there's money to be made in hyping and packaging and promoting the hell out of a pop act, and reaping financial rewards from that in terms of ancillary revenue flows like concerts, endorsements, etc (no $ from recorded tracks, not anymore)
think about the career of someone like tiger woods: he is fabulously rich, but think about how he makes his money. there isn't some army of lawyers preventing you from getting the next tiger woods video. they watch him for free on tv. the golf video market is not exactly a huge industry, and thats the analogy to recorded music products. tiger woods makes millions modeling nike golf apparel. all of those other revenue streams available to tiger woods are still available to your average u2-type band. the u2 of the future will have a multimillion dollar contract to model puma sneakers
the difference is, its a voluntary career path for a lucky band or two, not a mandatory arrangement for everyone, including the one hit wonders who never benefited from past arrangements and never will. at least their star wattage, as dim as it gets, is still worth something if they monetize their dwindling fame in clever ways (think "the long tail" and all that). the lie is that the death of the recorded music for $ model will suddenly impoverish artists. no: the superstars will still be superstars, the one hit wonders will still be one hit wonders, the permanently obscure will still be permanently obscure
there will still be elton johns and jay zs in the music industry future, they just will be decimillionaires instead of centimillionaires. and the suits behind them will snort coke off of a hooker's ass once a week, instead of every day
oh boohoo, won't someone think of the industry. zzz
the most technophilic countries and the poorest should all vote the same way: paper
whatever convenience is gained with mechanical and electronic voting is lost by casting doubt over the legitimacy of the voting process. technologically souped up voting processes renders democratically elected governments open to criticism of illegitimacy, regardless of being just rumors or the truth. more technology in the equation creates dark areas, attack vectors, unnecessary complexity for such a simple process as recording and counting votes (too laborious? use OCR). its also more expensive
so you are basically paying a lot more money for a little more convenience and a giant dollup of doubt in the mind of the public about the legitimacy of their own government. which leads to social instability
yes, you can tamper with paper votes, but its hard and you need a mob of conspirators
mechanical voting increases the number of attack vectors an order of magnitude and decreases the number of people you need to make a dent in the vote, and its harder to trace your tampering
take that further, and electronic voting is a manipulator's dream: one guy with 300 milliseconds of access to a database can do more damage than an army of paper ballot tamperers/ stuffers/ truck drivers, and he can do it in such a statistically invisible way as to make his tampering forensically invisible. public servants are full of integrity and with such high salaries none could ever be paid to look the other way, right, right? and with electronic voting, you need only corrupt one or two obscure key guys, not an army of polling station workers as with paper. a conspiracy of two or three might be airtight with electronic tampering, but a conspiracy of dozens and hundreds with paper/ mechanical is what... more airtight?
as for attack vectors, with electronic voting, take your pick: there are millions where with paper voting there are only hundreds. those tasked with guarding the integrity of the electronic voting process can easily be routed around with the right creative hacker thinking up the right attack vector no one imagined but him. sure, yeah, no one is for hire to do that for a few million and then disappear to rio for the rest of his life, right? oh, and of course, there aren't giant gobs of money floating around politics that often winds up with shady power brokers, right?
electronic voting and mechanical voting must die, for sake of the integrity of our governments, upon which the entire stability of our societies rest. using anything besides paper is insane
allow the low iq xenophobic idiot to blow off some steam with words, and maybe he won't be repressed, bottle up, and then explode by shooting up an immigration center
2. cautionary tale
people won't know what kind of mentality traps to avoid unless they are given a proof positive example of how terribly someone can fail in their understanding of the world. put such people on a pedestal, let them shout their stupidity, and let everyone else be forewarned about the signs and symptoms of moronic hate
tax their consumption, and use the $ to geoengineer effective countermeasures?
why do you think some weird individual level guilt trip will be more effective than that?
