its a democratic ideal: in a meritocracy of cultural output, whatever rises to the top as most popular is automatically the best. its the only objective measurement possible
to say there is some other measurement of quality is to say that random rules according to some clique of self-appointed arbiters of quality is something to be respected. on what basis? show me the objective scientific determination of quality. there is none, just whim and fancy and fashionable trendiness. whatever appeals the most to the masses, is automatically the most superior of cultural output. that is the an ironclad truth because its the only objective truth. everything other measurement of quality is subjective and therefore flawed
of course, various subcultures have their own lists of what is superior in quality. but the likes and dislikes of various subcultures are not superior to the masses, despite the arrogance and assumed sense of superiority of those various subcultures
populism rules. everything else is cliquishness, classism, arrogance, and bullshit
so continue shitting all over one of the most successful directors in all of cinema. its really impressive, and utterly meaningless. you're such a respectable authority, oh random ultranegative internet troll
We created a broad canvas for the environment of film. That's not just on Pandora, but throughout the Alpha Centauri AB system. And we expand out across that system and incorporate more into the story - not necessarily in the second film, but more toward a third film. I've already announced this, so I might as well say it: Part of my focus in the second film is in creating a different environment - a different setting within Pandora. And I'm going to be focusing on the ocean on Pandora, which will be equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative, but it just won't be a rain forest. I'm not saying we won't see what we've already seen; we'll see more of that as well.
considering how cameron's diving hobbies inspire his creative works (look at titanic and the abyss), i welcome whatever comes out of the creative ferment of his mind from his interest in deep caves. perhaps the abyss ii? some sort of horror movie? avatar iii will be in a galactic cave? who knows...
and in china, the simple act of free speech is a politicized concept. politicized by the chinese government
the chinese government has defined speech as not free, so anyone who engages in it is by that very act of speaking freely engaging in political unrest, according to the parameters established by the chinese government
and all the chinese government has done is defined their own weakness. most of the time, you speak freely, and if they don't like it, they send you to work camps for 11 years. but someday, dear china, someone will speak the simple truth, you won't like it, and the simple act of you moving against that speaker of the truth you dislike will ignite a maelstrom of political unrest that will sweep you away. all internal, dear china, no imperialistic meddling foreigners needed
you've made free speech your enemy, china, and therefore all you've really done is define the parameters under which you will fail: due to the anger of your own people. you have already defined how you will fall: your own hardheaded need to control, even to the extent of the contents of people's thoughts. it is your fatal weakness, because your people are not robots, even though you treat them this way
china, your weakness is not imperialistic foreigners. it is your own people. because you have defined them as such. you have told them their minds are not free
because of onerous copyright law, old works that are completely forgotten are not allowed to be reused in new works unless ransoms are paid
even though, ironically, if the new works are allowed to proceed freely, renewed interest in the old works would occur, causing them to generate revenue again
it was about an internet troll taunting random people he didn't know about their supposed pathetic lives (obviously a simple reflective psychological need to make up for his own pathetic life)
but one day, he picked on the wrong random person he didn't know
for it wasn't a college student or an IT drone or a hack programmer commenting on slashdot, it was someone... something... different...
it took offense. not at the lame troll comment. but at the existence of a person so empty, yet so full of himself
because if the russian government (or any government) had an interest in using the source code for purposes beyond internal security, they would go "wait, we promised microsoft we would only use this domestically"
do you believe that? what exactly do you think motivates a government's actions?: protect the nation, at all costs, in any way possible. one way is to make false promises to naive parties and then promptly renege on them. but you write:
"I don't see how this deal with Microsoft could possibly threaten the US or US interests, except possibly in a peripheral way."
are you fucking serious? how naive and deluded are you?
