The reason why only certain people manage to establish themselves as money makers through live performance is because RIAA members and ClearChannel are the gatekeepers to that prosperity. The Internet can permit people to market their own music and establish their own popularity without the control and oversight of the RIAA. Once the RIAA hegemony is broken down such that free Internet distribution, not radio or MTV, is the dominant form of bringing one's music to the people, then good performers will be able to make a living from their live performances.
They'll probably have to cancel MTV's Cribs due to lack of subject material, but at least talented performers will be able to make an honest living without first being "discovered" by some overpaid record exec.
What sorts of patterns are you talking about? I've seen things on their newsletter that I've disagreed with, yes, but they do a pretty good job of analyzing political comments from across the spectrum.
That's contrarianism at work, and part and parcel of the false company-versus-employee dichotomy. EA is regarded by many as an "evil" company that mistreats its workers, so when they change their employment practices, it's a win for their poor downtrodden employees. Google is regarded by many as a "good" company, so when they change their employment practices, it's because they're actually "evil" and abusive of their workforce.
That wasn't exactly what I said (or meant to say). I meant morality is based on primitive selective advantage and group-selective advantage, and religion has been built on top of that.
As for adultery, I would suggest that infertility is rare enough that its implications on group fitness are minimal. Adultery in particular goes back to the more primitive basis for morality, where an alpha individual maintains strict control over members of the pack and dictates behavior (such as who can/can't mate with whom) through the threat of injuring or killing those who go against the alpha's wishes. The evolution of intelligence places a greater importance on group selection, which restricts the ability of an alpha individual to mete out punishment by him/herself, so the social moral code adopts adultery as being an undesirable behavior.
Monogamy is similar, in that there is a selective benefit in humans for a female to find and keep a monogamous mate. Until fairly recently (a mere moment in the evolutionary timescale), males were depended upon for hunting of food, part of farming duties, and protection of the family. This is reflected in the morality that many religions hold. There are exceptions, but these are almost always in the direction of allowing males the benefit of mating with many females, for which there is a strong (and obvious) reproductive advantage.
In general, religion provides a reason why people should follow a moral code, but the moral code itself is generally based on eliminating threats to reproductive fitness of other members of society. In some cases, some parts of the moral code are separated by several degrees from those origins. For example, "don't steal food" is a fairly direct result of primitive morals - the punishment for stealing food among some social species is death at the claws/teeth of the packleader - but stealing has grown as a concept since then to include lots of things that arguably don't hinder anybody's ability to reproduce and care for their children.
Religion, on the other hand, has its roots in superstition - where things people are afraid of, like storms, the sun, floods, other natural features that can kill you, and non-deadly anomalies involving those features such as eclipses, become anthropomorphized. A connection between these fears and the pre-existing primitive moral code was inevitable once primate intelligence evolved to the point where such abstract connections as "he died in the flood because he stole food from Og's family" could be made.
Now, once religion became organized, things became different. Taking the Roman Catholic church in the Dark and Middle Ages, for example, the Pope and other church leadership were generally regarded as being even more powerful than various kings in Europe, because they wielded the power of judgment over the souls of those kings. There were many cases in those times - and many cases even today - where people take advantage of religion to convince people to do things differently than they otherwise would (blowing up children used as decoys in a car bomb, for instance), but the fundamental morality of religion is still based upon group-selective advantage from a time even before superstition.
Heh, I guess the folks with mod points are too busy not reading TFA to be bothered to read the posts. Don't worry, though, I'm sure a few people got it.
But wasn't Seltzer acting contrary to the law to begin with?
No.
(From 17 USC 107)...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
There is a larger explanation of this ensconced in the statute, but Seltzer's use of the work is easily covered by the fair use exception. She posted it for criticism and commentary purposes, not for profit; the clip was posted as the best way to report on factual information; it was a puny segment of the original football game broadcast; and there is virtually no negative effect on the NFL's market for the posted material (after all, who would buy a video clip of their copyright assertion).
The reason the DMCA counter-takedown provision is there is because the public has a right to use copyrighted materials in this fashion, and in this case, the NFL confounded Seltzer's ability to exercise that right through the second takedown request. This portion of the DMCA is actually fairly reasonable in protecting both copyright holders and the public interest, and Seltzer was exercising her rights under the law, so the NFL is solely and completely to blame here.
Is it actually illegal for a private citizen to attempt to get phone records through social engineering (as long as you don't pretend to be law enforcement, which is a separate crime by itself)? I thought this was the whole deal behind that "pretexting" law that got shot down in California because the ??AA does it to secure records concerning potential lawsuit defendants.
