fans tend to identify more with their music, and place a higher value on purchasing it
this is so important but limiting the conversation to "hardcore" fans of any genre basically wipes out any progress we could make by applying this truth
it's not just metalheads, punks, rap fans, indie rock, EDM....or name the sub-genre...it's **anyone who loves music**
the industry makes a distinction between *active* and *passive* listeners....
*passive* listeners just want some white noise basically...they'll listen to whatever their peers listen to...they may have "opinions" when asked about what they like, but **in action** they really don't care
*active* listeners *know what they like* and *seek it out*....they have opinions based on action rather than social perception...they like what they like not b/c it makes them 'cool' but because they genuinely like the music
active listeners, music lovers of all kinds, and yes fuckin' metalheads....we **all** will **pay for music** from **artists we respect**
EVEN THOUGH IT IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE
this fact of altruism could ruin everthing the RIAA does in one fell swoop if we just all could rally behind the fact that **all music lovers will contribute to artists they love**
this is the problem...people who talk about things they know nothing about...these kinds of comments only give fuel to the people trying to put Young-Earth Creationism into textbooks in Kansas...
get it right for fucks sake....**we're** supposed to be the scientific side of the debate!!!
is 8 people enough genetic material? who cares? it wont prove or disprove anything to anyone...
TFA is real science...trying to prove or disprove Mythology is not science
I watch Fox News...when Stephen Colbert is parodying it...but I watch what is happening just like anything else, analyzing and processing it...Fox News is ridiculous!
But I can't say I've never watched it...even in the course of parody...and I've seen that **sometimes** not **everything** they do is bullshit. I've seen a few clips where Colbert or John Stewart are actually giving respect to Fox News and makign fun of someone else.
In that same way, I "believe" what I see as true in **any** text...
So...that's where I'm coming from...I want to know how **YOU DEFINE BELIEVE**
If you want to have a value-added conversation you have to start there...what do you mean by "believe"?
TFA is right...it's not "belittling higher education" you moron...bullies "belittle" their victim...TFA is a valid criticism...**ACADEMIA** is the one who bullies!
Academia suffers from
1) Bad Management from people who are not accountable by rule (tenure professors)
This proves it! Noah and his sons have been found through genetics.
Isn't this really what this is all about? Not the research, but **why** the research is noteworthy...
There are **alot** of people who believe the Torah, New Testament, etc not as litteral truth but as mythology which can represent truthful stories under a layer of abstraction.
I don't believe science can prove OR disprove a god or buddah or FSM or anything beyond the natural world. Supernatural is unprovable scientifically by definition....**super** natural.
Why not talk about the mythology?
Are we projecting (because the Noah story is still widely told) onto this finding if we compare it to the Torah's account of Noah and the repopulation of the world after?
There are several ancient maps showing **very testable** notions of population distribution. If these are anywhere near accurate in explaining human population distribution why not do more science based on it?
Is anyone really concerned about proving god exists somehow? what's the downside if the ancient mythology correlates with modern science?
ok I get it...another "do unrealistic, unworkable thing then resign" comment...I understand it is cathartic to type comments like yours but under actual scrutiny of logic it's all just hot air...you're venting...good for you...but don't think your ideas are anything that would work in the real world...
why?
so what law enforcement and national defense are we allowed to do with telecommunications? internet, SMS, phone records, it's all private
so we need to get a warrant, right?
what if the government wants to get a warrant to spy on someone secretly for an Internal Investigations investigation?
does the CIA out in the field need to get permission to collect surveillance on, say, Assad?
I'd like an answer to my questions, because in the real world where policy gets enacted your ideas would not work and these questions illustrate why.
We’re terrible at work-life balance. Although work is pretty much your life, we do our absolute best to make sure that work is as awesome as possible so you at least enjoy each and every day here.
the whole thing reads like that
I definitely agree HR sucks, not just in tech but across the board...when I hear "HR" I automatically think office-drone functionary who has no concept of the actual business work the company does.
However, I think if we aim only at HR we might miss the target...in the Tech Industry I see a greater inability to relate to other humans at all levels...kinda sociopathic...
Mozilla may depend on google.com alot for contributions but that doesn't mean it is not a success or sustainable company.
Most startups (including my favorite imgur.com) generate alot of revenue from small contributions from donors.