the source code will soon be in the hands of ultranationalist russian hackers with marching orders to fashion a weapon or reveal a weakness out of anything they can find in the code. these hackers will be quasi-independent: no way to trace their activities back to the government. like the perfectly timed cyber attacks on georgia in 2008 as russian tanks rolled over the mountains or the cyberattacks on estonia because of a fucking statue. officially, of course, nothing to do with the government. yeah, right
any analogy fails to be 100% the same. you can always point to differences, the point of any analogy is not to be 100% the same
the point is to refute or underline a concept by pointing to a similarity with something else. the point here is the concept of giving something away for free, to generate exposure, which can later be turned into cash. that's a solid capitalist concept, not some hippie feel good "information wants to be free man"
and in this regard, my analogy is successful, and your nitpicking means nothing, because miss the whole goddamn point
and the purpose of Cyber Command is to keep track of all software activation and licenses, and make sure no bonehead buys a region 2 dvd disk
the only reason Cyber Command's mission is opaque is that the government fears being sued by the BSA and MPAA because they installed windows xp on every government computer from a cd they bought in hong kong for $12, and they put an avi of "The Hangover" they got off of pirate bay on a network drive
yes, Barack Obama is someone with a high traditional iq and a high social iq
but as GW Bush demonstrates that you can be well below 100 on both social iq and traditional iq and still become president. you just need to score high on the nepotism iq test and the oil money iq test
the business model of radio and broadcast tv is a valid concept. payola is a subset of that business model, not the whole business model
you give it away for free, you get lots of exposure, you turn that exposure into cash
worked for broadcast television, worked for radio, and works for the internet
there is this notion that media without copyright or restrictions is some sort of hippie anti-business communism. when in truth, free media is a perfectly valid capitalist construct: it's just advertising for later capitalization on an advertising investment. an investment that for the internet is practically free
meanwhile, the recording industry, with copyrights, is not the vanguard of capitalism, its the vanguard of oligopoly, monopoly. history has shown that the greatest threat to a healthy capitalist market is not communism, but monopolies and oligopolies. it is in the name OF capitalism that you want to get away from intellectual property law
1. high traditional iq, high social iq, 2. high traditional iq, low social iq, 3. low traditional iq, high social iq, 4. low traditional iq, low social iq
your inability to conceptualize more than one axis in the formulation of your comment doesn't speak very well for your iq, any iq
thank you for bringing up radio, which IS EXACTLY THE SAME BUSINESS MODEL: give it away for free, for the sake of exposure. exposure=$ to be cashed in later
i didn't mention advertising, adwords is not important
just put your music out there, someone will find it. simple as that: there are hundreds of people who posted youtube videos who are not advertising anything and reaping tons of exposure... and cash. recent slashdot story:
in fact, since you bring up adwords, i counter with adsense: your average popular band can make a nice chunk of change with ads on their site
and finally, yes: there are tons of demographics that are less likely to have high speed access. and those old rural folks can listen to their polka CDs in their growing irrelevance. who cares? it's like saying CDs won't work because some old fogey is sticking with vinyl. whatever
the iq test tests very narrow ranges of iq, such as topological intelligence, the ability to manipulate 3D shapes in your head
but it has zero ability to measure something like social intelligence, the ability to manipulate people
i don't know that the ability to play 12 games of chess at the same time in your head is as valuable as the bedrock ability to communicate well, especially in the realm of business. the iq test certainly has its uses, but i think people ascribe way too much significance to it when determining someone's worth. someone with a very high traditional iq score can be quite useless in a business sense. the idea of something being useful is a relative term of course: you can be quite useful to an asocial pursuit that could very well be important to mankind in abstract ways with a traditional high iq
however, in your average business environment, the ability to simply and effectively communicate is a basic need, and pretty much trumps every other area of intelligence, since a business is nothing more than an efficient social organization. the more efficient a business is socially, the more efficient a business is economically, all else being equal. someone who gets well below 100 on a traditional iq test can be quite charismatic, persuasive, and capable of leading people. while someone who scores well above 100 on a traditional iq test can be unresponsive, aloof, distant, and confusing. so for the specific case of a business environment, a high traditional iq would seem not very useful at all
the ability to lead people is perhaps the most important iq of all possible areas of human intelligence, especially in business, but there is no test for it
your average artist, raised in an internet-dependent world, will begin to weigh the costs and benefits of locking his music down
1. to the point of public absence, for the promise of reaping cash from recording purchases, versus
2. letting his music go anywhere, for free, to the point of maximum exposure, but at the cost of no recording revenue. however, with more popularity because of more exposure, he'll fill more warm butts in concert halls
it's all about exposure. which the internet gives you for free. this is an economic argument that trumps the entire business case for the entire recording industry. and so the internet will kill the recording industry, simple economics