you don't have much of an understanding of humanity: the kind of extreme sense of social responsibility and conscience you are depending on is actually quite rare, and will always be rare, and is usually quirky and individually-driven, meaning everyone is not practicing the most effective methods, and is doing half-assed methods
"if we can get them that lifestyle using 5 units of consumption, instead of the 10 that we are using, it will have a tremendous impact"
there's a lot of "if" statements like that that depend upon fundamentally altering human nature that has not changed in thousands of years across all human cultures. in other words, what you are asking for humankind to do will never ever get done
The aurora is a common occurrence in the Poles. It is occasionally seen in temperate latitudes, when a strong magnetic storm temporarily expands the auroral oval. Large magnetic storms are most common during the peak of the eleven-year sunspot cycle or during the three years after that peak.[citation needed] However, within the auroral zone the likelihood of an aurora occurring depends mostly on the slant of IMF lines (the slant is known as Bz), being greater with southward slants. Geomagnetic storms that ignite auroras actually happen more often during the months around the equinoxes. It is not well understood why geomagnetic storms are tied to Earth's seasons while polar activity is not. But it is known that during spring and autumn, the interplanetary magnetic field and that of Earth link up. At the magnetopause, Earth's magnetic field points north. When Bz becomes large and negative (i.e., the IMF tilts south), it can partially cancel Earth's magnetic field at the point of contact. South-pointing Bz's open a door through which energy from the solar wind can reach Earth's inner magnetosphere.
all it has to do is whenever someone searches for the word evil, subtly change the links retrieved over time to completely redefine the word as used in the english language
none of us will notice when google does evil as all of our collective definition of what evil is is completely redefined
we're dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and NO (recently found to depelete the ozone layer) and SO2 (acid rain), etc.
the question is not whether we should geoengineer, but what we want our geoengineering to consist of
this is in remarked contrast to certain dunderheads who believe the solution is for mankind to have less of an impact... as if over 6 billion technologically advancing humans can have less impact on the planet
we are going to have to proactively manage and counteract the effects we have on the planet, its a nobrainer. our effects will eventually affect weather and climate in such a way that the cost of NOT geoengineering will be higher than the cost of geoengineering
and please: there's no such thing as minimizing our impact. the problem is not the usa or japan or europe. the problem is advancing nations will see it as advanced nations keeping them down
go ahead and live in denial, but geoengineering is inevitable
while i agree this sucks on opera's part, you can make a similar observation of a rendering problem of similar implications and proportions in trident, mozilla, and webkit
they all have fixes they need to make. opera is no worse or no better
asperger's, or something, an inability to understand simple human emotion
since my simple analogy was way too complicated for you dimwit, i'll be more concise:
you hear of a death, no matter how long ago, and you say "i'm sorry". it's a simple, common, everyday response that anyone with the slightest bit of life experience and empathy can understand and comprehend, and has probably witnessed or been a part of dozens of times in their lives
there is nothing to the concept of respect that requires me to respect disrespect
conservatives often like to cry about the hypocrisy of liberals who ask for tolerance and respect... but then don't abide to hearing conservative views. there is no hypocrisy in that position at all: conservative views are often very intolerant and disrespectful, such that it is required, as a tolerant respectful individual, to show hostility to their often xenophobic, sexist, racist, and otherwise narrow minded intolerant stupidities
you criticize my attitude, yet you fail to take into account the context in which my attitude appears
i'm in conversation with a guy who thinks great britain owes no apologies for past sins
this is intolerant and disrespectful. so i fight it
that i fight it with acid and venom: why does this offend you? i have to be polite and charming and placid in my words?
why do i have to be calm and smile when faced ignorance? why do i have to respect ignorance? why does it make sense for me to do that in your mind?
here's what i do: when i see ignorance, i say "you're ignorant". the man i am responding to is clearly and objectively ignorant. so what is your problem with my words?
waving to a boat coming into harbor. "my family's on the boat" she says to you, and you see a little boy and girl and a guy on deck waving back to her
just then an asteroid falls to earth and obliterates the boat. after the massive wave retreats, you look to her dripping and clinging to the same railing you are both holding on to to gird against the wave and you say
"i'm sorry for the loss of your family"
why do you say that? because you made the asteroid fall to earth?
no, moron, you apologize because you feel remorse when something bad happens. its not an admission of guilt, that you caused the tragedy
its a simple human impulse to apologize for something bad happening, even if you are just an observer, do you not understand that? it doesn't make you culpable, to apologize, its not an admission of guilt, and anyone of average intelligence understands that
i don't think you're a sociopath for not understanding this simple concept, i just think you're too fucking retarded, socially and psychologically about human nature. you need to properly identify the nature of simple human impulses and emotions, then open your ignorant mouth
the apology is for us. if you have a conscience, you feel bad about something done wrong, and you try to make amends for it. it doesn't matter if you are the perp, or some other guy is, or its something wrong that happened 1000 years ago
its a simple, healthy, normal, human instinct
why the retarded antagonism to a simple human impulse?