I'm not saying I'd use the donor model for Cannonical/Ubuntu
I'd probably have the 'Ubuntu Foundation' and use it to release a free OS *and* do things like the Electronic Frontier Foundation only targeted mostly on OS issues. Rootkits for example. We'd lobby for net neutrality and the like.
So the thing that releases Ubuntu is a non-profit
I'd have the actual profit company then own something the non-profit leases....like computer equipment, building space, etc...
then I'd have my for-profit company, in this case Cannonical, fork Drupal & make a FOSS wordpress/drupal kind of system...yes this is *TWO* FOSS projects, one from a non-profit, one from the for-profit company
profit comes from **consulting**
we could consult for general IT network setup for small to enterprise level business
'intranet' consulting on an Enterprise-level "content management system" based off our FOSS fork of the drupal core
web design - we'd use our 'in house' Drupal fork with all the bells and whistles to do websites for things like msnbc.com (just had a redesign....cost in the millions $$$ cha ching) or whitehouse.gov or...hell...**healthcare.gov**
software development consulting
domain name registration...why not offer it?
the best part is, all the business units and all the FOSS stuff **drive each other**
gotta add another dimension to make FOSS profitable long term
what's funny is, even good intentions today can land you into an extortion scam...
Law Enforcement has always had a 'scam' side to it, just think about speed traps...
now with LE and Military using contractors, there is a financial incentive to generate new 'scam victims'
because one contractor does work for law enforcement, military, AND corporate clients, the information becomes vulnerable to anyone willing to take the risk of using it
taking that risk is much more likely due to the financial incentive I mentioned above
What's also become clear is they don't know how to do it
right
my question: Has any Linux distro ever been clear that they *do* know how to Make Money?
I think Ubuntu and Canonical could *certainly* have made a profit, but that's my opinion. I think **I** could make them profitable if they were my companies...maybe something similar to a Mozilla model w/ my own twist of course;)
what I'm asking is about the general consensus...is there a way that is common knowledge that these companies like cannonical ignore or is it more abstract than that?
what's an example of a profitable linux distro company?
No, it's not only about price. It's about the fact that the book can be read anywhere, without needing a battery charge or anything. Even many kids think about that
That's right...
because it is all just ***text on a page***
that page can be ink on paper, sprites on LCD screen, or pixels on a kindle
people want news more than ever, people want to be entertained more than ever, people want mental stimulation more than ever, & most importantly people **expect** to get this whenever they want
the text is the Message...the book or ereader is the Channel
Claude Shannon's SMCR Model always provides clarity;)
what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?
Nothing, and it's a stupid question in the first place.
so you're against **whatever the government does** and the only thing Obama could do personally is step down.
who would take his place? how would we choose? don't answer it's a rhetorical question to show the fallacy of your whole position
look, your opinions dont matter because they are the ***same*** no matter what
you will always say the same thing...you won't describe details about under what conditions you would change, unless of course Obama steps down
that means, for all practical purposes, I could have read your comment or *not* read it and i would know the same ammount of information...
kind makes you a 'Schrodinger Commentor' doesn't it?
you keep quoting it like it will say something different...
if you are ***DUMB ENOUGH*** to leave it laying out, when you **know** by **their own admission** they aren't priortizing it....
**IF** that happens...
they tell you, in the thing you've quoted to me twice now, that they refer you to LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
they don't call the fucking DEA on you for a few joints!
get it in your head...this is like speeding law enforcement...it's not black & white
**everyone speeds when they drive** in some small towns 5 MPH over the posted limit is an automatic ticket...in other places, you can push it closer to 10 MPH...
they dont call the fucking DEA...do you understand?
Local law enforcement will obey the *local laws* which means you are fine if it is legal in your departure state!
you can say "it's still not the wisest move" but that doesn't disprove my point
so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy
An extremely reasonable position to hold, even before Wikileaks/Snowden.
by your definition, is it **ever** possible to have a government you would trust?
what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?
also, and this is important, you **must** be able to give some example of some government that would be trustworthy....otherwise this is just meaningless abstracts...
***is it possible for you to trust any government?***
full disclosure: i don't trust the government either! but I have specific reasons that are not related to the Obama administration and I acknowledge the existence of the Social Contract...
***I don't trust humans in power systems who do not have accountability***
accountability & openness are what elicit trust in the government for me
ok...so any government that is your government is by default untrusted regardless of any caveat
where does that mistrust begin and end?
do you have all the food you eat analyzed via Gas Chromatograph to determine nutrition information?
do you test all the water you drink everywhere you go?
do you test the gasoline you buy at the pump regularly to ensure it is the proper octaine?
do you do health code inspections of the restaurants you eat at?
