You clearly do not understand LOTS of artists can make quite a bit of money by having their music used in advertising, tv shows, movies, and yes, even YouTube (apparently you haven't heard of services like this [friendlymusic.com] and you just assume that it's all "free"......guess you also think that all that great music in movies you're paying to see is just done for posterity too, huh? ).
I understand how advertising works. Which is a wonderful way to make money off of music. Which I also mentioned in my comment above that you responded too. And is nothing at all like charging for music. Are you OK?
And I just love when guys like you get all snarky with your "1985 business model" comments as if you have any goddamn clue what you're talking about. So you're a miser who feels like he doesn't need to pay for music ever. Great. Bully for you.
Well we can go back further if you like. How about 1885? 1585? 1485 BC? There was no recorded music. Did music exist?
The advent of recorded music as a commodity began and ended in the last century. It is the aberration, not the magic rule This Is How God Intended. For every century before, you got a patron, and/ or you charged for performance. Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms would frequently wake up crying at the injustice of their inability to charge for recordings and how it was impeding their ability to make music. Right?
Is it that you believe the last century is the only way music can be made? That if music be produced by some other economic model that's just me being a selfish jerk? Or is it possible you have no historical perspective and no imagination and your mind is closed and uneducated?
When the printing press was introduced some monks decried it as an affront to their means of support. Horseshoe blacksmiths were not happy with the arrival of the railroad and automobile. Typewrite manufacturers insisted the computer industry was abhorrent and could not be allowed to hurt God's Only And True word processing tool.
recordings are merely advertising: give it away for free online
if you like what you hear, give the artist money, buy a signed t shirt, hire the artist, pay for a concert, buy a product the artist endorses, etc... plenty of ancillary revenue streams
this guy made $75 million dollars last year, and never recorded anything (nor plays any more soccer):
this idea that because you built me a house, every time i walk across the living room you pay me a dime, for decades, is complete bullshit
it is a broken, inefficient system that only rewards abuse
oh, only a few artists make millions and 99% starve? ok: has it ever been any different in the art world, ever? is copyright a protection from that by magic? no: it's just a vehicle for abuse by the already well-established and middle men. the little guys still get screwed by distributors and labels with bullshit contracts to get their foot in the door. end that ridiculous system that rewards parasites for no added value in an Internet world
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year....
if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.
so tell me, oh great second amendment scholar: is hamilton saying guns should be handed out to any asshole with no further claim on their intents or abilities with the gun? or is hamilton saying that to own a gun in the usa obligates one to be disciplined and trained in its use?
so far you've:
1. avoided my point
2. lied and bluffed your way around my point
will you now concede my point that the founding fathers clear intent in the second amendment was that gun owners in the usa be well-trained as a condition of their gun ownership?
or will you continue in cowardly intellectual dishonesty?
furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery? do you like the idea that any douchebag can grab a gun without any consideration as to their abilities or responsibility?
the founding fathers clearly did not think that
do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
gee, it's right there in the constitution and everything
btw, "well regulated" in colonial america speak means well trained. the intent of the founding fathers was that those with guns be well trained. so the current status quo of "hand guns to every mouth breathing moron who grunts" is against the constitution and the will of the founding fathers
if you have any example of any democratic senator directly contradicting and undermining active diplomacy by the executive branch, i fully support their prosecution
just like you support the prosecution of these 47 senators for clearly defiling us law
right?
do we have principles here or are we just partisan douchebags?
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.
you were saying?
so we're going to bloviate about hillary clinton for months, like she plotted the benghazi attack, when 47 senators just blatantly and clearly broke the law
got it
It is simply an informal reminder that all administrations end, and that new administrations may have new policies. This is a constitutional fact, and it is not wished away because you don't like the results.
again, you're either a liar or an idot who doesn't understand the topic you are injecting your ignorance into
educate yourself, then open your ignorant mouth: when the us govt enters into an agreement, no later administration is going to break that agreement, because that shows that value of the word of the us govt is shit. no republican president is ever going to break any agreement obama might get with the iranians. because that person, even though they are a republican, is not a complete moron, unlike constitutional "geniuses" like yourself trolling on a slashdot forum, and unlike the asshole republican senators committing sedition and meddling outside their legal rights in affairs clearly defined in law as solely the business of the executive branch
like those 47 senators, i guess you need an education on how the us government actually works, from a fucking iranian of all people, because you're too ignorant of how your own country actually works before opening your uneducated mouth:
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law."
