable to *become* downtrodden, minority or not.
As I speculate in another message, the fact that the gov't isn't forced to live within its means may be the real root of the problem. Effectively, they're ALLOWED to blow their own lunch money on candy, then knock you down and take your lunch money too.
A chart of tax increases vs lost freedoms might be very illuminating.
*This* conservative mostly-Republican is quite appalled that my gov't is sticking its grubby paws into so much that doesn't concern it, and stealing money out of my wallet to finance these illicit excursions.
Trouble is, when other parties are in power they do the exact same thing. Honest citizens are left in a no-win situation no matter who we elect.
It occurs to me that a great deal of this problem would go away if the gov't HAD to live within its means, and no longer had money to waste on, ah, social enforcement programs (regardless of whose idea they are).
Same thing when CA gov't ran out of money. Much wailing, little or no realworld effect.
I'd guess we could easily do without at least 75% of the existing gov't, and possibly as much as 90%, without seriously impacting any needful programs, and without going to the "everything privatized" Libertarian ideal either.
You don't need public information to determine the most damaging place to hit a nuclear power plant (or a bridge, or a highrise) with an airplane. All you need is a structural engineer, which neither the U.S. nor the nuclear power (nor general construction industries) hold a monopoly on. You don't even need blueprints, given that design doesn't change that much from one nuclear power plant (bridge, highrise) to the next. Just make a good guess based on knowledge any 2nd year engineering student has, and have at it.
And given the political situation in the U.S. today, a near-miss is as good as a direct hit -- because you'd get the same reaction: "Ahh! Ahhhh! the sky is falling!!"
Actually, one could view the Bill of Rights as our own "Tough Guy Manifesto", thus:
1) You can't tell me what to believe, or make me go home and shut up.
2) I'll go armed and defend myself, thank you.
3) You can't make me let someone else live in my house.
4) This is MY house; if you can't demonstrate a compelling need to snoop, stay the fuck out.
5) This is MY shit; keep your greedy hands off it. And don't go accusing me of Evil without evidence.
6) If you've got evidence, lay it on the table. And no fair getting a confession by pitchforking me in the ass.
7) I ain't guilty just on YOUR say-so.
8) You can't keep me in jail just because you want to.
9) As to the rest of my life, you can't tell me what to do or not do.
10) And neither can your big fat uncle in Washington.
Yeah, the Founding Fathers framed it in far more polite language, but the intent is the same. They understood standing up for yourself and not letting the gov't push you around -- your own or anyone else's. That was, after all, what the War for Independence was all about.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be this article by Steve Albini, which lays it out in real numbers:
h tml
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
See also Courtney Love's speech on "The Real Pirates" at http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html
A related article:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.
All these other contributors are SALARIED, or in the case of the songwriter, are paid by the each for public performances (concerts, covers, radio airings, etc.) They've already either been paid in full before the music was ever released, or have a guaranteed income based on public use. Whether the CD ever sells a single copy isn't their concern, nor does it impact their income. (Except in the usual way of market forces, where if something doesn't sell, no one does it again.)
This is how it works in the film industry, too. Everyone involved in creating the work is paid a fixed amount or an hourly wage *during* production, NOT after distribution. If the film vanished the moment it was in the can, they'd be none the worse.
Very similar indeed. And with equally suspect motivations.
Better yet, tip off the LOCAL Los Angeles news media, which has little real news to report and is always looking for a good scandal.
Terrorism isn't just being attacked; it's being attacked in some way that you can't predict and that affects primarily unarmed and unprepared civilians, rather than military targets. The object of terrorism isn't to cause destruction; it's to cause FEAR. Fear weakens resistance, given that most people behave like panicked sheep when confronted by such a threat.
If you could prevent terrorism, you'd have no need to fear it, because it wouldn't happen in the first place.
I agree it's not exactly intuitive.
An AC says, "Besides that, terrorism is like the seven-headed dragon. The more you fight it, the fiercer it becomes."
True -- it's a Medusa that's best left to starve to death from lack of resistance.
While you're right that the microprocessors and such are no more "breakable" than ever, their housings and cooling mechanisms have become more and more suspect.
:)
Frex, PCs. The average clone continues to work until it's dispatched to the dump, too old to be worth keeping or upgrading. But the average OEM machine has a lifespan of only 3 years (there are exceptions, but they're not the rule). I've concluded that there are two reasons: firstoff, OEMs are more inclined to use components that are seconds, and power supplies that are just barely sufficient, so there's ongoing electrical damage (hence vastly more motherboard failures than with clones). But the main reason is heat. OEMs typically cram all the hot-running components together, and rely primarily on convection cooling, which in turn needs something to be hot enough to generate that air movement (usually the hapless CPU and HD). Conversely clones tend to stagger heat-producing components, and rely more on active air movement for cooling.
Is this "fixed lifespan by design"? I think so. Your opinions may vary.
Help yourself, and thanks!
On a similar note, I've found I can type best (faster, more accurate) in a relaxed position -- leaning back with the keyboard on my lap and my arms at rest. If I have to sit up or lean forward, I quickly notice the increased tension in my shoulders.
My computer chair is an ancient rattan deck chair, packed with old pillows and couch cushions -- it's ugly and a floor hog, but I can sit comfy in it all day long.
I did RTFA, and you're right. However... if Newt's being misinterpreted and villified got a bunch of people to think more deeply about Free Speech, then it served a noble purpose. Today's comment chains are probably the most insightful on the subject that I've seen here to date.
