What is a "content owner"? Oh, the person who owns the recording.
For those of you who don't understand the big issue, there are two kinds of "owners" for a piece of recorded music - the guy who owns the actual sound recording (master) and the person/people who own the copyright on the underlying work (the writers). These are often not the same people, particularly in commercial music where a record label typically owns the masters.
Writers get paid statutory rates for sound recordings or digital downloads, known as a mechanical royalty rate. For a song that's 5 minutes or less, it's 9.1 cents per copy, with a 1.75 cent/minute increment above 5 minutes. They also get paid for broadcast uses of their works (this is what BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC handle in the US). The issue with Youtube is that there's no good way to pay writers, so they get screwed. Frankly, the labels are getting screwed, too, as $1B isn't a whole lot of money after it's sliced a million ways. I doubt Youtube's ads bring in enough money to pay out more, anyway. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC pay writers some from Youtube if the song is recognized in the content-id system, but the money is paltry.
Writers are really getting screwed on streaming and Youtube, and while people used to be able to make a decent living as a writer even 10 years ago, it's getting quite difficult now. I have a niece trying to get into the business and I'm telling her she has to perform as well as writing so she can make a good living at it.
They sell the same stuff as the other grocery stores around here, just at lower prices. The produce is sourced locally where possible (like Kroger and Publix).
Why do you think they sell different stuff?
Or are you the typical cluefuck elitist who thinks that only organic overpriced stuff from Whole Foods is "healthy"?
Some libertarians have a naïve belief that in a free market, good honest companies will always prevail over fraudsters. And they are not completely wrong... in the long run. Fraud generally is discovered eventually and bad companies get replaced with better ones, but often not before massive damage has been wrought. And where one fraudster succeeds even for a while, others will try and follow in his footsteps.
Which is why other libertarians do see a role for government to provide some ground rules and provide oversight to actually enforce those rules. Even if only because it's far cheaper than letting fraudsters run wild.
ALL libertarians believe the government has a role in providing ground rules and oversight. It's one of the only legitimate functions of government - contract enforcement. See above for more information.
With the "small government" approach the scam would continue. "Libertarians" take note. Being free to scam others without consequence doesn't do a lot for the liberty of those being scammed.
It's always funny how people who argue against libertarianism don't have any fucking clue what libertarianism actually is. I'll explain, you try to understand.
One of the essential roles of government is contract enforcement. Along with property rights, contract enforcement is one of the bedrock principles that makes civilization civilized. I as an individual can make a contract with a multi-billion dollar company and if they renege on their end the government will enforce it (in theory, at least).
Theranos promised to provide something and didn't deliver. Their claims were fraudulent. They broke the implied warranty of merchantability. This is absolutely a case where the government needs to step in and force Theranos to make the victims whole. Given that it's a healthcare product, we also believe that the state has a vested interest in making sure that their claims are valid before the product is sold, anyway.
What's hilarious is that cluefucks like yourself believe that this is a failure of libertarianism when, in fact, it's a failure of big government. We have a regulatory framework in place already that's supposed to find out that Theranos is a fraud before they sell the product, and yet they allowed the product to come to market. As usual, your side fails and you try to blame my side.
Rather than railing against a boogeyman that you're not smart enough to understand, you should be asking why the substantial regulatory framework already in place failed.
...to move to a public utility model for telecom. Government owns and maintains the right-of-way and the copper/glass. Everybody who wants to gets to buy access to it, be it last mile or peerage
No. Please spare us the tired, "the guvamint will screw it up" argument. It's bullshit. I can show you public utility districts that make their commercial counterparts in the electrical service delivery business look like third-world pretenders. It works as well as it does for one simple reason, the district is beholden to the electorate, not shareholders.
Yeah, we have that model here in Tennessee, and it works well. For electricity.
You see, the standard that we use for electricity hasn't changed significantly in the last 100 years. Broadband isn't even remotely comparable. The sad reality is that we don't have a good answer as market forces don't work well when there's only one or two providers and government cannot possibly move at the speed necessary to stay updated.
