Drone strikes are at pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from nuking. I don't think I'm doing a very good job communicating. Paving over the Middle East in glass would certainly end terrorism coming from the Middle East, but it might have unintended consequences - like genocide, for instance.
I can't really defend the whole way that the "war on terror" has been conducted - even the name is ridiculous. But if you think that we can just start acting nice and no one will want to kill us, you are being hilariously naive.
That and city living is just plain different. Where I grew up, there were only a few hundred people and so you greeted every single person that you met on the street, even if you didn't know them.
If you tried that in NYC, you'd go nuts on the first block. Small town behavior simply doesn't scale to Manhattan.
Manhattan is probably pretty heavily monitored, but most of it is private and so not tied together. I'm not sure you could read a license plate from most of the cameras in any case. The other boroughs are much less monitored, and don't have nearly the traffic of Manhattan (though stay off the Cross Bronx "Expressway"!).
You could make a road a parking lot right now with very little effort. Even if it was something that kids played with initially, I suspect in the end the novelty would wear off. You don't read about people hacking automatic train lines, for instance.
They will! And it will be tough for people psychologically. But I'll bet any amount of money that they will be safer than manned automobiles - even by defensive, safe drivers. I'd be willing to bet on the records of automated systems against the of the safest quartile of drivers by the time they actually hit the road.
You're free to set any price you want on your song or album, and I'm free to either pay that price or not.
Read my post. The whole thing this time. The government sets the royalty rate for radio and internet radio. There is no market at all in those cases, and the so-called "free" market is competing against those government-set rates. After all, if you price your CD too high, the consumer can always just wait for it to come on the radio. The consumer can even record it legally.
This was a human error, as was the accident you linked to. The recent crash in San Francisco was human error. I'd question whether I'd want manned aircraft on the same runway as the drone craft I was flying in.
War is hell. In wars past, whole cities would be sacked or burned. World War 2 killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians during bombings.
I'm not bringing this up because it excuses bombing a wedding party, but to put it in perspective. I don't think it is realistic to expect people to give up armed conflict. As far as armed conflicts go, the stuff the US has been involved in is nothing new. If anything, these drone strikes are comparatively limited. You can rail against the US on here all you like, but IMHO you won't get many converts because of, well, Dresden. Tokyo. Or Syria, for that matter. If you want to see how shitty the US can be at war, look at the Philippines. People watch this crap for fun on the History Channel, so expecting outrage is going to lead you to disappointment.
I suppose it is possible that someone will look for his music on Spotify, not find it, and then abandon Spotify for a service that does carry his music.
I think it's a lot more likely that someone will look for his music on Spotify, not find it, kind of shrug and move on.
People who have spent a long time in an institution naturally want to protect the status quo. These big, famous musicians might not honestly care about money, but they certainly have had their egos stroked and owe their entire livelihoods to the way the music business works (or worked in the 90s). It is impossible to separate them from what they grew up in, even if they profess to hate it. (See also, the US Senate or the British Monarchy.)
"The market" - or at least the free market - doesn't really apply to music. First, the government creates a new kind of property and then gives a person (or corporation) monopoly rights to it. If you could still call it a free market at that point, then the government legislates prices for certain kinds of "performances", like radio or internet radio play (which for some reason have different rates). Once that happens, the supplier is totally written out of the equation. Spotify is still a little bit markety, in that they are not a "radio station" and are instead playing stuff on-demand so they still have to negotiate with the rights holders. So your comment has some truth to it, but Spotify has to compete against Pandora (and regular radio, for that matter), who pay the government-mandated rate. That is going to seriously distort Spotify's ability to arrive at a true "market" price for recorded music, which even with government support is very close to zero.
My artist friend hates Spotify. He'd rather get zero dollars from them than $5000, because he deems the deal to be "unfair". Um, OK. I'd take the "free" $5000, myself. It's not like Spotify is terribly profitable, laughing it's way to the bank.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Northeast". That's a really big region, with some parts susceptible to hurricanes and some not. Sandy was the first real strike on most of the New Jersey coast since 1944, for instance. It was also a colossal storm - the largest recorded if memory serves. The year before, there was Irene which hit Coney Island. While there were overlapping areas of damage, for the most part Irene caused flooding to inland areas, whereas Sandy really punched coastal areas. Irene barely scratched anything south of the immediate NYC metro area - not the case with Sandy.
To my knowledge, Irene was a very rare event in terms of flooding and Sandy was a very rare event in terms of more typical hurricane damage (storm surge, especially) for the regions that they hit.
Not only that, with energy you need a "glut" all the time so that you can handle unexpected shutdowns, demand spikes - or for hydro - droughts. Just like our food supply, we certainly don't want shortages.
The entire East Coast does not have the same probability of getting hit by a hurricane. The Outer Banks get nailed almost every decade. The Jersey shore? The chance of getting hit each season is approximately 1 in 200. That said, one hit in 1903 and another in 1944. Then you have Sandy. So over the last 100 years, it looks more like once every 40-60 years (based on a whole 3 data points). Check out the risk maps.
I'm happy. The more the merrier. People who grew up in the Microsoft-dominated era of personal computing don't remember how much fun it was to have many PC choices. The phone market is like that now.
If you view it as bad people are not going to want to run businesses.
I can't agree with you. People have sole proprietorships today, and they certainly had them 100+ years ago prior to the creation of the modern limited liability corporation.
My view is more nuanced than agreeing or disagreeing with the limited liability model. I can agree that it is a good thing for blind investors - you shouldn't be liable for an Exxon oil spill just because you own some shares in your 401(k). I don't think that it's a good idea for activist owners or employees.
