i especially like the arguments that currency is suspect because it has no inherent value, and its all going to collapse at a moments notice because its not based on gold or silver anymore (the sky is falling!)
well, what the heck is gold and silver? IT'S JUST A SHINY METAL. can you eat it? can you put a roof over your head with it. well, actually gold is quite ductile... maybe you could make a roof out of it. mighty pricey roof though
there are only three things of inherent value in this world:
1. food, animal or plant 2. shelter/ clothing 3. child bearing women
everything else is essentially useless, except for its symbolic value or its value as part of civilization
therefore, if you really believe we're all going mad max to bartertown in a few years, become a farmer. everything else you can do is pointless, including hording bars of yellowish metal
assange did a good thing starting wikileaks, but we are all human, we are all fallible, and it is possible to praise assange for getting the ball rolling but recognize that perhaps the cause has outgrown him
he obviously needs to let go and let other people run the show in a distributed manner, not with a single point of failure: one man
this is not a trumped up rape charge in sweden. this is a valid problem with his management style. if you blindly defense assange, even to the extent that wikileaks the cause can be hurt in terms of image, ethical behavior, or compromised mission because of his management failures, then you are guilty of hero worship and cult of personality behavior. if you laugh at why people care about the star worship on TMZ.com or wonder why scientologists or north koreans can't see that they are being sold a bill of goods... yet you still defend assange: look in the mirror. surely you can separate wikileaks and assange in your mind
when law meets technology, law bends, not technology. sure, the law can do a lot of damage, but technological progress is inevitable. at the very worst, if an insane amount of effort went into keeping society stuck in the past, even if they were somehow practically enforceable, other societies would vault ahead of the usa
the obvious benefits of progress would be seen in the other country and become envy. the threat the technology posed would be seen as sham, and the benefits would be clear: those other societies would be more competitive. if the technological progress is the gun, for example, the other country would win more wars. if the technological progress is a free and unfettered internet, the other country would become more culturally dominant
support for the ridiculous laws would erode. laws can often times conflict with common sense, but not forever, and not glaringly so
that is, if you believe in terrible things happening, you actually wind up creating the conditions for terrible things to happen, both directly and unconsciously. it does not surprise me at all that the middle east is on the brink of armageddeon style war, because of all the assholes in the middle east who so fervently believe in dusty old books full of armageddeon style war
in other words: fuck judaism, fuck christianity, and fuck islam. the world would be a much better place without the abrahamic religions. it is no coincidence at all that the middle east is a hot bed of suffering due fervent beliefs, it is a direct consequence of what the bullshit the assholes there believe in
i actually do believe it is important to have faith in something and believe in something in this world. but neither judaism, christianity, nor islam are valid things to believe in. i spit on those religions, for the suffering they have brought the world
where before something had to be produced and packaged, now a teenager in johannesburg can send 10,000 copies of a movie around the world in zero time and zero cost. this means every teenager is now the power of bertelsmann, time warner, etc circa 1985 x1,000
in other words, the rules those guys played under in a pre-internet universe simply do not apply anymore. the rules are simply unenforceable
people are not deciding anything: new technology changes the economic truth of media distribution, and you must adapt to it. because there is no putting the genie back in the bottle
you keep interpreting what i say as if we have a choice. i am telling you you have no choice. you can't stand in front of a lake and try to sell bottle water
"The "new reality" is decided by people."
no, absolutely wrong
take another disruptive technology: the gun. do people decide that warfare will forever be knights in armor with swords? or do the guys with the gun simply win more battles, no matter what some asshole decrees somewhere about knights and swords? the TECHNOLOGY decides, beyond anyone's control
this really is the truth. deal with it. there is no interpretation, there is merely acceptance of a new reality, or, if you choose, a rejection of it: you have simply chosen irrelevancy to the new reality
Just think: if WOPR from "Wargames" had met Skynet from "The Terminator", these computers wouldn't be trying to throw us poor humans into dystopian alternative reality nightmares, they would just be playing nice computer games in private.
So yes, meeting the right mate matters in avoiding genocidal thermonuclear war, or uh, something.
wind up with people who believe in dating strategies: shallow reptilian posers who look at other people like predators do.