Does Searchles actually access and stream the content from other sites, or does it just provide the user with a browser-embedded media player and a set of deep links to the requested content?
If it's the former, then there are interesting questions about whether Searchles counts as a service provider for purposes of the DMCA exemption, as well as whether a website operator can limit who or what can access their website - and in what manner they may access it - via legal rather than technological means (terms of service, etc.).
If it's the latter, then it's a mostly simple matter of whether deep linking constitutes copyright infringement. However, it is confounded by the fact that Grouper apparently doesn't own the copyright on much of the content they serve.
Does it mean they'll let me capture video through the Firewire port on a cable TV set-top box free of 5C protection? I'd happily use something that watermarked the video I captured, since I only make legal use of the stuff I record from TV.
I'm guessing no, though, which means that this is just another example of the huge consumer electronics industry kissing the ass of the much smaller content cabal, while making meaningless overtures to consumers.
The data will provide some insight into the Mafiaa's litigation strategy, perhaps even indicating just how much challenged-case straw it will take to break this camel's back.
Note that the police and prosecutors apparently didn't need to subpoena Microsoft or Google for search records, but rather recovered the search URLs from the browser history.
Terraforming the area does mitigate the damage to the environment significantly, although some companies have replanted the area with grass instead of trees. There has been an effort to encourage replanting of trees, but it might also be interesting to see if switchgrass could be grown there.
The largest environmental concern, however, is the production of large amounts of slurry (a water suspension of coal, sulfur, and other minerals that is created as a byproduct of the mining and cleaning process) which ends up stored near the mining site behind large dams created during the excavation process. Long-term disposal of this slurry presents a huge environmental challenge.
However, much of the political opposition to mountaintop removal mining comes from labor union pressure, since it takes far less manpower to conduct a mountaintop removal operation than to run a conventional mine.
Slashdot Mirror
What's that, Billy? That's right: it's a volcano. *BING*
The reason why only certain people manage to establish themselves as money makers through live performance is because RIAA members and ClearChannel are the gatekeepers to that prosperity. The Internet can permit people to market their own music and establish their own popularity without the control and oversight of the RIAA. Once the RIAA hegemony is broken down such that free Internet distribution, not radio or MTV, is the dominant form of bringing one's music to the people, then good performers will be able to make a living from their live performances.
They'll probably have to cancel MTV's Cribs due to lack of subject material, but at least talented performers will be able to make an honest living without first being "discovered" by some overpaid record exec.
What sorts of patterns are you talking about? I've seen things on their newsletter that I've disagreed with, yes, but they do a pretty good job of analyzing political comments from across the spectrum.
That's contrarianism at work, and part and parcel of the false company-versus-employee dichotomy. EA is regarded by many as an "evil" company that mistreats its workers, so when they change their employment practices, it's a win for their poor downtrodden employees. Google is regarded by many as a "good" company, so when they change their employment practices, it's because they're actually "evil" and abusive of their workforce.
That wasn't exactly what I said (or meant to say). I meant morality is based on primitive selective advantage and group-selective advantage, and religion has been built on top of that.
As for adultery, I would suggest that infertility is rare enough that its implications on group fitness are minimal. Adultery in particular goes back to the more primitive basis for morality, where an alpha individual maintains strict control over members of the pack and dictates behavior (such as who can/can't mate with whom) through the threat of injuring or killing those who go against the alpha's wishes. The evolution of intelligence places a greater importance on group selection, which restricts the ability of an alpha individual to mete out punishment by him/herself, so the social moral code adopts adultery as being an undesirable behavior.
Monogamy is similar, in that there is a selective benefit in humans for a female to find and keep a monogamous mate. Until fairly recently (a mere moment in the evolutionary timescale), males were depended upon for hunting of food, part of farming duties, and protection of the family. This is reflected in the morality that many religions hold. There are exceptions, but these are almost always in the direction of allowing males the benefit of mating with many females, for which there is a strong (and obvious) reproductive advantage.
You forgot the heavy metal umlaut!
In general, religion provides a reason why people should follow a moral code, but the moral code itself is generally based on eliminating threats to reproductive fitness of other members of society. In some cases, some parts of the moral code are separated by several degrees from those origins. For example, "don't steal food" is a fairly direct result of primitive morals - the punishment for stealing food among some social species is death at the claws/teeth of the packleader - but stealing has grown as a concept since then to include lots of things that arguably don't hinder anybody's ability to reproduce and care for their children.
Religion, on the other hand, has its roots in superstition - where things people are afraid of, like storms, the sun, floods, other natural features that can kill you, and non-deadly anomalies involving those features such as eclipses, become anthropomorphized. A connection between these fears and the pre-existing primitive moral code was inevitable once primate intelligence evolved to the point where such abstract connections as "he died in the flood because he stole food from Og's family" could be made.