i've been thinking a lot about virtual democracy, and how it would be superior to our status quo of "elect a liar, send him to the capital to vote for whichever corporation pays him the most money instead of his constituent's interests" bullshit that is the biggest problem with corruption and democracy
transitioning to virtual democracy is obviously a problem, but this is a brilliant political hack because it basically force inserts virtual democracy into our status quo political system. huzzah! great idea guys;-)
however, i have three complaints with virtual democracy. i still think the idea of virtual democracy is superior to elect-the-asshole-with-the-most-corporate-dollars that we currently live under, however, these complaints are real and need to be addressed:
1. fraud. how the hell do you prevent people from outside your constituency from voting? how do you make sure they vote only once? how do you prevent outright vote tampering, spoofing, etc. we have serious technological security problems here
2. apathy. a benefit of sending a representative to government rather than individuals voting all the time is that its tiresome. none of us have the time to familiarize ourselves with every issue and vote constantly, we have lives to lead. additionally, for emotionally contentious issues, you are going to have passionate minorities voting and the apathetic majority not voting. so the minority decides issues, and then the majority wakes up the next morning and goes "what happened?" example, gay rights: the social conservatives will come out in force and drown out the gay votes, and even though the majority is in favor of gay rights, they simply won't get off their asses and do the right thing and vote for what is right because their own selfish interests are not immediately and obviously threatened. again, a problem, not a fatal one, but a real problem with virtual democracy
3. corruption always finds a way. in the philippines it is a sort of joke that 200 peso notes become scarce around election times, because of all the outright vote buying that goes on. the philippines has a lot of poverty, so this doesn't happen in countries where the middle class dominates, but the way deregulation and whittle down the government libertarian morons are in vogue, we are destroying the middle class, and we'll be with the philippines soon enough (oh, libertarians, you didn't know your ideology meant a sea of poor and a few ultrarich and the destruction of the middle class?). people are unfortunately so damn apathetic and pessimistic and mindlessly negative in general, even about stuff that obviously matters to them, that in a virtual democracy, they would happily whore their votes out for a few bucks. so we will always have to fight corruption, virtual democracy won't do away with it, just move it around
i'm just sick of electing the asshole with the most corporate dollars, like we currently live under, and i happily embrace any corruption negatives in a virtual democracy system, as long as we get away from the outright prostitution for greed and ignoring of constituents that currently goes on at the legislative level
the internet is also the invention of the usa, but the usa has wisely sought to internationalize the governing body for sake of fairness. one would think this internationalization should also apply to the iconic domains:.com, net, org, etc
of course, such internationalization doesn't apply legally, just as you say, just as i know
"if you get a.cn domain, you play by China's rules, and if you get a.ru domain, you play by Russia's rules"
absolutely. and that applies also to.us domains. no argument whatsover
but.net,.com, etc., are concepts that are not native to the usa, not used native to the usa, and should not be governed solely by the usa. of course, legally you are still 100% correct, but law has a funny way of not reflecting common sense or morality, and this is one of those cases
He has no standing On the Internet, he's cold (so cold) He's not going to stop piracy, he's being too demanding Maybe he's being too bold Maybe he's never satisfied (never satisfied) But we shouldn't scream at each other That's what it sounds like When a short 50 year old purple has been Jehovah's Witness Makes trolls cry
Slashdot Mirror
its a democratic ideal: in a meritocracy of cultural output, whatever rises to the top as most popular is automatically the best. its the only objective measurement possible
to say there is some other measurement of quality is to say that random rules according to some clique of self-appointed arbiters of quality is something to be respected. on what basis? show me the objective scientific determination of quality. there is none, just whim and fancy and fashionable trendiness. whatever appeals the most to the masses, is automatically the most superior of cultural output. that is the an ironclad truth because its the only objective truth. everything other measurement of quality is subjective and therefore flawed
of course, various subcultures have their own lists of what is superior in quality. but the likes and dislikes of various subcultures are not superior to the masses, despite the arrogance and assumed sense of superiority of those various subcultures
populism rules. everything else is cliquishness, classism, arrogance, and bullshit
so continue shitting all over one of the most successful directors in all of cinema. its really impressive, and utterly meaningless. you're such a respectable authority, oh random ultranegative internet troll
by random overly negative internet trolls of extremely successful obviously talented people to be funny. thanks for the laugh
and you could really see it in avatar: all that beautiful day glo flora was obviously inspired by your average earth coral reef
and cameron has said avatar ii is going to be an aquatic adventure on pandora:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/04/james-cameron-talks-the-enironment-the-avatar-sequel-and-more.html
considering how cameron's diving hobbies inspire his creative works (look at titanic and the abyss), i welcome whatever comes out of the creative ferment of his mind from his interest in deep caves. perhaps the abyss ii? some sort of horror movie? avatar iii will be in a galactic cave? who knows...