At age 17, he left Iran for the United States. Zarif attended Drew College Preparatory School, a private college-preparatory high school located in San Francisco, California.[5] He went on to study at San Francisco State University, from which he gained a BA in International Relations in 1981 and an MA in the same subject in 1982.[6] Following this, Zarif continued his studies at the Graduate School of International Studies (now named the Josef Korbel School of International Studies) at the University of Denver, from which he obtained a second MA in International Relations in 1984 and this was followed by a PhD in International Law and Policy in 1988.[7][8] His thesis was entitled: "Self-Defense in International Law and Policy".[9]
zarif actually understand us law better than 47 senators
better than the hordes of propagandized americans like yourself
that's pretty fucking pathetic that you understand your own government less than an iranian
if you're writing an OS or firmware? sure, use C++, it exposes abilities you might need
but you can shoot your foot off easily doing esoteric things with C++ that other languages just don't allow you too do easily, because for 99% of programming tasks they aren't necessary. other languages provide straightjackets and limited functionality in low level tasks that, well, for safety reason you actually want, it protects you
maybe those esoteric things are important to do. but usually they aren't
for example, if someone flies a drone over a private party on a penthouse, there's no law against that, so it's perfectly legal (you might get sued, but that's civil law, not criminal law)
then enough penthouse owners complain, laws are passed, and now there are regulations against buzzing penthouses with your drone
so the lack of regulations means you can do anything you want
i think the function of law, in the usa at least, is you can do anything you want until told not to. rather than you can't do anything unless a law allows you
so i don't really understand what the problem is, unless it means companies won't invest in a dramatic expensive scheme if down the line someone might pass a law saying they can't do that. but that also doesn't make any sense, just use common sense: can you hurt someone by doing something? then don't do it, a law will be passed against that eventually, and a law should be passed against it if it risks lives or defiles privacy. otherwise, if you can establish a genuine business that generates income, the us government is not going to stand in your way for random reasons. or even if there is some hysteric out there who can put forth a rationale to limit the activity and garners support for that, and they complain somewhere to shut you down, then just lobby for a law establishing guidelines about how to behave in your new business sector, rather than shutting you down
i don't understand the problem
maybe what is being referred to here is modifying/ removing certain regulations that might be interpreted as limiting drones, even though they predate drones? for example, height restrictions. but those make perfect sense to me and don't need any modifications: you shouldn't ever be putting a drone into airspace where they can down a helicopter/ plane unless you make clear advance notice according to proper policies
so again, i don't understand the problem. it seems like a made up controversy
I don't get why we even need to find black boxes and such. How much bandwidth would it really take to just stream that data in realtime over satellite, and how much would that cost compared to the tons of fuel in the tanks?
because the regulations were passed decades ago
you are 100% correct, they should abolish black boxes and stream to satellites
we just need some sort of dramatic event that makes people notice and catalyzes them to act
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly do not understand LOTS of artists can make quite a bit of money by having their music used in advertising, tv shows, movies, and yes, even YouTube (apparently you haven't heard of services like this [friendlymusic.com] and you just assume that it's all "free"......guess you also think that all that great music in movies you're paying to see is just done for posterity too, huh? ).
I understand how advertising works. Which is a wonderful way to make money off of music. Which I also mentioned in my comment above that you responded too. And is nothing at all like charging for music. Are you OK?
And I just love when guys like you get all snarky with your "1985 business model" comments as if you have any goddamn clue what you're talking about. So you're a miser who feels like he doesn't need to pay for music ever. Great. Bully for you.
Well we can go back further if you like. How about 1885? 1585? 1485 BC? There was no recorded music. Did music exist?
The advent of recorded music as a commodity began and ended in the last century. It is the aberration, not the magic rule This Is How God Intended. For every century before, you got a patron, and/ or you charged for performance. Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms would frequently wake up crying at the injustice of their inability to charge for recordings and how it was impeding their ability to make music. Right?
Is it that you believe the last century is the only way music can be made? That if music be produced by some other economic model that's just me being a selfish jerk? Or is it possible you have no historical perspective and no imagination and your mind is closed and uneducated?
When the printing press was introduced some monks decried it as an affront to their means of support. Horseshoe blacksmiths were not happy with the arrival of the railroad and automobile. Typewrite manufacturers insisted the computer industry was abhorrent and could not be allowed to hurt God's Only And True word processing tool.