and while i understand what a politician is: a serious agent for a cause, there is also a commitment that comes with what you describe that is not easy to muster
sure, i could hang out in the rafters and continue my intemperate boorish remarks, or i could get serious and actually start to try to actually matter to a cause i actually care about
its a tough call: commit more resources i don't necessarily have, or betray my own passion for a cause by remaining unserious about it
its OUR culture. WE grant artists a right to make money off of their works for a sensible period of time
but if DISTRIBUTORS (not artists) have warped the system with financial influence to the point where these ridiculous lengths of time are now the terms of copyright law, then copyright law deseves nothing but disrespect and outright hostility
of course, i am just one random asshole on the internet who doesn't matter and so who cares what i respect or don't respect
except the current status quo of copyright law is so fucking absurd it makes less sense than the opinion of a random asshole on the internet
in the mind's eye of anyone who has any consideration of fairness or decency in the concept of copyright, current copyright law is void of relevancy
i don't know how it can gracefully evolve back to common sense
and so it must remain a joke, unenforceable and meaningless, until such time as a clean break is made and completely new copyright law is written, in recognition of the utter failure current copyright law is, as it is in the eyes of everyone right now
everyone right now except the completely out of touch assholes who actually write this moronic legislation who probably still have their secretaries print out their emails
marie antoinettes, the whole lot of these out-of-touch old fools
Slashdot Mirror
that's actually their future
there's money to be made in hyping and packaging and promoting the hell out of a pop act, and reaping financial rewards from that in terms of ancillary revenue flows like concerts, endorsements, etc (no $ from recorded tracks, not anymore)
think about the career of someone like tiger woods: he is fabulously rich, but think about how he makes his money. there isn't some army of lawyers preventing you from getting the next tiger woods video. they watch him for free on tv. the golf video market is not exactly a huge industry, and thats the analogy to recorded music products. tiger woods makes millions modeling nike golf apparel. all of those other revenue streams available to tiger woods are still available to your average u2-type band. the u2 of the future will have a multimillion dollar contract to model puma sneakers
the difference is, its a voluntary career path for a lucky band or two, not a mandatory arrangement for everyone, including the one hit wonders who never benefited from past arrangements and never will. at least their star wattage, as dim as it gets, is still worth something if they monetize their dwindling fame in clever ways (think "the long tail" and all that). the lie is that the death of the recorded music for $ model will suddenly impoverish artists. no: the superstars will still be superstars, the one hit wonders will still be one hit wonders, the permanently obscure will still be permanently obscure
there will still be elton johns and jay zs in the music industry future, they just will be decimillionaires instead of centimillionaires. and the suits behind them will snort coke off of a hooker's ass once a week, instead of every day
oh boohoo, won't someone think of the industry. zzz
#2 pencil
names next ovals
the most technophilic countries and the poorest should all vote the same way: paper
whatever convenience is gained with mechanical and electronic voting is lost by casting doubt over the legitimacy of the voting process. technologically souped up voting processes renders democratically elected governments open to criticism of illegitimacy, regardless of being just rumors or the truth. more technology in the equation creates dark areas, attack vectors, unnecessary complexity for such a simple process as recording and counting votes (too laborious? use OCR). its also more expensive
so you are basically paying a lot more money for a little more convenience and a giant dollup of doubt in the mind of the public about the legitimacy of their own government. which leads to social instability
yes, you can tamper with paper votes, but its hard and you need a mob of conspirators
mechanical voting increases the number of attack vectors an order of magnitude and decreases the number of people you need to make a dent in the vote, and its harder to trace your tampering
take that further, and electronic voting is a manipulator's dream: one guy with 300 milliseconds of access to a database can do more damage than an army of paper ballot tamperers/ stuffers/ truck drivers, and he can do it in such a statistically invisible way as to make his tampering forensically invisible. public servants are full of integrity and with such high salaries none could ever be paid to look the other way, right, right? and with electronic voting, you need only corrupt one or two obscure key guys, not an army of polling station workers as with paper. a conspiracy of two or three might be airtight with electronic tampering, but a conspiracy of dozens and hundreds with paper/ mechanical is what... more airtight?