facebook is simply free speech
and in china, the simple act of free speech is a politicized concept. politicized by the chinese government
the chinese government has defined speech as not free, so anyone who engages in it is by that very act of speaking freely engaging in political unrest, according to the parameters established by the chinese government
and all the chinese government has done is defined their own weakness. most of the time, you speak freely, and if they don't like it, they send you to work camps for 11 years. but someday, dear china, someone will speak the simple truth, you won't like it, and the simple act of you moving against that speaker of the truth you dislike will ignite a maelstrom of political unrest that will sweep you away. all internal, dear china, no imperialistic meddling foreigners needed
you've made free speech your enemy, china, and therefore all you've really done is define the parameters under which you will fail: due to the anger of your own people. you have already defined how you will fall: your own hardheaded need to control, even to the extent of the contents of people's thoughts. it is your fatal weakness, because your people are not robots, even though you treat them this way
china, your weakness is not imperialistic foreigners. it is your own people. because you have defined them as such. you have told them their minds are not free
because of onerous copyright law, old works that are completely forgotten are not allowed to be reused in new works unless ransoms are paid
even though, ironically, if the new works are allowed to proceed freely, renewed interest in the old works would occur, causing them to generate revenue again
it was about an internet troll taunting random people he didn't know about their supposed pathetic lives (obviously a simple reflective psychological need to make up for his own pathetic life)
but one day, he picked on the wrong random person he didn't know
for it wasn't a college student or an IT drone or a hack programmer commenting on slashdot, it was someone... something... different...
it took offense. not at the lame troll comment. but at the existence of a person so empty, yet so full of himself
so it simply reached through the troll's monitor
AND RIPPED HIS FACE OFF
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
sleep tight
YOU'RE IN THE MOVIE NOW
you described new jersey as scenic
electric eels feel electric currents
bees see in ultraviolet
but most impressively, your mom knows what my penis tastes like
because if the russian government (or any government) had an interest in using the source code for purposes beyond internal security, they would go "wait, we promised microsoft we would only use this domestically"
do you believe that? what exactly do you think motivates a government's actions?: protect the nation, at all costs, in any way possible. one way is to make false promises to naive parties and then promptly renege on them. but you write:
"I don't see how this deal with Microsoft could possibly threaten the US or US interests, except possibly in a peripheral way."
are you fucking serious? how naive and deluded are you?