Everything changes my friend. Adapt, or die.
sure, you can charge people to buy your recordings
but that's like asking people to pay money to listen to television or radio commercials
because that's all recorded music is nowadays: a commercial for you as an artist
give it away free, it gets to more people
charge for it and less people hear you, and so there's less exposure and demand for your artistry
example: youtube, and every artist who has made it that way, which is how artists are finding success nowadays
so good luck with your 1985 business model
thank you
recordings are merely advertising: give it away for free online
if you like what you hear, give the artist money, buy a signed t shirt, hire the artist, pay for a concert, buy a product the artist endorses, etc... plenty of ancillary revenue streams
this guy made $75 million dollars last year, and never recorded anything (nor plays any more soccer):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ku...
artists can do the same
this idea that because you built me a house, every time i walk across the living room you pay me a dime, for decades, is complete bullshit
it is a broken, inefficient system that only rewards abuse
oh, only a few artists make millions and 99% starve? ok: has it ever been any different in the art world, ever? is copyright a protection from that by magic? no: it's just a vehicle for abuse by the already well-established and middle men. the little guys still get screwed by distributors and labels with bullshit contracts to get their foot in the door. end that ridiculous system that rewards parasites for no added value in an Internet world
because there are abundant contemporary writings by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, explaining exactly what they had in mind
this is either a bluff, because you know you are wrong, or it is a bluff because you're ignorant of what you speak of
let me help you out:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. ...
if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.
so tell me, oh great second amendment scholar: is hamilton saying guns should be handed out to any asshole with no further claim on their intents or abilities with the gun? or is hamilton saying that to own a gun in the usa obligates one to be disciplined and trained in its use?
so far you've:
1. avoided my point
2. lied and bluffed your way around my point
will you now concede my point that the founding fathers clear intent in the second amendment was that gun owners in the usa be well-trained as a condition of their gun ownership?
or will you continue in cowardly intellectual dishonesty?
furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery? do you like the idea that any douchebag can grab a gun without any consideration as to their abilities or responsibility?
the founding fathers clearly did not think that
do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?
the founding fathers desired americans to be well trained with guns
are you denying that is what is in the wording of the second amendment?
you avoided my point, which is a coward's way of conceding a point
the guy buying a watch for $25 will not buy a $300 watch
the guy buying a $10,000 watch will not buy a $300 watch
wait...
http://www.engadget.com/2015/0...
ok, yeah, they're fucked
you didn't say a single fucking thing about my point
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
gee, it's right there in the constitution and everything
btw, "well regulated" in colonial america speak means well trained. the intent of the founding fathers was that those with guns be well trained. so the current status quo of "hand guns to every mouth breathing moron who grunts" is against the constitution and the will of the founding fathers
you're changing the subject. you have an invalid analogy and an invalid understanding of the law
were those senators actively undermining current, ongoing diplomacy?
some idiot visiting a lame regime is not the same thing at all
if you have any example of any democratic senator directly contradicting and undermining active diplomacy by the executive branch, i fully support their prosecution
just like you support the prosecution of these 47 senators for clearly defiling us law
right?
do we have principles here or are we just partisan douchebags?
i have principles. two wrongs do not make a right
International law has nothing to do with it.
i laughed and stopped reading there
i'm done dealing with ignorants who inject themselves into topics they don't understand and are seemingly proud of their ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
any of that unclear to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....
It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.
you were saying?
so we're going to bloviate about hillary clinton for months, like she plotted the benghazi attack, when 47 senators just blatantly and clearly broke the law
got it
It is simply an informal reminder that all administrations end, and that new administrations may have new policies. This is a constitutional fact, and it is not wished away because you don't like the results.
again, you're either a liar or an idot who doesn't understand the topic you are injecting your ignorance into
educate yourself, then open your ignorant mouth: when the us govt enters into an agreement, no later administration is going to break that agreement, because that shows that value of the word of the us govt is shit. no republican president is ever going to break any agreement obama might get with the iranians. because that person, even though they are a republican, is not a complete moron, unlike constitutional "geniuses" like yourself trolling on a slashdot forum, and unlike the asshole republican senators committing sedition and meddling outside their legal rights in affairs clearly defined in law as solely the business of the executive branch
like those 47 senators, i guess you need an education on how the us government actually works, from a fucking iranian of all people, because you're too ignorant of how your own country actually works before opening your uneducated mouth:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw...
