"Only fairly recently did people seem to start using all these proprietary protocols that lock people into various things. Why they did that, I have no earthly idea...."
The answer is inherent in the question. To lock people into various things (i.e., the hardware and/or software I provide for them, in return for teh monies).
I mean, seriously! If they can just move their data anyplace they like using standard protocols, I have no leverage. I have to actually, you know, WORK for their patronage. I have to provide competitive services at competitive prices. That's hard!
"Excited Delirium" is the technical term for what a corrections officer friend of mine refers to informally as "naked sweaty guy." Sufferers from ED often experience a temperature spike (hence the sweating) and frequently strip off their clothes as a result (hence the naked part).
It's usually the result of mental illness or drugs or both, and it can radically alter their responses to stimuli including pain. You can't reason with them, and they often fail to respond to commands, or to pain compliance holds, and can be extremely difficult to subdue because they ignore injuries that would normally be disabling--or even lethal--at least for a while.
And yet his votes in the Senate affect my life. If his legislative reach were limited to the lives of people who lived in Arizona, you'd have a point. As it stands, if an Arizona Senator can affect my life, I have every right to work for against his campaign.
Not being an Arizona resident, I can't _vote_ for (or against) him, and that's as it should be. But spent my time or money to support or oppose him? Hell yes.
"You should not be eligible to contribute to a candidate you're not eligible to vote for."
You couldn't be more wrong. SENATOR John McCain can make laws that _I_ have to live under, no matter what state I reside in. I have--and should have--every right to work for or against his election by donating my time or money, even if I can't vote for or against him directly. If his election can have national consequences, it is a national issue.
So it sounds like you need to convince a backer with money that you're a potential profit center...just like bands have always had to do.
The labels didn't sign anyone out of the goodness of their hearts. They signed bands they thought they could make money on. But it's not like they have a monopoly on knowing who'll be successful (or, hell, any better idea than Joe Blow). So instead of convincing a record label and endenturing yourself to them for a decade, you get a loan from someone else. A bank. A venture capitalist. Your uncle. Cleaning out your savings account and gambling on yourself. Whatever.
The barriers to entry simply aren't nearly as insurmountable without a label as you seem to think.
"Jury nullification" is the whole point of jury trials. If the only thing at issue is whether the defendant violated the law, well--a judge is probably better versed in the law (and the details thereof) than most jurors, and he can listen to "the facts of the case" as well as a jury.
No, the jurors are there to represent John Q. Citizen and to decide for themselves that a) the defendant did what he's accused of doing AND that b) he ought to be punished for it according to the penalties established in the law. If they don't think he did it OR that he shouldn't be punished (or not punished as harshly as the law calls for), they can--and should--acquit him. Their judgment is the whole point of having them there.
I always find it odd that cops are granted (and expected to use) a great deal of discretion in deciding whom to investigate and arrest. Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in deciding whom they will or will not prosecute, and on what charges. Judges are essentially dictators in their own courtrooms. But if JURORS are granted the slightest leeway to exercise their discretion, oh my god--the system will collapse into anarchy!
No, having to grow a thick skin is the price of living in a _free_ society. People are free to say what they like about you (short of libel or slander), even if it hurts your feelings.
Actually, I think the lesson is that if you want Google/YouTube to respect your religious sensitivities, you need to make a practice of blowing things up and beheading people. Civilized protests of the sort that most christians do just doesn't seem to have the same impact.
Slashdot Mirror
"Only fairly recently did people seem to start using all these proprietary protocols that lock people into various things. Why they did that, I have no earthly idea...." The answer is inherent in the question. To lock people into various things (i.e., the hardware and/or software I provide for them, in return for teh monies). I mean, seriously! If they can just move their data anyplace they like using standard protocols, I have no leverage. I have to actually, you know, WORK for their patronage. I have to provide competitive services at competitive prices. That's hard!
"Excited Delirium" is the technical term for what a corrections officer friend of mine refers to informally as "naked sweaty guy." Sufferers from ED often experience a temperature spike (hence the sweating) and frequently strip off their clothes as a result (hence the naked part). It's usually the result of mental illness or drugs or both, and it can radically alter their responses to stimuli including pain. You can't reason with them, and they often fail to respond to commands, or to pain compliance holds, and can be extremely difficult to subdue because they ignore injuries that would normally be disabling--or even lethal--at least for a while.
And yet his votes in the Senate affect my life. If his legislative reach were limited to the lives of people who lived in Arizona, you'd have a point. As it stands, if an Arizona Senator can affect my life, I have every right to work for against his campaign. Not being an Arizona resident, I can't _vote_ for (or against) him, and that's as it should be. But spent my time or money to support or oppose him? Hell yes.
"You should not be eligible to contribute to a candidate you're not eligible to vote for." You couldn't be more wrong. SENATOR John McCain can make laws that _I_ have to live under, no matter what state I reside in. I have--and should have--every right to work for or against his election by donating my time or money, even if I can't vote for or against him directly. If his election can have national consequences, it is a national issue.
So it sounds like you need to convince a backer with money that you're a potential profit center...just like bands have always had to do. The labels didn't sign anyone out of the goodness of their hearts. They signed bands they thought they could make money on. But it's not like they have a monopoly on knowing who'll be successful (or, hell, any better idea than Joe Blow). So instead of convincing a record label and endenturing yourself to them for a decade, you get a loan from someone else. A bank. A venture capitalist. Your uncle. Cleaning out your savings account and gambling on yourself. Whatever. The barriers to entry simply aren't nearly as insurmountable without a label as you seem to think.
"Jury nullification" is the whole point of jury trials. If the only thing at issue is whether the defendant violated the law, well--a judge is probably better versed in the law (and the details thereof) than most jurors, and he can listen to "the facts of the case" as well as a jury. No, the jurors are there to represent John Q. Citizen and to decide for themselves that a) the defendant did what he's accused of doing AND that b) he ought to be punished for it according to the penalties established in the law. If they don't think he did it OR that he shouldn't be punished (or not punished as harshly as the law calls for), they can--and should--acquit him. Their judgment is the whole point of having them there. I always find it odd that cops are granted (and expected to use) a great deal of discretion in deciding whom to investigate and arrest. Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in deciding whom they will or will not prosecute, and on what charges. Judges are essentially dictators in their own courtrooms. But if JURORS are granted the slightest leeway to exercise their discretion, oh my god--the system will collapse into anarchy!
No, having to grow a thick skin is the price of living in a _free_ society. People are free to say what they like about you (short of libel or slander), even if it hurts your feelings.
Actually, I think the lesson is that if you want Google/YouTube to respect your religious sensitivities, you need to make a practice of blowing things up and beheading people. Civilized protests of the sort that most christians do just doesn't seem to have the same impact.