the source code will soon be in the hands of ultranationalist russian hackers with marching orders to fashion a weapon or reveal a weakness out of anything they can find in the code. these hackers will be quasi-independent: no way to trace their activities back to the government. like the perfectly timed cyber attacks on georgia in 2008 as russian tanks rolled over the mountains or the cyberattacks on estonia because of a fucking statue. officially, of course, nothing to do with the government. yeah, right
you're a naive fool
submitting dna samples
usually to your fellow students
any analogy fails to be 100% the same. you can always point to differences, the point of any analogy is not to be 100% the same
the point is to refute or underline a concept by pointing to a similarity with something else. the point here is the concept of giving something away for free, to generate exposure, which can later be turned into cash. that's a solid capitalist concept, not some hippie feel good "information wants to be free man"
and in this regard, my analogy is successful, and your nitpicking means nothing, because miss the whole goddamn point
that's the US government's Windows Product Key
and the purpose of Cyber Command is to keep track of all software activation and licenses, and make sure no bonehead buys a region 2 dvd disk
the only reason Cyber Command's mission is opaque is that the government fears being sued by the BSA and MPAA because they installed windows xp on every government computer from a cd they bought in hong kong for $12, and they put an avi of "The Hangover" they got off of pirate bay on a network drive
how many presidents have we had with a PhD?
answer:
one. Woodrow Wilson
yes, Barack Obama is someone with a high traditional iq and a high social iq
but as GW Bush demonstrates that you can be well below 100 on both social iq and traditional iq and still become president. you just need to score high on the nepotism iq test and the oil money iq test
the business model of radio and broadcast tv is a valid concept. payola is a subset of that business model, not the whole business model
you give it away for free, you get lots of exposure, you turn that exposure into cash
worked for broadcast television, worked for radio, and works for the internet
there is this notion that media without copyright or restrictions is some sort of hippie anti-business communism. when in truth, free media is a perfectly valid capitalist construct: it's just advertising for later capitalization on an advertising investment. an investment that for the internet is practically free
meanwhile, the recording industry, with copyrights, is not the vanguard of capitalism, its the vanguard of oligopoly, monopoly. history has shown that the greatest threat to a healthy capitalist market is not communism, but monopolies and oligopolies. it is in the name OF capitalism that you want to get away from intellectual property law
there are people with
1. high traditional iq, high social iq,
2. high traditional iq, low social iq,
3. low traditional iq, high social iq,
4. low traditional iq, low social iq
your inability to conceptualize more than one axis in the formulation of your comment doesn't speak very well for your iq, any iq
thank you for bringing up radio, which IS EXACTLY THE SAME BUSINESS MODEL: give it away for free, for the sake of exposure. exposure=$ to be cashed in later
i didn't mention advertising, adwords is not important
just put your music out there, someone will find it. simple as that: there are hundreds of people who posted youtube videos who are not advertising anything and reaping tons of exposure... and cash. recent slashdot story:
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/06/30/1343209/David-After-Dentist-Made-150k-For-Family
in fact, since you bring up adwords, i counter with adsense: your average popular band can make a nice chunk of change with ads on their site
and finally, yes: there are tons of demographics that are less likely to have high speed access. and those old rural folks can listen to their polka CDs in their growing irrelevance. who cares? it's like saying CDs won't work because some old fogey is sticking with vinyl. whatever
the iq test tests very narrow ranges of iq, such as topological intelligence, the ability to manipulate 3D shapes in your head
but it has zero ability to measure something like social intelligence, the ability to manipulate people
i don't know that the ability to play 12 games of chess at the same time in your head is as valuable as the bedrock ability to communicate well, especially in the realm of business. the iq test certainly has its uses, but i think people ascribe way too much significance to it when determining someone's worth. someone with a very high traditional iq score can be quite useless in a business sense. the idea of something being useful is a relative term of course: you can be quite useful to an asocial pursuit that could very well be important to mankind in abstract ways with a traditional high iq
however, in your average business environment, the ability to simply and effectively communicate is a basic need, and pretty much trumps every other area of intelligence, since a business is nothing more than an efficient social organization. the more efficient a business is socially, the more efficient a business is economically, all else being equal. someone who gets well below 100 on a traditional iq test can be quite charismatic, persuasive, and capable of leading people. while someone who scores well above 100 on a traditional iq test can be unresponsive, aloof, distant, and confusing. so for the specific case of a business environment, a high traditional iq would seem not very useful at all
the ability to lead people is perhaps the most important iq of all possible areas of human intelligence, especially in business, but there is no test for it
your average artist, raised in an internet-dependent world, will begin to weigh the costs and benefits of locking his music down
1. to the point of public absence, for the promise of reaping cash from recording purchases, versus
2. letting his music go anywhere, for free, to the point of maximum exposure, but at the cost of no recording revenue. however, with more popularity because of more exposure, he'll fill more warm butts in concert halls
it's all about exposure. which the internet gives you for free. this is an economic argument that trumps the entire business case for the entire recording industry. and so the internet will kill the recording industry, simple economics
is that you?