But people who act like themselves, meet people who are actually interested in them. When you act like yourself, and follow no strategy at all, you form genuine lasting bonds based on your actual real personality and character.
Strategy, when it comes to meeting someone of the opposite sex you are interested in forming a lasting meaningful bond with, is failure. Because strategy is about conquest when relationships are about humanity. So the best strategy when it comes to forming a human bond with other human beings is absence of strategy. The less you try, the better you do, because without the sword and armor people see you for what you really are. Not everyone will like the real you, but its better to lead without the sword and armor, because if you build a relationship based on the sword and armor, you eventually have to take those things off, they cost too much to maintain, and the person you wooed with the sword and armor won't like what they see, and feel betrayed, since they were sold on the sword and armor.
Unless you are just looking to get laid. In which case, you should be concerned with nothing more than tactical warfare.
production costs and distribution costs in the age of in the internet are minimal
artists can self-produce and self-distribute. if they gain fame, they gain fortune via concerts, advertising, personalized content, ancillary material, etc
end of story
sure, most artists will be starving. as if that is something new to the internet era
all that is new to the internet era is that the parasites of the distribution industry simply aren't need anymore. the business models have already abandoned them, all they have going for themselves are cultural and legal inertia
and companies should adapt to the changes, or die. unfortunately, we have established players from dying media industries still trying to uphold laws that don't work in the internet age
such media companies should, for anyone who believes in capitalism, adapt, or die. blockbuster is a perfect example of this natural capitalist death
instead, large entrenched media companies warp the marketplace by influencing the government and our laws to preserve a status quo that should be dying. they'd rather not change. they'd rather corporatize our culture, to change us, to fit their defunct business model. well fuck them, time to die assholes
had an early lead in internet douchebaggery, but in recent times the antipodean aussies made a stunning breakthrough in online dirtbag status. but its nice that the latest reigning champions of sleazy network manipulation has come to roost with the eurotrash
the internet means that distribution is instantaneous, to anywhere, for zero $
if you spent $1 billion making a movie, you will recoup it in live cinema, advertising, product tie ins, etc. what you will not do is attempt to put tollgates on the internet that will be routed around anyways. not because i say so out of some "information wants to be free man" bullshit, but because the tollbooths you seek to build are simply impossible to enforce. in toher words, i am not describing an alternative ideology to you, i am describing simple reality that pre-internet culture and laws that have to do with policing now defunct distribution media need to catch up to
artists don't need distributors anymore. they can self produce and self distribute, gain fame that aways, and fame can be turned into profit, if not pursued for its own sake
books and music require very little production value
movies require high production value, but, much like music, a healthy income can still be derived in real world venues. remember avatar?
the whole point is, i don't care how much you spend making that movie. you can not put toll booths on the internet to recoup those expenses. not because i say so, but because that is impossible. not that people aren't trying, but they would rather destroy free speech itself and impose the incorporation of our culture on us and destroy all that is good about the internet in order to try to make a buck on a medium which works best when it is simply not controlled
no, instead, old school distributors and the laws governing them will simply die. this is better for society. you recoup, like avatar did, in real world venues, or you use free media on the internet to build name recogition and fame that can be cashed in via ancillary means later
i can give you the design of an internal combustion engine. to put this this design to some use requires real world involvement of time energy and resources. the idea has no value to you until i instantiate it as a real product. this is intellectual property that should still be controlled because it involves real world investments of material and energy
meanwhile i can give you copy of the movie avatar. the simple pattern of bits that make up the movie rquires no real world involvement, the bits can be enjoyed in and of themselves on a computer monitor. this is a different kind of "intellectual property" because the idea itself is also the product
the protestant reformation was made possible by the printing press
the reformation was not orthogonal to the printing press, the reformation was fueled by the printing press. mass produced bibles meant mass speculation as to religious conviction, rather than being spoonfed the religious scripture from the only one guy in the room who could actually read. therefore, any effects of the reformation that you can say points to the creation of the middle class is yet another effect of the printing press, ultimately
therefore, i will move in direction contradiction to what you are saying and widen my thesis by saying that only the middle class, but protestantism as well was made possible by the printing press
the printing press is absolutely crucial. every objection you raise is tangential, background spectacle