True, tho the effect is much the same.
Likewise, anyone should be allowed to rant incoherently or plot evildoings or whatever crap they wish to spout -- because otherwise, what today is regarded as rational discussion may tomorrow be considered terrorist conspiracy, and get quashed accordingly.
I've figured out the Politician translation, which since all 10 Rights read the same way, I'll abbreviate to just one:
:)
1) Touch this right, and we won't give you any money.
There, that oughta get it through their thick skulls!
[grin] Okay, so now we've got the Bill of Rights translated into Redneck... maybe we need it translated into Politician, too, so they can get a clue what their job is supposed to be. :)
Yeah. It's kindof like fighting the flu. You can improve your chances by getting vaccinated and not breathing someone else's sneezes, but you can't stop every possible exposure risk without living in a sterile bubble... which is itself at high risk from the next malicious guy armed with a hammer.
That too, but after I made that post it occurred to me that the ACLU's bread and butter is people who can't defend themselves, and by now they may have a vested interest in perpetuating their own clientele... akin to how unions have become more about perpetuating union income rather than defending workers' rights.
Given the ACLU's history of turning down cases not because of merit, but because they think the case is unwinnable, I don't have a great deal of faith in their internal motivations. If they're truly about defending the little guy, ISTM the cases that most need their help are those very cases that are likely to be toughest to win.
Speaking from experience in both venues, a rural populace is more likely to react with "Says who??" Mob mentality is much more prevalent in urban areas.
Actually, I got the idea from *your* post :)
The framers' core concept was "We WILL stand up for ourselves; we will NOT be bullied by any government." And in the real world, there are plenty of bullies (from the personal to the global) who won't take NO for an answer unless they're sure you WILL defend yourself.
Defending your rights *doesn't* mean bullying back. It means drawing a line and saying "This far, and no farther," and being willing to back that up as needed. That is exactly what the Bill of Rights does: it says "Gov't may NOT encroach beyond this point," and the 2nd Amendment assures us of the means to back that up.
Not only that, but when I RTFA, I had the thought that what we need to "fight terrorism"** isn't LESS free speech, but MORE: more willingness to stand up and say what we feel needs saying, even if we make asses of ourselves in the process. Newt himself was the first example, and (irony aside) one can't fault him for saying what he thinks. That is, after all, the point you and I are making here!
** I don't believe that it's =possible= to "fight terrorism". If you can prevent it, by definition it's not terrorism.
Welcome. Always glad to meet another Slashdotter!
Yep... the only thing standing between Us and Them is, truly, Amendment #2. Gov'ts are by their very nature bullies; what happens if you can't defend yourself? A: The bully has his way with you, repeatedly.
Good observation about the ACLU. But I don't think they're about civil liberties so much as they are about waving the poor-downtrodden-minority flag (where "minority" is defined as whatever presently offers the most spectacular court case). I have news for them... if you can't defend yourself, you're liable to *become* downtrodden, minority or not.
Unfortunately, you're exactly correct :(
As I speculate in another message, the fact that the gov't isn't forced to live within its means may be the real root of the problem. Effectively, they're ALLOWED to blow their own lunch money on candy, then knock you down and take your lunch money too.
A chart of tax increases vs lost freedoms might be very illuminating.
*This* conservative mostly-Republican is quite appalled that my gov't is sticking its grubby paws into so much that doesn't concern it, and stealing money out of my wallet to finance these illicit excursions.
Trouble is, when other parties are in power they do the exact same thing. Honest citizens are left in a no-win situation no matter who we elect.
It occurs to me that a great deal of this problem would go away if the gov't HAD to live within its means, and no longer had money to waste on, ah, social enforcement programs (regardless of whose idea they are).
Same thing when CA gov't ran out of money. Much wailing, little or no realworld effect.
I'd guess we could easily do without at least 75% of the existing gov't, and possibly as much as 90%, without seriously impacting any needful programs, and without going to the "everything privatized" Libertarian ideal either.
You don't need public information to determine the most damaging place to hit a nuclear power plant (or a bridge, or a highrise) with an airplane. All you need is a structural engineer, which neither the U.S. nor the nuclear power (nor general construction industries) hold a monopoly on. You don't even need blueprints, given that design doesn't change that much from one nuclear power plant (bridge, highrise) to the next. Just make a good guess based on knowledge any 2nd year engineering student has, and have at it.
:(
And given the political situation in the U.S. today, a near-miss is as good as a direct hit -- because you'd get the same reaction: "Ahh! Ahhhh! the sky is falling!!"
Bah. Chicken Little was right.
Actually, one could view the Bill of Rights as our own "Tough Guy Manifesto", thus:
1) You can't tell me what to believe, or make me go home and shut up.
2) I'll go armed and defend myself, thank you.
3) You can't make me let someone else live in my house.
4) This is MY house; if you can't demonstrate a compelling need to snoop, stay the fuck out.
5) This is MY shit; keep your greedy hands off it. And don't go accusing me of Evil without evidence.
6) If you've got evidence, lay it on the table. And no fair getting a confession by pitchforking me in the ass.
7) I ain't guilty just on YOUR say-so.
8) You can't keep me in jail just because you want to.
9) As to the rest of my life, you can't tell me what to do or not do.
10) And neither can your big fat uncle in Washington.
Yeah, the Founding Fathers framed it in far more polite language, but the intent is the same. They understood standing up for yourself and not letting the gov't push you around -- your own or anyone else's. That was, after all, what the War for Independence was all about.