Library of Congresses is that?
i've been thinking a lot about virtual democracy, and how it would be superior to our status quo of "elect a liar, send him to the capital to vote for whichever corporation pays him the most money instead of his constituent's interests" bullshit that is the biggest problem with corruption and democracy
transitioning to virtual democracy is obviously a problem, but this is a brilliant political hack because it basically force inserts virtual democracy into our status quo political system. huzzah! great idea guys ;-)
however, i have three complaints with virtual democracy. i still think the idea of virtual democracy is superior to elect-the-asshole-with-the-most-corporate-dollars that we currently live under, however, these complaints are real and need to be addressed:
1. fraud. how the hell do you prevent people from outside your constituency from voting? how do you make sure they vote only once? how do you prevent outright vote tampering, spoofing, etc. we have serious technological security problems here
2. apathy. a benefit of sending a representative to government rather than individuals voting all the time is that its tiresome. none of us have the time to familiarize ourselves with every issue and vote constantly, we have lives to lead. additionally, for emotionally contentious issues, you are going to have passionate minorities voting and the apathetic majority not voting. so the minority decides issues, and then the majority wakes up the next morning and goes "what happened?" example, gay rights: the social conservatives will come out in force and drown out the gay votes, and even though the majority is in favor of gay rights, they simply won't get off their asses and do the right thing and vote for what is right because their own selfish interests are not immediately and obviously threatened. again, a problem, not a fatal one, but a real problem with virtual democracy
3. corruption always finds a way. in the philippines it is a sort of joke that 200 peso notes become scarce around election times, because of all the outright vote buying that goes on. the philippines has a lot of poverty, so this doesn't happen in countries where the middle class dominates, but the way deregulation and whittle down the government libertarian morons are in vogue, we are destroying the middle class, and we'll be with the philippines soon enough (oh, libertarians, you didn't know your ideology meant a sea of poor and a few ultrarich and the destruction of the middle class?). people are unfortunately so damn apathetic and pessimistic and mindlessly negative in general, even about stuff that obviously matters to them, that in a virtual democracy, they would happily whore their votes out for a few bucks. so we will always have to fight corruption, virtual democracy won't do away with it, just move it around
i'm just sick of electing the asshole with the most corporate dollars, like we currently live under, and i happily embrace any corruption negatives in a virtual democracy system, as long as we get away from the outright prostitution for greed and ignoring of constituents that currently goes on at the legislative level
the internet is also the invention of the usa, but the usa has wisely sought to internationalize the governing body for sake of fairness. one would think this internationalization should also apply to the iconic domains: .com, net, org, etc
of course, such internationalization doesn't apply legally, just as you say, just as i know
but it SHOULD
examine the pluses and minuses, see for yourself
and the attitude of microsoft is parental and dismissive, cold, aloof, and arrogant
and so the attitudes match each other perfectly
the question is: what would you do if you attempted to do the responsible thing and were rebuffed and in fact punished for the effort?
if there is no reward for responsible behavior, don't act surprised when irresponsible behavior prevails
if you limited it to the .us domain
"if you get a .cn domain, you play by China's rules, and if you get a .ru domain, you play by Russia's rules"
absolutely. and that applies also to .us domains. no argument whatsover
but .net, .com, etc., are concepts that are not native to the usa, not used native to the usa, and should not be governed solely by the usa. of course, legally you are still 100% correct, but law has a funny way of not reflecting common sense or morality, and this is one of those cases
He has no standing
On the Internet, he's cold (so cold)
He's not going to stop piracy, he's being too demanding
Maybe he's being too bold
Maybe he's never satisfied (never satisfied)
But we shouldn't scream at each other
That's what it sounds like
When a short 50 year old purple has been Jehovah's Witness
Makes trolls cry