Now, once religion became organized, things became different. Taking the Roman Catholic church in the Dark and Middle Ages, for example, the Pope and other church leadership were generally regarded as being even more powerful than various kings in Europe, because they wielded the power of judgment over the souls of those kings. There were many cases in those times - and many cases even today - where people take advantage of religion to convince people to do things differently than they otherwise would (blowing up children used as decoys in a car bomb, for instance), but the fundamental morality of religion is still based upon group-selective advantage from a time even before superstition.
Heh, I guess the folks with mod points are too busy not reading TFA to be bothered to read the posts. Don't worry, though, I'm sure a few people got it.
No.
There is a larger explanation of this ensconced in the statute, but Seltzer's use of the work is easily covered by the fair use exception. She posted it for criticism and commentary purposes, not for profit; the clip was posted as the best way to report on factual information; it was a puny segment of the original football game broadcast; and there is virtually no negative effect on the NFL's market for the posted material (after all, who would buy a video clip of their copyright assertion).
The reason the DMCA counter-takedown provision is there is because the public has a right to use copyrighted materials in this fashion, and in this case, the NFL confounded Seltzer's ability to exercise that right through the second takedown request. This portion of the DMCA is actually fairly reasonable in protecting both copyright holders and the public interest, and Seltzer was exercising her rights under the law, so the NFL is solely and completely to blame here.
Heck, you could post any random sentence to your weblog and be inadvertently quoting John Madden's commentary during a football game.
Is it actually illegal for a private citizen to attempt to get phone records through social engineering (as long as you don't pretend to be law enforcement, which is a separate crime by itself)? I thought this was the whole deal behind that "pretexting" law that got shot down in California because the ??AA does it to secure records concerning potential lawsuit defendants.
Og drill many zero. Stone fall apart. Maybe Og need invent sparse file storage.
Besides, thirty leagues would have been one hell of an exaggeration.
The "nothing-good-can-come-from-this" department?
We've already gotten something good from it: twenty-four karat comedy gold!
E8 is not a Lie Group. E8 is the biggest Lie Group.
QED!
What good is a submarine if everyone can see where it is?
The filthy beggars ne'er get a wash. A man can sniff 'em out himself at thirty fathoms!
Lots of people have legitimate uses for Jscript on the website
Yeah. It wouldn't be Web 2.0 without onMouseOver, would it.
Still, I guess it's better than embedding fifty Flash widgets on the page just for navigation.
Does Searchles actually access and stream the content from other sites, or does it just provide the user with a browser-embedded media player and a set of deep links to the requested content?
If it's the former, then there are interesting questions about whether Searchles counts as a service provider for purposes of the DMCA exemption, as well as whether a website operator can limit who or what can access their website - and in what manner they may access it - via legal rather than technological means (terms of service, etc.).
If it's the latter, then it's a mostly simple matter of whether deep linking constitutes copyright infringement. However, it is confounded by the fact that Grouper apparently doesn't own the copyright on much of the content they serve.
Does it mean they'll let me capture video through the Firewire port on a cable TV set-top box free of 5C protection? I'd happily use something that watermarked the video I captured, since I only make legal use of the stuff I record from TV.
I'm guessing no, though, which means that this is just another example of the huge consumer electronics industry kissing the ass of the much smaller content cabal, while making meaningless overtures to consumers.
The data will provide some insight into the Mafiaa's litigation strategy, perhaps even indicating just how much challenged-case straw it will take to break this camel's back.
Note that the police and prosecutors apparently didn't need to subpoena Microsoft or Google for search records, but rather recovered the search URLs from the browser history.
Terraforming the area does mitigate the damage to the environment significantly, although some companies have replanted the area with grass instead of trees. There has been an effort to encourage replanting of trees, but it might also be interesting to see if switchgrass could be grown there.
The largest environmental concern, however, is the production of large amounts of slurry (a water suspension of coal, sulfur, and other minerals that is created as a byproduct of the mining and cleaning process) which ends up stored near the mining site behind large dams created during the excavation process. Long-term disposal of this slurry presents a huge environmental challenge.
However, much of the political opposition to mountaintop removal mining comes from labor union pressure, since it takes far less manpower to conduct a mountaintop removal operation than to run a conventional mine.
Unfortunately, all of the hydrogen put into that recipe ends up stored in the form of methane gas.
Blu-Ray has more capacity than the competition this time.
Which will mean something when we can start burning TV shows to our own Blu-Ray discs.