This is a woman who doesn't know how to use a fax machine, the idea that she even remotely understands net neutrality is a joke.
When did using a FAX machine ever become a job requirement?
I'm responding in case you're not shilling. We know about this because of an email exchange where Hillary is trying to receive a fax and can't because she doesn't know how to work the fax machine. So it actually *was* a requirement and she flubbed it.
And the whole "but, but, Donald Trump is stupider" response just comes across as pathetic, FYI.
Clinton doesn't actually have a "tech plan". She was given one by her wealthy Silicon Valley donors. This is a woman who doesn't know how to use a fax machine, the idea that she even remotely understands net neutrality is a joke.
In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online.
The idea is that the in-person registration requirement makes it less likely that you'll be a resident-in-absentia, renting out your unit full time. The landlords for my last apartment lived in Los Angeles. If they had to re-register every year, they might not see it as being worth it, compared to just getting a full-time tenant.
Yes, obviously they're trying to make it more difficult. Making commerce more difficult is generally only something an idiot would approve of, though.
Conversely, the $50, and fill out a form seem like remarkably low burdens to impose. I mean, "I'm suing because this form isn't online" is pretty stupid.
In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online. I actually agree with the idea of charging $50 and making folks register, but registration shouldn't involve physically visiting somewhere.
The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism). Can't one goddamn politician react appropriately (by recognizing that embracing totalitarianism means the terrorists WIN), for once?!
Plenty do, such as Gary Johnson. They're derided as kooks, of course.
The ship is better than the smaller ships, because it uses less resources to run. Shipping a toothbrush across the ocean takes less oil than driving a mile to the store to pick it up. This is a symbol of progress and good things.
Realize that you're likely arguing with someone who thinks that kids starving in America is caused by having a choice of 23 deodorants at the store.
You just can't appreciate the quality design. Some of us are willing to pay for the superior experience that comes from using Apple energy. Honestly, once you try it, you can't go back to using anything else. Even the so-called high-end electrons from other companies feel cheep and unpolished. Yeah, the specs may seem better on paper, but the brilliantly crafted combination of current and voltage you get from Apple just can't be matched. It's all about the experience.
To me, the big thing about it is that Apple energy just works. I don't have to worry about appliance compatibility, stuff like that. It's really worth paying a bit more. Plus, they now have electrons in a couple of different finishes. We still just use "space grey", but I think my older son is talking about using "gold" electrons when he gets out on his own.
this kind of comment is the modern day equivalent of joining a witch hunt. You use Slashdot buttons instead of a pitch fork, but the spirit and enthusiasm for expedient "justice" is the same. And anyone who gets in your way has to be in cahoots with the witch, right? Zero chance that maybe you're just plain wrong.
Dude, chill. I've seen your history, you're obviously not Liz because you actually comment intelligently on tech stuff.
The original article was essentially bullshit, using people who worked at Theranos for 2 weeks 5 years ago as "internal sources", and debunking claims that Theranos never made. What they did was like posting a story saying that the Linux kernel doesn't "truly" prevent computers from being infected by viruses (a claim nobody ever made) and that the GNU didn't it grant it a GPLv3 license.
I don't know if this total incompetence or if there's a hidden agenda, or maybe it is in fact a case of blatant sexism, but the coverage of Theranos by the Wall Street journal is awful and careless. And the other big media gobbled this up without thinking twice about it.
There was a video interview of Holmes by some grinning moron from the WSJ posted on Slashdot a while ago. Anyone watching that video could see that this whole story is essentially sensationalistic reporting with no basis in reality. But who cares about facts, it's much easier to call that girl a crook and move on to the next scandal.
I actually cancelled my Audible subscription to the WSJ after watching that interview and doing my own research into this story. Who knows what proportion of their stories are full of bullshit like this one. They remind me of that guy from the movie Shattered Glass.