as for attack vectors, with electronic voting, take your pick: there are millions where with paper voting there are only hundreds. those tasked with guarding the integrity of the electronic voting process can easily be routed around with the right creative hacker thinking up the right attack vector no one imagined but him. sure, yeah, no one is for hire to do that for a few million and then disappear to rio for the rest of his life, right? oh, and of course, there aren't giant gobs of money floating around politics that often winds up with shady power brokers, right?
electronic voting and mechanical voting must die, for sake of the integrity of our governments, upon which the entire stability of our societies rest. using anything besides paper is insane
1. catharsis
allow the low iq xenophobic idiot to blow off some steam with words, and maybe he won't be repressed, bottle up, and then explode by shooting up an immigration center
2. cautionary tale
people won't know what kind of mentality traps to avoid unless they are given a proof positive example of how terribly someone can fail in their understanding of the world. put such people on a pedestal, let them shout their stupidity, and let everyone else be forewarned about the signs and symptoms of moronic hate
lonely asocial men, obsessed with the appreciation of dark tubes where magical things happen
sometimes a corridor is just a corridor?
and i apologize for reading your words wrong and assuming you were the usual guilt-trip driven environut
tax their consumption, and use the $ to geoengineer effective countermeasures?
why do you think some weird individual level guilt trip will be more effective than that?
you don't have much of an understanding of humanity: the kind of extreme sense of social responsibility and conscience you are depending on is actually quite rare, and will always be rare, and is usually quirky and individually-driven, meaning everyone is not practicing the most effective methods, and is doing half-assed methods
"if we can get them that lifestyle using 5 units of consumption, instead of the 10 that we are using, it will have a tremendous impact"
there's a lot of "if" statements like that that depend upon fundamentally altering human nature that has not changed in thousands of years across all human cultures. in other words, what you are asking for humankind to do will never ever get done
(southern lights)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)
wouldn't these auroras make skygazing in antarctica like trying to stargaze in the middle of new york city? (light pollution)
i know they don't go all the time, but at that far south, wouldn't you get them pretty frequently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)#Frequency_of_occurrence
1. it will be financed by a huge corporation, not a government. think Weylan-Yutani from Alien
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's_Bay_Company
2. send persecuted/ troublesome/ despised religious minorities out there. think ultraorthodox jewish sects, scientologists, ultrafundamentalist wahhabi muslims, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States
google can do as much evil as it wants
all it has to do is whenever someone searches for the word evil, subtly change the links retrieved over time to completely redefine the word as used in the english language
none of us will notice when google does evil as all of our collective definition of what evil is is completely redefined
we're dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and NO (recently found to depelete the ozone layer) and SO2 (acid rain), etc.
the question is not whether we should geoengineer, but what we want our geoengineering to consist of
this is in remarked contrast to certain dunderheads who believe the solution is for mankind to have less of an impact... as if over 6 billion technologically advancing humans can have less impact on the planet
we are going to have to proactively manage and counteract the effects we have on the planet, its a nobrainer. our effects will eventually affect weather and climate in such a way that the cost of NOT geoengineering will be higher than the cost of geoengineering
and please: there's no such thing as minimizing our impact. the problem is not the usa or japan or europe. the problem is advancing nations will see it as advanced nations keeping them down
go ahead and live in denial, but geoengineering is inevitable
if it isn't, an awesome example of government stupidity, since just as this thing gets off the ground, ipv6 will probably finally take over
it it is ipv6, look for ipv6 to be mandated on the industry
while i agree this sucks on opera's part, you can make a similar observation of a rendering problem of similar implications and proportions in trident, mozilla, and webkit
they all have fixes they need to make. opera is no worse or no better
just like you understand "i'm sorry" is a normal and typical response most people have for the same emotion and situation
you do understand that right?
you should have written
"Cannons don't kill people. Criminal confederate rebels with cannons do."
a troll from 1861
asperger's, or something, an inability to understand simple human emotion
since my simple analogy was way too complicated for you dimwit, i'll be more concise:
you hear of a death, no matter how long ago, and you say "i'm sorry". it's a simple, common, everyday response that anyone with the slightest bit of life experience and empathy can understand and comprehend, and has probably witnessed or been a part of dozens of times in their lives
why do you say "i'm sorry"?