I want to know how you live out your ****total mistrust*** of the government consistently because the government does alot of things...
I am expecting an answer, and I'll think over what you type, but as you can guess I don't think your logic holds up...you **don't** actually mistrust **everything** about the government...there is something else at work...what is the true factors you use?
you do understand that what you quoted supports what I said
if it is legal in the state where you depart from, and you are dumb enough to just have it laying out so they find it, they will consult local law enforcement, who go by the laws of the state, making it legal
the worst that would happen is you'd have it confescated...**maybe** still catch your flight even
your quote proves what I said true!
not that you trust me or anything, but the fact is I know several people who fly with their medicine
so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?
you want to see Assange, in NYC attending galas, at Harvard lecturing, in DC testifying (freely) before a Senate Judiciary hearing on privacy in the 21st Century...you want that, right? you would have to see it happen?
otherwise, you don't believe a single word the Obama administration says?
Because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.
If Snowden hadn't been duped by Glenn Greenwald he could have released this info in a way that would let him **be a free man**....because of the US laws for protecting journalists are the strongest in the world.
Freedom of Speech works if you do you homework on how the law is worded.
Snowden could have gotten this same deal but he fucked it all up b/c of his hubris or he was being blackmailed
Slashdot Mirror
I'm simply demanding that the sides be accurately represented!
science can't prove or disprove anything that is by definition supernatural
I'm asking for some mods to get a handle on this...
Is this post really being modded up to +4 Insightful b/c of a spelling correction?
If so this is complete lunacy...
Also, how do you know I didn't just mispell it...b/c I do that alot too
this is so important but limiting the conversation to "hardcore" fans of any genre basically wipes out any progress we could make by applying this truth
it's not just metalheads, punks, rap fans, indie rock, EDM....or name the sub-genre...it's **anyone who loves music**
the industry makes a distinction between *active* and *passive* listeners....
*passive* listeners just want some white noise basically...they'll listen to whatever their peers listen to...they may have "opinions" when asked about what they like, but **in action** they really don't care
*active* listeners *know what they like* and *seek it out*....they have opinions based on action rather than social perception...they like what they like not b/c it makes them 'cool' but because they genuinely like the music
active listeners, music lovers of all kinds, and yes fuckin' metalheads....we **all** will **pay for music** from **artists we respect**
EVEN THOUGH IT IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE
this fact of altruism could ruin everthing the RIAA does in one fell swoop if we just all could rally behind the fact that **all music lovers will contribute to artists they love**
if you're going to talk about Mythology you should get it right.
the Torah records **8** humans aboard the ark...Noah, his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth...and all of their wives.
this is the problem...people who talk about things they know nothing about...these kinds of comments only give fuel to the people trying to put Young-Earth Creationism into textbooks in Kansas...
get it right for fucks sake....**we're** supposed to be the scientific side of the debate!!!
is 8 people enough genetic material? who cares? it wont prove or disprove anything to anyone...
TFA is real science...trying to prove or disprove Mythology is not science
I'm not playing this game...
define "believe"...
I watch Fox News...when Stephen Colbert is parodying it...but I watch what is happening just like anything else, analyzing and processing it...Fox News is ridiculous!
But I can't say I've never watched it...even in the course of parody...and I've seen that **sometimes** not **everything** they do is bullshit. I've seen a few clips where Colbert or John Stewart are actually giving respect to Fox News and makign fun of someone else.
In that same way, I "believe" what I see as true in **any** text...
So...that's where I'm coming from...I want to know how **YOU DEFINE BELIEVE**
If you want to have a value-added conversation you have to start there...what do you mean by "believe"?
TFA is right...it's not "belittling higher education" you moron...bullies "belittle" their victim...TFA is a valid criticism...**ACADEMIA** is the one who bullies!
Academia suffers from
1) Bad Management from people who are not accountable by rule (tenure professors)
2) Artificial Scarcity motivated by politics
Academia is **all about the money**....just like being a gangster!!! C.R.E.A.M.=Cash Rules Everything Around Me
"gotta get the NSF grant, gotta get tenure, gotta get the project approved..."
Academia is competitive, but in ways that have nothing to do with science and only waste energy.
Isn't this really what this is all about? Not the research, but **why** the research is noteworthy...
There are **alot** of people who believe the Torah, New Testament, etc not as litteral truth but as mythology which can represent truthful stories under a layer of abstraction.