Don't worry, I'm sure all your answers will be answered if you $32 to access the full text of the article. Then again maybe it won't and the study is complete bullshit and you'll have spent that money for nothing.
We seriously need a shift in the way we share scientific data with each other. The system we have now is broken.
Not only would I do the counter-notice here in the US, I would self-represent in court if they were stupid enough to take it that far. Most judges would kick it out just after looking at the file dates. But it's doubtful that their lawyers would be stupid enough to let it get to court.
The real explanation, execution drugs make up a tiny amount of profit for them, the advertising and good image they project by making this declaration is far more valuable.
Exactly. It's simply signaling, nothing more. They stand to lose a few bucks per year with this policy.
However, if you are thinking about murder, and you start imagining the needle is waiting for you
Do you really think a mugger or whatever is thinking that far ahead?
Yep, and it's easily proven. Look at the murder rate against cops vs. against the regular population - it's dramatically lower. And the punishment for killing a cop is dramatically higher.
Yes, there is a cause and effect. Nobody says it's 100% perfect, but harsher punishment will result in lower crime in this case.
I'm against the death penalty, but I will gladly argue from a fact-based position rather than emotion.
I could see a 50% drop - they went from selling two phones per year to just one single phone. But 46%? They must have raised the price on the phone they sold.
Yeah, I'd think it would be a GOOD thing that Senior Citizens wouldn't be homebound.
And that teenagers could get home from parties safely.
My senior citizen stepfather - early 70s - would be better off if the car drove itself. They don't get on the interstates around here because the "other drivers" are so terrible. If his car actually went the speed limit I'm sure the other drivers would suddenly be much better.
Slashdot Mirror
What is a "content owner"? Oh, the person who owns the recording.
For those of you who don't understand the big issue, there are two kinds of "owners" for a piece of recorded music - the guy who owns the actual sound recording (master) and the person/people who own the copyright on the underlying work (the writers). These are often not the same people, particularly in commercial music where a record label typically owns the masters.
Writers get paid statutory rates for sound recordings or digital downloads, known as a mechanical royalty rate. For a song that's 5 minutes or less, it's 9.1 cents per copy, with a 1.75 cent/minute increment above 5 minutes. They also get paid for broadcast uses of their works (this is what BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC handle in the US). The issue with Youtube is that there's no good way to pay writers, so they get screwed. Frankly, the labels are getting screwed, too, as $1B isn't a whole lot of money after it's sliced a million ways. I doubt Youtube's ads bring in enough money to pay out more, anyway. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC pay writers some from Youtube if the song is recognized in the content-id system, but the money is paltry.
Writers are really getting screwed on streaming and Youtube, and while people used to be able to make a decent living as a writer even 10 years ago, it's getting quite difficult now. I have a niece trying to get into the business and I'm telling her she has to perform as well as writing so she can make a good living at it.
Anyway, that's the issue.
They sell the same stuff as the other grocery stores around here, just at lower prices. The produce is sourced locally where possible (like Kroger and Publix).
Why do you think they sell different stuff?
Or are you the typical cluefuck elitist who thinks that only organic overpriced stuff from Whole Foods is "healthy"?
Some libertarians have a naïve belief that in a free market, good honest companies will always prevail over fraudsters. And they are not completely wrong... in the long run. Fraud generally is discovered eventually and bad companies get replaced with better ones, but often not before massive damage has been wrought. And where one fraudster succeeds even for a while, others will try and follow in his footsteps.
Which is why other libertarians do see a role for government to provide some ground rules and provide oversight to actually enforce those rules. Even if only because it's far cheaper than letting fraudsters run wild.
ALL libertarians believe the government has a role in providing ground rules and oversight. It's one of the only legitimate functions of government - contract enforcement. See above for more information.
With the "small government" approach the scam would continue.
"Libertarians" take note.
Being free to scam others without consequence doesn't do a lot for the liberty of those being scammed.