none of those things you mention would have resulted in the middle class, since by themselves they explain nothing. the crucial essential occurrence to create the middle class is this: you need a way to make knowledge transfer cheap and easy. that is only made possible by a technological disruption: the cheap mass produced book
every other historical event you describe is merely a footnote, a dramatic backdrop. none of the phenomenon you mention were the crucial component of the rise of the modern middle class, only the printing press is. if any of the events you mentioned had not happened, the middle class would still have been born. meanwhile, if the printing press had not happened, but everything else you mentioned still happened exactly the same way, then there would be no middle class. so you have a lot of orthogonal and tangential history in your objections, but you have nothing absolutely essential to the creation of the modern middle class
your argument depends on the completely false belief that someone who would watch avatar for free at home would pay to watch it. not the same population fo people
additionally i don't know what you mean by "re-re-release it in other digital houses at discount rates"
we are talking about media consumed for free. if you own a cinema house, and charge for media product, you are playing by a completely different set of rules, and intellectual property law is the least of your obligations. plus, you can shut down rogue cinema houses. you can't shut down the internet. intellectual property law is still enforceable in meat space, just not cyberspace
Slashdot Mirror
i especially like the arguments that currency is suspect because it has no inherent value, and its all going to collapse at a moments notice because its not based on gold or silver anymore (the sky is falling!)
well, what the heck is gold and silver? IT'S JUST A SHINY METAL. can you eat it? can you put a roof over your head with it. well, actually gold is quite ductile... maybe you could make a roof out of it. mighty pricey roof though
there are only three things of inherent value in this world:
1. food, animal or plant
2. shelter/ clothing
3. child bearing women
everything else is essentially useless, except for its symbolic value or its value as part of civilization
therefore, if you really believe we're all going mad max to bartertown in a few years, become a farmer. everything else you can do is pointless, including hording bars of yellowish metal
assange did a good thing starting wikileaks, but we are all human, we are all fallible, and it is possible to praise assange for getting the ball rolling but recognize that perhaps the cause has outgrown him
he obviously needs to let go and let other people run the show in a distributed manner, not with a single point of failure: one man
this is not a trumped up rape charge in sweden. this is a valid problem with his management style. if you blindly defense assange, even to the extent that wikileaks the cause can be hurt in terms of image, ethical behavior, or compromised mission because of his management failures, then you are guilty of hero worship and cult of personality behavior. if you laugh at why people care about the star worship on TMZ.com or wonder why scientologists or north koreans can't see that they are being sold a bill of goods... yet you still defend assange: look in the mirror. surely you can separate wikileaks and assange in your mind
one day we used swords, the next day we used guns
one day we rode horses, the next day we rode cars
one day we listened to radio, the next day we watched television
technological progress dude
when law meets technology, law bends, not technology. sure, the law can do a lot of damage, but technological progress is inevitable. at the very worst, if an insane amount of effort went into keeping society stuck in the past, even if they were somehow practically enforceable, other societies would vault ahead of the usa
the obvious benefits of progress would be seen in the other country and become envy. the threat the technology posed would be seen as sham, and the benefits would be clear: those other societies would be more competitive. if the technological progress is the gun, for example, the other country would win more wars. if the technological progress is a free and unfettered internet, the other country would become more culturally dominant
support for the ridiculous laws would erode. laws can often times conflict with common sense, but not forever, and not glaringly so
simple fact:
if you combine
1. off road conditions
2. high speeds
you are basically deciding to do a passionate tango with death
a ruggedized segway? obviously in the same category as an ATV when it comes to "one dead me, please"
of public sector unions
when they fought for the rights of the poor guy to bring home enough to feed his family
unions aren't noble anymore, when they fight for the perks of the upper middle class fat guy
unions have lost their nobility. they are more parasitical than heroic nowadays
that is, if you believe in terrible things happening, you actually wind up creating the conditions for terrible things to happen, both directly and unconsciously. it does not surprise me at all that the middle east is on the brink of armageddeon style war, because of all the assholes in the middle east who so fervently believe in dusty old books full of armageddeon style war
in other words: fuck judaism, fuck christianity, and fuck islam. the world would be a much better place without the abrahamic religions. it is no coincidence at all that the middle east is a hot bed of suffering due fervent beliefs, it is a direct consequence of what the bullshit the assholes there believe in
i actually do believe it is important to have faith in something and believe in something in this world. but neither judaism, christianity, nor islam are valid things to believe in. i spit on those religions, for the suffering they have brought the world
you see it on the subject of movies, books, fandom... the mindlessly extremely negative person
is it some sort of personality problem?