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law."
Where was zarif educated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
At age 17, he left Iran for the United States. Zarif attended Drew College Preparatory School, a private college-preparatory high school located in San Francisco, California.[5] He went on to study at San Francisco State University, from which he gained a BA in International Relations in 1981 and an MA in the same subject in 1982.[6] Following this, Zarif continued his studies at the Graduate School of International Studies (now named the Josef Korbel School of International Studies) at the University of Denver, from which he obtained a second MA in International Relations in 1984 and this was followed by a PhD in International Law and Policy in 1988.[7][8] His thesis was entitled: "Self-Defense in International Law and Policy".[9]
zarif actually understand us law better than 47 senators
better than the hordes of propagandized americans like yourself
that's pretty fucking pathetic that you understand your own government less than an iranian
do any of your examples have a group of senators actively undermining current, ongoing diplomacy? some idiot visiting a lame regime is not the same
we are going to hear about this ad nauseum for months, as if she personally commanded the jihadis there
i'm not really a fan of clinton, but the bias against her is obviously overblown
if clinton had done this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
we would hear about she had committed sedition, treason, and was a traitor, for the next 2 years, daily
and it IS sedition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
but this letter will be forgotten in a week
because it's not hillary clinton who did it
if you're writing an OS or firmware? sure, use C++, it exposes abilities you might need
but you can shoot your foot off easily doing esoteric things with C++ that other languages just don't allow you too do easily, because for 99% of programming tasks they aren't necessary. other languages provide straightjackets and limited functionality in low level tasks that, well, for safety reason you actually want, it protects you
maybe those esoteric things are important to do. but usually they aren't
the development office of the cocos islands
http://www.caro.cc/cocos.htm
thank you
all that left denying climate change are the alex jones herp derp "it's all a conspiracy" morons
for example, if someone flies a drone over a private party on a penthouse, there's no law against that, so it's perfectly legal (you might get sued, but that's civil law, not criminal law)
then enough penthouse owners complain, laws are passed, and now there are regulations against buzzing penthouses with your drone
so the lack of regulations means you can do anything you want
i think the function of law, in the usa at least, is you can do anything you want until told not to. rather than you can't do anything unless a law allows you
so i don't really understand what the problem is, unless it means companies won't invest in a dramatic expensive scheme if down the line someone might pass a law saying they can't do that. but that also doesn't make any sense, just use common sense: can you hurt someone by doing something? then don't do it, a law will be passed against that eventually, and a law should be passed against it if it risks lives or defiles privacy. otherwise, if you can establish a genuine business that generates income, the us government is not going to stand in your way for random reasons. or even if there is some hysteric out there who can put forth a rationale to limit the activity and garners support for that, and they complain somewhere to shut you down, then just lobby for a law establishing guidelines about how to behave in your new business sector, rather than shutting you down
i don't understand the problem
maybe what is being referred to here is modifying/ removing certain regulations that might be interpreted as limiting drones, even though they predate drones? for example, height restrictions. but those make perfect sense to me and don't need any modifications: you shouldn't ever be putting a drone into airspace where they can down a helicopter/ plane unless you make clear advance notice according to proper policies
so again, i don't understand the problem. it seems like a made up controversy
you really think streaming to satellite is more expensive than black box maintenance?
It is more to satisfy the curious in the tiny tiny set of edge cases like this.
*accidents* are tiny edge cases. which is exactly what this kind of system is for. yes: you want to satisfy all curiosities, absolutely
they probably do have records of it while it was between vietnam and sumatra
but as soon as it started heading toward the south indian ocean, it wouldn't surprise me if no one was looking
there is just nothing, absolutely nothing, to look at there
I don't get why we even need to find black boxes and such. How much bandwidth would it really take to just stream that data in realtime over satellite, and how much would that cost compared to the tons of fuel in the tanks?
because the regulations were passed decades ago
you are 100% correct, they should abolish black boxes and stream to satellites
we just need some sort of dramatic event that makes people notice and catalyzes them to act
in a sane world, MH370 is that event
"fun"?
easy for you to say
then you lose to your little sister
this is millions of data points and the consensus of 99% of researchers across the entire spectrum of specialties and topics
to deny at this point is willful prideful ignorance