I don't believe science can prove OR disprove a god or buddah or FSM or anything beyond the natural world. Supernatural is unprovable scientifically by definition....**super** natural.
Why not talk about the mythology?
Are we projecting (because the Noah story is still widely told) onto this finding if we compare it to the Torah's account of Noah and the repopulation of the world after?
There are several ancient maps showing **very testable** notions of population distribution. If these are anywhere near accurate in explaining human population distribution why not do more science based on it?
Is anyone really concerned about proving god exists somehow? what's the downside if the ancient mythology correlates with modern science?
what part of my comment makes you think I'm biased against France?
I lived there for awhile & loved it...what's the deal?
ok I get it...another "do unrealistic, unworkable thing then resign" comment...I understand it is cathartic to type comments like yours but under actual scrutiny of logic it's all just hot air...you're venting...good for you...but don't think your ideas are anything that would work in the real world...
why?
so what law enforcement and national defense are we allowed to do with telecommunications? internet, SMS, phone records, it's all private
so we need to get a warrant, right?
what if the government wants to get a warrant to spy on someone secretly for an Internal Investigations investigation?
does the CIA out in the field need to get permission to collect surveillance on, say, Assad?
I'd like an answer to my questions, because in the real world where policy gets enacted your ideas would not work and these questions illustrate why.
"So French"
We do have to look at this news through the 'french' lens...their courts and legal system are Kafkaesque (ha!)
will the block go into effect immediately or is this conditional upon appeal to a higher court before it goes into effect?
it's dumb of course, as another poster said they'll just use different URL's or imbed the players in other sites...
yep...agree...
wanted to add that there are plenty of examples of **non-HR** people being as out of touch as HR
Just look at Penny Arcade's ad for a "Web/Software Developer & Sys Admin: http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/9887522?trk=feed-cmpy-fol-jobt&goback=.bzo_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_penny*5arcade*5inc*3
a sample:
the whole thing reads like that
I definitely agree HR sucks, not just in tech but across the board...when I hear "HR" I automatically think office-drone functionary who has no concept of the actual business work the company does.
However, I think if we aim only at HR we might miss the target...in the Tech Industry I see a greater inability to relate to other humans at all levels...kinda sociopathic...
Mozilla may depend on google.com alot for contributions but that doesn't mean it is not a success or sustainable company.
Most startups (including my favorite imgur.com) generate alot of revenue from small contributions from donors.
I'm not saying I'd use the donor model for Cannonical/Ubuntu
I'd probably have the 'Ubuntu Foundation' and use it to release a free OS *and* do things like the Electronic Frontier Foundation only targeted mostly on OS issues. Rootkits for example. We'd lobby for net neutrality and the like.
So the thing that releases Ubuntu is a non-profit
I'd have the actual profit company then own something the non-profit leases....like computer equipment, building space, etc...
then I'd have my for-profit company, in this case Cannonical, fork Drupal & make a FOSS wordpress/drupal kind of system...yes this is *TWO* FOSS projects, one from a non-profit, one from the for-profit company
profit comes from **consulting**
we could consult for general IT network setup for small to enterprise level business
'intranet' consulting on an Enterprise-level "content management system" based off our FOSS fork of the drupal core
web design - we'd use our 'in house' Drupal fork with all the bells and whistles to do websites for things like msnbc.com (just had a redesign....cost in the millions $$$ cha ching) or whitehouse.gov or...hell...**healthcare.gov**
software development consulting
domain name registration...why not offer it?
the best part is, all the business units and all the FOSS stuff **drive each other**
gotta add another dimension to make FOSS profitable long term
what's funny is, even good intentions today can land you into an extortion scam...
Law Enforcement has always had a 'scam' side to it, just think about speed traps...
now with LE and Military using contractors, there is a financial incentive to generate new 'scam victims'
because one contractor does work for law enforcement, military, AND corporate clients, the information becomes vulnerable to anyone willing to take the risk of using it
taking that risk is much more likely due to the financial incentive I mentioned above
right
my question: Has any Linux distro ever been clear that they *do* know how to Make Money?
I think Ubuntu and Canonical could *certainly* have made a profit, but that's my opinion. I think **I** could make them profitable if they were my companies...maybe something similar to a Mozilla model w/ my own twist of course ;)
what I'm asking is about the general consensus...is there a way that is common knowledge that these companies like cannonical ignore or is it more abstract than that?
what's an example of a profitable linux distro company?