what exactly do you think you achieve unloading with such negativity on efforts which you have no investment in?
what motivates this completely irrational negativity?
it's an honest question
surely you realize your negativity is way out of proportion, right?
the one in new york city was demolished in the 1970s when they built the world trade center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Row
the internet CHANGES THE ECONOMIC REALITY
where before something had to be produced and packaged, now a teenager in johannesburg can send 10,000 copies of a movie around the world in zero time and zero cost. this means every teenager is now the power of bertelsmann, time warner, etc circa 1985 x1,000
in other words, the rules those guys played under in a pre-internet universe simply do not apply anymore. the rules are simply unenforceable
people are not deciding anything: new technology changes the economic truth of media distribution, and you must adapt to it. because there is no putting the genie back in the bottle
you keep interpreting what i say as if we have a choice. i am telling you you have no choice. you can't stand in front of a lake and try to sell bottle water
"The "new reality" is decided by people."
no, absolutely wrong
take another disruptive technology: the gun. do people decide that warfare will forever be knights in armor with swords? or do the guys with the gun simply win more battles, no matter what some asshole decrees somewhere about knights and swords? the TECHNOLOGY decides, beyond anyone's control
this really is the truth. deal with it. there is no interpretation, there is merely acceptance of a new reality, or, if you choose, a rejection of it: you have simply chosen irrelevancy to the new reality
Just think: if WOPR from "Wargames" had met Skynet from "The Terminator", these computers wouldn't be trying to throw us poor humans into dystopian alternative reality nightmares, they would just be playing nice computer games in private.
So yes, meeting the right mate matters in avoiding genocidal thermonuclear war, or uh, something.
wind up with people who believe in dating strategies: shallow reptilian posers who look at other people like predators do.
But people who act like themselves, meet people who are actually interested in them. When you act like yourself, and follow no strategy at all, you form genuine lasting bonds based on your actual real personality and character.
Strategy, when it comes to meeting someone of the opposite sex you are interested in forming a lasting meaningful bond with, is failure. Because strategy is about conquest when relationships are about humanity. So the best strategy when it comes to forming a human bond with other human beings is absence of strategy. The less you try, the better you do, because without the sword and armor people see you for what you really are. Not everyone will like the real you, but its better to lead without the sword and armor, because if you build a relationship based on the sword and armor, you eventually have to take those things off, they cost too much to maintain, and the person you wooed with the sword and armor won't like what they see, and feel betrayed, since they were sold on the sword and armor.
Unless you are just looking to get laid. In which case, you should be concerned with nothing more than tactical warfare.
the record companies need to die
production costs and distribution costs in the age of in the internet are minimal
artists can self-produce and self-distribute. if they gain fame, they gain fortune via concerts, advertising, personalized content, ancillary material, etc
end of story
sure, most artists will be starving. as if that is something new to the internet era
all that is new to the internet era is that the parasites of the distribution industry simply aren't need anymore. the business models have already abandoned them, all they have going for themselves are cultural and legal inertia
and companies should adapt to the changes, or die. unfortunately, we have established players from dying media industries still trying to uphold laws that don't work in the internet age
such media companies should, for anyone who believes in capitalism, adapt, or die. blockbuster is a perfect example of this natural capitalist death
instead, large entrenched media companies warp the marketplace by influencing the government and our laws to preserve a status quo that should be dying. they'd rather not change. they'd rather corporatize our culture, to change us, to fit their defunct business model. well fuck them, time to die assholes
had an early lead in internet douchebaggery, but in recent times the antipodean aussies made a stunning breakthrough in online dirtbag status. but its nice that the latest reigning champions of sleazy network manipulation has come to roost with the eurotrash
what is this europe you speak of?