It's always funny how people who argue against libertarianism don't have any fucking clue what libertarianism actually is. I'll explain, you try to understand.
One of the essential roles of government is contract enforcement. Along with property rights, contract enforcement is one of the bedrock principles that makes civilization civilized. I as an individual can make a contract with a multi-billion dollar company and if they renege on their end the government will enforce it (in theory, at least).
Theranos promised to provide something and didn't deliver. Their claims were fraudulent. They broke the implied warranty of merchantability. This is absolutely a case where the government needs to step in and force Theranos to make the victims whole. Given that it's a healthcare product, we also believe that the state has a vested interest in making sure that their claims are valid before the product is sold, anyway.
What's hilarious is that cluefucks like yourself believe that this is a failure of libertarianism when, in fact, it's a failure of big government. We have a regulatory framework in place already that's supposed to find out that Theranos is a fraud before they sell the product, and yet they allowed the product to come to market. As usual, your side fails and you try to blame my side.
Rather than railing against a boogeyman that you're not smart enough to understand, you should be asking why the substantial regulatory framework already in place failed.
...to move to a public utility model for telecom. Government owns and maintains the right-of-way and the copper/glass. Everybody who wants to gets to buy access to it, be it last mile or peerage
No. Please spare us the tired, "the guvamint will screw it up" argument. It's bullshit. I can show you public utility districts that make their commercial counterparts in the electrical service delivery business look like third-world pretenders. It works as well as it does for one simple reason, the district is beholden to the electorate, not shareholders.
Yeah, we have that model here in Tennessee, and it works well. For electricity.
You see, the standard that we use for electricity hasn't changed significantly in the last 100 years. Broadband isn't even remotely comparable. The sad reality is that we don't have a good answer as market forces don't work well when there's only one or two providers and government cannot possibly move at the speed necessary to stay updated.
It's always nice to see the American Indian perspective on these things.
This is a woman who doesn't know how to use a fax machine, the idea that she even remotely understands net neutrality is a joke.
When did using a FAX machine ever become a job requirement?
I'm responding in case you're not shilling. We know about this because of an email exchange where Hillary is trying to receive a fax and can't because she doesn't know how to work the fax machine. So it actually *was* a requirement and she flubbed it.
And the whole "but, but, Donald Trump is stupider" response just comes across as pathetic, FYI.
Clinton doesn't actually have a "tech plan". She was given one by her wealthy Silicon Valley donors. This is a woman who doesn't know how to use a fax machine, the idea that she even remotely understands net neutrality is a joke.
In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online.
The idea is that the in-person registration requirement makes it less likely that you'll be a resident-in-absentia, renting out your unit full time. The landlords for my last apartment lived in Los Angeles. If they had to re-register every year, they might not see it as being worth it, compared to just getting a full-time tenant.
Yes, obviously they're trying to make it more difficult. Making commerce more difficult is generally only something an idiot would approve of, though.
Conversely, the $50, and fill out a form seem like remarkably low burdens to impose. I mean, "I'm suing because this form isn't online" is pretty stupid.
In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online. I actually agree with the idea of charging $50 and making folks register, but registration shouldn't involve physically visiting somewhere.
like, oh, pro-Brexit as an example.
The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism). Can't one goddamn politician react appropriately (by recognizing that embracing totalitarianism means the terrorists WIN), for once?!
Plenty do, such as Gary Johnson. They're derided as kooks, of course.
The ship is better than the smaller ships, because it uses less resources to run. Shipping a toothbrush across the ocean takes less oil than driving a mile to the store to pick it up. This is a symbol of progress and good things.
Realize that you're likely arguing with someone who thinks that kids starving in America is caused by having a choice of 23 deodorants at the store.
I think the best place to start would be mandatory drug test for Congress.
After reading that bullshit I'm pretty sure I know at least one who would fail...
Yeah, right. I'm going to prove you all wrong. I'm going to stop breathing right now.
Hum okay, I have to admit it's a bit uncomfortable.
Actually, this is getting quite painful.