That's right...
because it is all just ***text on a page***
that page can be ink on paper, sprites on LCD screen, or pixels on a kindle
people want news more than ever, people want to be entertained more than ever, people want mental stimulation more than ever, & most importantly people **expect** to get this whenever they want
the text is the Message...the book or ereader is the Channel
Claude Shannon's SMCR Model always provides clarity ;)
what I'm saying is Snowden could have...ya know...released the info anonymously via wikileaks
because that's exactly why it exists
the info would get out and he'd be walking around banging his Russian "girlfriend"
so you're against **whatever the government does** and the only thing Obama could do personally is step down.
who would take his place? how would we choose? don't answer it's a rhetorical question to show the fallacy of your whole position
look, your opinions dont matter because they are the ***same*** no matter what
you will always say the same thing...you won't describe details about under what conditions you would change, unless of course Obama steps down
that means, for all practical purposes, I could have read your comment or *not* read it and i would know the same ammount of information...
kind makes you a 'Schrodinger Commentor' doesn't it?
you keep quoting it like it will say something different...
if you are ***DUMB ENOUGH*** to leave it laying out, when you **know** by **their own admission** they aren't priortizing it....
**IF** that happens...
they tell you, in the thing you've quoted to me twice now, that they refer you to LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
they don't call the fucking DEA on you for a few joints!
get it in your head...this is like speeding law enforcement...it's not black & white
**everyone speeds when they drive** in some small towns 5 MPH over the posted limit is an automatic ticket...in other places, you can push it closer to 10 MPH...
they dont call the fucking DEA...do you understand?
Local law enforcement will obey the *local laws* which means you are fine if it is legal in your departure state!
you can say "it's still not the wisest move" but that doesn't disprove my point
by your definition, is it **ever** possible to have a government you would trust?
what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?
also, and this is important, you **must** be able to give some example of some government that would be trustworthy....otherwise this is just meaningless abstracts...
***is it possible for you to trust any government?***
full disclosure:
i don't trust the government either! but I have specific reasons that are not related to the Obama administration and I acknowledge the existence of the Social Contract...
***I don't trust humans in power systems who do not have accountability***
accountability & openness are what elicit trust in the government for me
ok...so any government that is your government is by default untrusted regardless of any caveat
where does that mistrust begin and end?
do you have all the food you eat analyzed via Gas Chromatograph to determine nutrition information?
do you test all the water you drink everywhere you go?
do you test the gasoline you buy at the pump regularly to ensure it is the proper octaine?
do you do health code inspections of the restaurants you eat at?
I want to know how you live out your ****total mistrust*** of the government consistently because the government does alot of things...
I am expecting an answer, and I'll think over what you type, but as you can guess I don't think your logic holds up...you **don't** actually mistrust **everything** about the government...there is something else at work...what is the true factors you use?
you do understand that what you quoted supports what I said
if it is legal in the state where you depart from, and you are dumb enough to just have it laying out so they find it, they will consult local law enforcement, who go by the laws of the state, making it legal
the worst that would happen is you'd have it confescated...**maybe** still catch your flight even
your quote proves what I said true!
not that you trust me or anything, but the fact is I know several people who fly with their medicine
I don't understand what supralegal organization to which you refer:
is it Wikileaks? the military/industrial complex? "Obama"?
so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?
you want to see Assange, in NYC attending galas, at Harvard lecturing, in DC testifying (freely) before a Senate Judiciary hearing on privacy in the 21st Century...you want that, right? you would have to see it happen?
otherwise, you don't believe a single word the Obama administration says?
Am I accurately representing your position?
Zimmerman?
Try Snowden.
Why are they saying Assange won't be prosecuted:
If Snowden hadn't been duped by Glenn Greenwald he could have released this info in a way that would let him **be a free man**....because of the US laws for protecting journalists are the strongest in the world.
Freedom of Speech works if you do you homework on how the law is worded.
Snowden could have gotten this same deal but he fucked it all up b/c of his hubris or he was being blackmailed
MOD DOWN
Obama admin has said specifically that it will not prosecute dispensaries that are legal according to the law of the State.
***I'm smoking legal dispensary medicinal cannabis right now***
Maybe one or two DEA divisions were bucking for a promotion...but Obama's policy is not to prosecute...
You can **board airlines** with medicinal marijuana with your proof...the TSA doesn't bother you for small ammounts