is it some sort of territory somehow unincorporated into the american union for some ungodly reason?
do they eat their own babies there?
the internet means that distribution is instantaneous, to anywhere, for zero $
if you spent $1 billion making a movie, you will recoup it in live cinema, advertising, product tie ins, etc. what you will not do is attempt to put tollgates on the internet that will be routed around anyways. not because i say so out of some "information wants to be free man" bullshit, but because the tollbooths you seek to build are simply impossible to enforce. in toher words, i am not describing an alternative ideology to you, i am describing simple reality that pre-internet culture and laws that have to do with policing now defunct distribution media need to catch up to
artists don't need distributors anymore. they can self produce and self distribute, gain fame that aways, and fame can be turned into profit, if not pursued for its own sake
books and music require very little production value
movies require high production value, but, much like music, a healthy income can still be derived in real world venues. remember avatar?
the whole point is, i don't care how much you spend making that movie. you can not put toll booths on the internet to recoup those expenses. not because i say so, but because that is impossible. not that people aren't trying, but they would rather destroy free speech itself and impose the incorporation of our culture on us and destroy all that is good about the internet in order to try to make a buck on a medium which works best when it is simply not controlled
no, instead, old school distributors and the laws governing them will simply die. this is better for society. you recoup, like avatar did, in real world venues, or you use free media on the internet to build name recogition and fame that can be cashed in via ancillary means later
adapt to the new reality, or die
i can give you the design of an internal combustion engine. to put this this design to some use requires real world involvement of time energy and resources. the idea has no value to you until i instantiate it as a real product. this is intellectual property that should still be controlled because it involves real world investments of material and energy
meanwhile i can give you copy of the movie avatar. the simple pattern of bits that make up the movie rquires no real world involvement, the bits can be enjoyed in and of themselves on a computer monitor. this is a different kind of "intellectual property" because the idea itself is also the product
cyberspace is not meatspace
anything in the real world can, and should be controlled
anything in cyberspace cannot, and should not
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1796976&cid=33675310
the protestant reformation was made possible by the printing press
the reformation was not orthogonal to the printing press, the reformation was fueled by the printing press. mass produced bibles meant mass speculation as to religious conviction, rather than being spoonfed the religious scripture from the only one guy in the room who could actually read. therefore, any effects of the reformation that you can say points to the creation of the middle class is yet another effect of the printing press, ultimately
therefore, i will move in direction contradiction to what you are saying and widen my thesis by saying that only the middle class, but protestantism as well was made possible by the printing press
the printing press is absolutely crucial. every objection you raise is tangential, background spectacle
anything else you need help with today?
none of those things you mention would have resulted in the middle class, since by themselves they explain nothing. the crucial essential occurrence to create the middle class is this: you need a way to make knowledge transfer cheap and easy. that is only made possible by a technological disruption: the cheap mass produced book
every other historical event you describe is merely a footnote, a dramatic backdrop. none of the phenomenon you mention were the crucial component of the rise of the modern middle class, only the printing press is. if any of the events you mentioned had not happened, the middle class would still have been born. meanwhile, if the printing press had not happened, but everything else you mentioned still happened exactly the same way, then there would be no middle class. so you have a lot of orthogonal and tangential history in your objections, but you have nothing absolutely essential to the creation of the modern middle class
mod +9, couldn't have said it better myself xoxoxoxoxox
it would still make the same money
your argument depends on the completely false belief that someone who would watch avatar for free at home would pay to watch it. not the same population fo people
additionally i don't know what you mean by "re-re-release it in other digital houses at discount rates"
we are talking about media consumed for free. if you own a cinema house, and charge for media product, you are playing by a completely different set of rules, and intellectual property law is the least of your obligations. plus, you can shut down rogue cinema houses. you can't shut down the internet. intellectual property law is still enforceable in meat space, just not cyberspace
child labor laws became an issue in the 1800s. i'm talking about what happened at least 300 years before that. and i'm skipping steps?