I guess you guys were right aft
Reminds me of a friend who decided to give up his filthy habits of pissing and shitting.
You just can't appreciate the quality design. Some of us are willing to pay for the superior experience that comes from using Apple energy. Honestly, once you try it, you can't go back to using anything else. Even the so-called high-end electrons from other companies feel cheep and unpolished. Yeah, the specs may seem better on paper, but the brilliantly crafted combination of current and voltage you get from Apple just can't be matched. It's all about the experience.
To me, the big thing about it is that Apple energy just works. I don't have to worry about appliance compatibility, stuff like that. It's really worth paying a bit more. Plus, they now have electrons in a couple of different finishes. We still just use "space grey", but I think my older son is talking about using "gold" electrons when he gets out on his own.
He could force any bakery to bake him a cake, right? The cognitive dissonance of the far left is amazing.
this kind of comment is the modern day equivalent of joining a witch hunt. You use Slashdot buttons instead of a pitch fork, but the spirit and enthusiasm for expedient "justice" is the same. And anyone who gets in your way has to be in cahoots with the witch, right? Zero chance that maybe you're just plain wrong.
Dude, chill. I've seen your history, you're obviously not Liz because you actually comment intelligently on tech stuff.
It was a joke.
The original article was essentially bullshit, using people who worked at Theranos for 2 weeks 5 years ago as "internal sources", and debunking claims that Theranos never made. What they did was like posting a story saying that the Linux kernel doesn't "truly" prevent computers from being infected by viruses (a claim nobody ever made) and that the GNU didn't it grant it a GPLv3 license.
I don't know if this total incompetence or if there's a hidden agenda, or maybe it is in fact a case of blatant sexism, but the coverage of Theranos by the Wall Street journal is awful and careless. And the other big media gobbled this up without thinking twice about it.
There was a video interview of Holmes by some grinning moron from the WSJ posted on Slashdot a while ago. Anyone watching that video could see that this whole story is essentially sensationalistic reporting with no basis in reality. But who cares about facts, it's much easier to call that girl a crook and move on to the next scandal.
I actually cancelled my Audible subscription to the WSJ after watching that interview and doing my own research into this story. Who knows what proportion of their stories are full of bullshit like this one. They remind me of that guy from the movie Shattered Glass.
Hi, Liz. Why did you make up this "lucm" name?
Don't worry, I'm sure all your answers will be answered if you $32 to access the full text of the article. Then again maybe it won't and the study is complete bullshit and you'll have spent that money for nothing.
We seriously need a shift in the way we share scientific data with each other. The system we have now is broken.
To be fair, this doesn't seem to be "scientific".
Not only would I do the counter-notice here in the US, I would self-represent in court if they were stupid enough to take it that far. Most judges would kick it out just after looking at the file dates. But it's doubtful that their lawyers would be stupid enough to let it get to court.
The real explanation, execution drugs make up a tiny amount of profit for them, the advertising and good image they project by making this declaration is far more valuable.
Exactly. It's simply signaling, nothing more. They stand to lose a few bucks per year with this policy.
Do you really think a mugger or whatever is thinking that far ahead?
Yep, and it's easily proven. Look at the murder rate against cops vs. against the regular population - it's dramatically lower. And the punishment for killing a cop is dramatically higher.
Yes, there is a cause and effect. Nobody says it's 100% perfect, but harsher punishment will result in lower crime in this case.
I'm against the death penalty, but I will gladly argue from a fact-based position rather than emotion.
I could see a 50% drop - they went from selling two phones per year to just one single phone. But 46%? They must have raised the price on the phone they sold.
Yeah, I'd think it would be a GOOD thing that Senior Citizens wouldn't be homebound.
And that teenagers could get home from parties safely.
My senior citizen stepfather - early 70s - would be better off if the car drove itself. They don't get on the interstates around here because the "other drivers" are so terrible. If his car actually went the speed limit I'm sure the other drivers would suddenly be much better.