Jaywalking is a crime. Speeding is a crime. Maybe we should mandate satellite-friendly car tagging and skull tatoos so that everyone will be identifiable from space.
That way we can start ticketing all speeding and jaywalking criminals.
We can crime-fight and collect the money to keep the crime-fighting effort at the same time.
And, when we need more money, we can make more things illegal. Like not reporting a crime.
Illegal drugs bring higher profit with no responsibility whatsoever.
If the currently legal drugs like alcohol, coffee and tobacco become illegal, their prices will skyrocket, and the government won't have to put effort into quality control, regulation etc. Everyone who uses them will be a criminal and easy to jail when they become inconvenient for any reason.
At the same time many people would be able to make a killing on the black market. Some of these people may or may not be in collusion with the government, making tax-free money.
"Fox News reports that the Naval Observatory bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks."
Believed by whom? By the person who wrote the announcement? By the janitor? By the janitor's 5 year old son?
Fox' Orewllian language has removed factuality from "news" a looong time ago.
>>Copyright is NOT there to protect the artist. Copyright is there to benefit the public by encouraging creation of new works.
Well, let's say this is how Copyright was SOLD to the public. If you look at what it actually does, you'll see the public on the giving end and corporations on the receiving.
Creators get crumbs of the action which would be comparable to profits from much less restrictive Copyright laws with much shorter terms in a world where 95%+ of the profit does not go to the middlemen.
As for the encouraging, the reality is that anything copyrighted closes the doors to further exploration in the same direction by other artists.
For example corporations ask for over $50k for inclusion of a song in a small budget movies thus effectively killing the creative work of brilliant artists.
Your post makes sense to me. Is the last line supposed to be ironic?
I am asking because I find using an organization that condones child molestation, brainwashing and genocide as one's moral compass alarming. Don't you?
Politicians know how to say what we want to hear and then go ahead and push their own unannounced agendas.
So, words are cheap. We are the people and want to believe that one man can stand against the established system of corruption and corporate reign that produced him and that same system miraculously put this man in control of its own destiny. I would like to believe it, too.
At best we are getting someone we can love and respect because love and inspiration are more powerful than fear and hate. That extra will allow us to swallow bigger chunks of shit and the extra power will give us the umph to push a little harder for the agenda of our overlords.
On the other hand, a list with the names of the tax-evading companies and their CEOs that the IRS went after, and how much tax was collected would be a very exciting news.
And if on that list I see the names of a few multibillion dollar multinationals with powerful lobbying representation, I will go to the store and buy me an American flag.
Of course, I would have to monetize the commodity of my attention, comments, feedback, ratings and navigation patterns and offer appropriate tiered rates for looking at ad content.
My rates for looking at ads directly would start from the low $150/hour and indirectly from $75/h. My comments are $3/word, rating content would be $5 per rating.
At the same time I wouldn't expect content rates to go much higher than Netflix' $20/month for unlimited use or that wouldn't be competitive.
Since when does the gov ask NYT or slashdot readers what to do? And, would we really expect that the CIA would be making public announcements about their actions and intentions?
"Cyberwar" by definition involves at least two warring parties, doesn't it?
And, the internet is an interesting beast, requiring a computer to be connected to it in order communicate. Once connected, there's the potential for an exploit, given the complexity of software + hardware and the human vulnerability to coercion (mandatory http://xkcd.com/416/ ).
So the question is less of should we start but should our government continue leading a "quiet war" with governments they pretend to be friends with. In your name, with your money.
The Machiavellian approach destroys trust and non-trusting relationships are a lot of work and no fun.
"Being afraid" happens in a part of the brain which does not process things rationally. The fear reaction to a real phenomena is very fast and only after it becomes conscious, the rational part of the brain gets a chance to rationalize and determine whether the danger needs action or not.
When we get startled, we often react before we get a chance to think, which is the reason practical jokes work so well.
Think about you and your gun against military grade weaponry, training, body armor, air and medical support, reconeiscance, teamwork etc.
Once the army gets a shoot on sight order, guns are useless.
If a true revolution happens, it will be rooted in more of us waking up to alternatives of endless greed, violence, separation and un-acknowledged cruelty.