NOT BECAUSE YOU CAUSED IT YOU DUMB FUCK
but as a simple statement of simple human empathy
do you fucking understand yet you dimwit?
that means i have to tolerate intolerance
there is nothing to the concept of respect that requires me to respect disrespect
conservatives often like to cry about the hypocrisy of liberals who ask for tolerance and respect... but then don't abide to hearing conservative views. there is no hypocrisy in that position at all: conservative views are often very intolerant and disrespectful, such that it is required, as a tolerant respectful individual, to show hostility to their often xenophobic, sexist, racist, and otherwise narrow minded intolerant stupidities
you criticize my attitude, yet you fail to take into account the context in which my attitude appears
i'm in conversation with a guy who thinks great britain owes no apologies for past sins
this is intolerant and disrespectful. so i fight it
that i fight it with acid and venom: why does this offend you? i have to be polite and charming and placid in my words?
why do i have to be calm and smile when faced ignorance? why do i have to respect ignorance? why does it make sense for me to do that in your mind?
here's what i do: when i see ignorance, i say "you're ignorant". the man i am responding to is clearly and objectively ignorant. so what is your problem with my words?
waving to a boat coming into harbor. "my family's on the boat" she says to you, and you see a little boy and girl and a guy on deck waving back to her
just then an asteroid falls to earth and obliterates the boat. after the massive wave retreats, you look to her dripping and clinging to the same railing you are both holding on to to gird against the wave and you say
"i'm sorry for the loss of your family"
why do you say that? because you made the asteroid fall to earth?
no, moron, you apologize because you feel remorse when something bad happens. its not an admission of guilt, that you caused the tragedy
its a simple human impulse to apologize for something bad happening, even if you are just an observer, do you not understand that? it doesn't make you culpable, to apologize, its not an admission of guilt, and anyone of average intelligence understands that
i don't think you're a sociopath for not understanding this simple concept, i just think you're too fucking retarded, socially and psychologically about human nature. you need to properly identify the nature of simple human impulses and emotions, then open your ignorant mouth
venom versus goofy
the lion king iii: a wolverine in the pridelands
those were the easy ones
now mash up marvel with pixar
oy vey
hold your bladder until we change the law, or its your fault your pants get wet
sound absurd? that's what you are saying
"The people knew of Turing's sexual orientation, but he did not have to act on it, if that was against the law."
acting on your sexual orientation is not only your essential human right, it is IMPOSSIBLE not to act on it
the apology is for us. if you have a conscience, you feel bad about something done wrong, and you try to make amends for it. it doesn't matter if you are the perp, or some other guy is, or its something wrong that happened 1000 years ago
its a simple, healthy, normal, human instinct
why the retarded antagonism to a simple human impulse?
and while i understand what a politician is: a serious agent for a cause, there is also a commitment that comes with what you describe that is not easy to muster
sure, i could hang out in the rafters and continue my intemperate boorish remarks, or i could get serious and actually start to try to actually matter to a cause i actually care about
its a tough call: commit more resources i don't necessarily have, or betray my own passion for a cause by remaining unserious about it
5 years, tops
its OUR culture. WE grant artists a right to make money off of their works for a sensible period of time
but if DISTRIBUTORS (not artists) have warped the system with financial influence to the point where these ridiculous lengths of time are now the terms of copyright law, then copyright law deseves nothing but disrespect and outright hostility
of course, i am just one random asshole on the internet who doesn't matter and so who cares what i respect or don't respect
except the current status quo of copyright law is so fucking absurd it makes less sense than the opinion of a random asshole on the internet
in the mind's eye of anyone who has any consideration of fairness or decency in the concept of copyright, current copyright law is void of relevancy
i don't know how it can gracefully evolve back to common sense
and so it must remain a joke, unenforceable and meaningless, until such time as a clean break is made and completely new copyright law is written, in recognition of the utter failure current copyright law is, as it is in the eyes of everyone right now
everyone right now except the completely out of touch assholes who actually write this moronic legislation who probably still have their secretaries print out their emails
marie antoinettes, the whole lot of these out-of-touch old fools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
it doesn't matter what laws they pay to get passed
copyright has been treated as damage to the network and has been appropriately routed around
thousands of
industry lawyer goons
versus
millions of
1. technically superior,
2. media hungry and
3. POOR teenagers
the game is already over
it doesn't matter in the least what the law says, in any country
copyright has been rendered functionally defunct and unenforceable