If a bloody one starts, it would be very difficult to stop the bloodshed. The ruling oligarchy is smart and will continue to find ways to divide people, so at some point it is very likely that you will be sniped out not by the military but by your Christian (or fill-in-the-blank) neighbor.
As long as we are asleep, Divide and conquer will work wonderfully.
Paying for live performances is great, the money goes to the artist in exchange of their creativity and skill.
Paying for a performance more than once, and essentially, every time you experience it does not make sense. The artist does not make an effort every time someone hears their song.
I pay a car mechanic to fix my car and then stop. I don't continue paying them for the rest of my life despite the fact that I continue to enjoy their effort.
Yes, the artist may invest a lot of time and effort in their creation, and that's why they get money from every member of the audience, for each audience they perform to.
A recording of a performance is not a performance.
I know this may sounds harsh. The monetization of everything has created laws that don't make sense, like IP laws. The nature of IP is not material and unlike physical matter, IP is very difficult to fence off and contain. Artists are made successful by their audience, the general public.
If not for the endlessly greedy corporations still standing between creators and their audience, things could be much simpler, with shorter copyright terms, clear ownership for every piece of media we buy and the ability to share the stuff we like.
It is not mandatory for every successful artist to become a millionaire. Many programmers, writers, painters, inventors do create useful and beautiful works and never become very rich.
An idea or a tune may pop in more than one head at the same time. Calling it "mine" and trying to fence it off and make everyone else pay is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up, this is insightful and informative.
Jaywalking is a crime. Speeding is a crime. Maybe we should mandate satellite-friendly car tagging and skull tatoos so that everyone will be identifiable from space.
That way we can start ticketing all speeding and jaywalking criminals.
We can crime-fight and collect the money to keep the crime-fighting effort at the same time.
And, when we need more money, we can make more things illegal. Like not reporting a crime.
Illegal drugs bring higher profit with no responsibility whatsoever.
If the currently legal drugs like alcohol, coffee and tobacco become illegal, their prices will skyrocket, and the government won't have to put effort into quality control, regulation etc. Everyone who uses them will be a criminal and easy to jail when they become inconvenient for any reason.
At the same time many people would be able to make a killing on the black market. Some of these people may or may not be in collusion with the government, making tax-free money.
Along the same lines, "it is believed to" and "some people say" as seen on Faux.
That we have grown used to. And, the minority has powerful tools in place to preserve the status quo.
Go back to work now, you have taxes to pay.
Alternative: Pay attention to children. If you are a doctor, try to really understand what's going on with a patient.
No software or set of mandatory rules and regulations will replace the need for genuine care, time and curiosity.
Checklists help in extraordinarily complex situations with stiff procedures and when people are not paying attention.
Doctors, social workers, teachers, and parents are there to pay attention.
Amen
but the ipod and iphone can not?
"Fox News reports that the Naval Observatory bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks."
Believed by whom? By the person who wrote the announcement? By the janitor? By the janitor's 5 year old son?
Fox' Orewllian language has removed factuality from "news" a looong time ago.
Amen.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2008/10/high-fructose-c.html or just google hfcs health risks
Just stop subsidizing corn and corn syrup, and establish something like the FDA, but functioning.
>>Copyright is NOT there to protect the artist. Copyright is there to benefit the public by encouraging creation of new works.
Well, let's say this is how Copyright was SOLD to the public. If you look at what it actually does, you'll see the public on the giving end and corporations on the receiving.
Creators get crumbs of the action which would be comparable to profits from much less restrictive Copyright laws with much shorter terms in a world where 95%+ of the profit does not go to the middlemen.
As for the encouraging, the reality is that anything copyrighted closes the doors to further exploration in the same direction by other artists.
For example corporations ask for over $50k for inclusion of a song in a small budget movies thus effectively killing the creative work of brilliant artists.
And remember, the artist gets a small or no percentage of the middleman's profit.
"... even the Church at one point allowed it."
Your post makes sense to me. Is the last line supposed to be ironic?
I am asking because I find using an organization that condones child molestation, brainwashing and genocide as one's moral compass alarming. Don't you?
There's nothing wrong with taking a picture. Why hide?
The NexStar appears to have bad reviews on newegg...
This one is better.
A good step would be to have more than one company (blackwater) bid on overseas contracts.
Politicians know how to say what we want to hear and then go ahead and push their own unannounced agendas.
So, words are cheap. We are the people and want to believe that one man can stand against the established system of corruption and corporate reign that produced him and that same system miraculously put this man in control of its own destiny. I would like to believe it, too.
At best we are getting someone we can love and respect because love and inspiration are more powerful than fear and hate. That extra will allow us to swallow bigger chunks of shit and the extra power will give us the umph to push a little harder for the agenda of our overlords.
On the other hand, a list with the names of the tax-evading companies and their CEOs that the IRS went after, and how much tax was collected would be a very exciting news.
And if on that list I see the names of a few multibillion dollar multinationals with powerful lobbying representation, I will go to the store and buy me an American flag.
Of course, I would have to monetize the commodity of my attention, comments, feedback, ratings and navigation patterns and offer appropriate tiered rates for looking at ad content.
My rates for looking at ads directly would start from the low $150/hour and indirectly from $75/h. My comments are $3/word, rating content would be $5 per rating.
At the same time I wouldn't expect content rates to go much higher than Netflix' $20/month for unlimited use or that wouldn't be competitive.
In Soviet USA Advertisers Sell You!
Since when does the gov ask NYT or slashdot readers what to do? And, would we really expect that the CIA would be making public announcements about their actions and intentions?
"Cyberwar" by definition involves at least two warring parties, doesn't it?
And, the internet is an interesting beast, requiring a computer to be connected to it in order communicate. Once connected, there's the potential for an exploit, given the complexity of software + hardware and the human vulnerability to coercion (mandatory http://xkcd.com/416/ ).
So the question is less of should we start but should our government continue leading a "quiet war" with governments they pretend to be friends with. In your name, with your money.
The Machiavellian approach destroys trust and non-trusting relationships are a lot of work and no fun.
"Being afraid" happens in a part of the brain which does not process things rationally. The fear reaction to a real phenomena is very fast and only after it becomes conscious, the rational part of the brain gets a chance to rationalize and determine whether the danger needs action or not.
When we get startled, we often react before we get a chance to think, which is the reason practical jokes work so well.
Think about you and your gun against military grade weaponry, training, body armor, air and medical support, reconeiscance, teamwork etc.
Once the army gets a shoot on sight order, guns are useless.
If a true revolution happens, it will be rooted in more of us waking up to alternatives of endless greed, violence, separation and un-acknowledged cruelty.
If a bloody one starts, it would be very difficult to stop the bloodshed. The ruling oligarchy is smart and will continue to find ways to divide people, so at some point it is very likely that you will be sniped out not by the military but by your Christian (or fill-in-the-blank) neighbor.
As long as we are asleep, Divide and conquer will work wonderfully.
Paying for live performances is great, the money goes to the artist in exchange of their creativity and skill.
Paying for a performance more than once, and essentially, every time you experience it does not make sense. The artist does not make an effort every time someone hears their song.
I pay a car mechanic to fix my car and then stop. I don't continue paying them for the rest of my life despite the fact that I continue to enjoy their effort.
Yes, the artist may invest a lot of time and effort in their creation, and that's why they get money from every member of the audience, for each audience they perform to.
A recording of a performance is not a performance.
I know this may sounds harsh. The monetization of everything has created laws that don't make sense, like IP laws. The nature of IP is not material and unlike physical matter, IP is very difficult to fence off and contain. Artists are made successful by their audience, the general public.
If not for the endlessly greedy corporations still standing between creators and their audience, things could be much simpler, with shorter copyright terms, clear ownership for every piece of media we buy and the ability to share the stuff we like.
It is not mandatory for every successful artist to become a millionaire. Many programmers, writers, painters, inventors do create useful and beautiful works and never become very rich.
An idea or a tune may pop in more than one head at the same time. Calling it "mine" and trying to fence it off and make everyone else pay is ridiculous.
Hmmm, I think that the agents would soon figure out that it would be cheaper to start by waterboarding the suspect. In their own bathroom!
...crimes committed by cops
Right?
Right?