Ya know? My base ideology tends toward Libertarian, but living in NYC made me realize a few things. Mainly, gentrification is a generally good thing, but it really presents a hardship for certain classes of people in a city as large as NYC (or London, for that matter). Gentrification in a place like Philadelphia is no big deal, because 5 blocks from the $400,000 rowhomes are "ghetto" rowhomes for 1/4 the price. New York is different. Practically the entire island of Manhattan is pretty much unaffordable to the working poor. Anything within striking distance of Midtown or Wall Street in Brooklyn or Queens is unaffordable to the lower class. They are stuck in places without decent subway service and instead take a number of buses to get to their job in Manhattan - it is no exaggeration to say that it takes over an hour for them to commute, and their job is menial.
I can certainly see now how the people of NYC have decided to try and make living in the city affordable for lower class people. You correctly (and with admirable sarcasm) point out that their efforts are somewhat unsuccessful - but I have to admit that I can understand their intentions. Personally, I think they should probably try a limited version of the Singapore model.
Slashdot Mirror
That's it! So instead of creating mitigation measures, we should just count on the ability of all the nations of the world to join hands and sing!
Drone strikes are at pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from nuking. I don't think I'm doing a very good job communicating. Paving over the Middle East in glass would certainly end terrorism coming from the Middle East, but it might have unintended consequences - like genocide, for instance.
I can't really defend the whole way that the "war on terror" has been conducted - even the name is ridiculous. But if you think that we can just start acting nice and no one will want to kill us, you are being hilariously naive.
That and city living is just plain different. Where I grew up, there were only a few hundred people and so you greeted every single person that you met on the street, even if you didn't know them.
If you tried that in NYC, you'd go nuts on the first block. Small town behavior simply doesn't scale to Manhattan.
Manhattan is probably pretty heavily monitored, but most of it is private and so not tied together. I'm not sure you could read a license plate from most of the cameras in any case. The other boroughs are much less monitored, and don't have nearly the traffic of Manhattan (though stay off the Cross Bronx "Expressway"!).
You could make a road a parking lot right now with very little effort. Even if it was something that kids played with initially, I suspect in the end the novelty would wear off. You don't read about people hacking automatic train lines, for instance.
While I'm sure it would be justified from their point of view, it's in my best interest to stop them.
Yup! They have to serve your sentence for you.
They will! And it will be tough for people psychologically. But I'll bet any amount of money that they will be safer than manned automobiles - even by defensive, safe drivers. I'd be willing to bet on the records of automated systems against the of the safest quartile of drivers by the time they actually hit the road.
You're free to set any price you want on your song or album, and I'm free to either pay that price or not.
Read my post. The whole thing this time. The government sets the royalty rate for radio and internet radio. There is no market at all in those cases, and the so-called "free" market is competing against those government-set rates. After all, if you price your CD too high, the consumer can always just wait for it to come on the radio. The consumer can even record it legally.
This was a human error, as was the accident you linked to. The recent crash in San Francisco was human error. I'd question whether I'd want manned aircraft on the same runway as the drone craft I was flying in.
War is hell. In wars past, whole cities would be sacked or burned. World War 2 killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians during bombings.
I'm not bringing this up because it excuses bombing a wedding party, but to put it in perspective. I don't think it is realistic to expect people to give up armed conflict. As far as armed conflicts go, the stuff the US has been involved in is nothing new. If anything, these drone strikes are comparatively limited. You can rail against the US on here all you like, but IMHO you won't get many converts because of, well, Dresden. Tokyo. Or Syria, for that matter. If you want to see how shitty the US can be at war, look at the Philippines. People watch this crap for fun on the History Channel, so expecting outrage is going to lead you to disappointment.
Anyway, my 2 cents...
I suppose it is possible that someone will look for his music on Spotify, not find it, and then abandon Spotify for a service that does carry his music.
I think it's a lot more likely that someone will look for his music on Spotify, not find it, kind of shrug and move on.
People who have spent a long time in an institution naturally want to protect the status quo. These big, famous musicians might not honestly care about money, but they certainly have had their egos stroked and owe their entire livelihoods to the way the music business works (or worked in the 90s). It is impossible to separate them from what they grew up in, even if they profess to hate it. (See also, the US Senate or the British Monarchy.)
"The market" - or at least the free market - doesn't really apply to music. First, the government creates a new kind of property and then gives a person (or corporation) monopoly rights to it. If you could still call it a free market at that point, then the government legislates prices for certain kinds of "performances", like radio or internet radio play (which for some reason have different rates). Once that happens, the supplier is totally written out of the equation. Spotify is still a little bit markety, in that they are not a "radio station" and are instead playing stuff on-demand so they still have to negotiate with the rights holders. So your comment has some truth to it, but Spotify has to compete against Pandora (and regular radio, for that matter), who pay the government-mandated rate. That is going to seriously distort Spotify's ability to arrive at a true "market" price for recorded music, which even with government support is very close to zero.
My artist friend hates Spotify. He'd rather get zero dollars from them than $5000, because he deems the deal to be "unfair". Um, OK. I'd take the "free" $5000, myself. It's not like Spotify is terribly profitable, laughing it's way to the bank.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Northeast". That's a really big region, with some parts susceptible to hurricanes and some not. Sandy was the first real strike on most of the New Jersey coast since 1944, for instance. It was also a colossal storm - the largest recorded if memory serves. The year before, there was Irene which hit Coney Island. While there were overlapping areas of damage, for the most part Irene caused flooding to inland areas, whereas Sandy really punched coastal areas. Irene barely scratched anything south of the immediate NYC metro area - not the case with Sandy.
To my knowledge, Irene was a very rare event in terms of flooding and Sandy was a very rare event in terms of more typical hurricane damage (storm surge, especially) for the regions that they hit.
I don't think I'm confusing NASA and NOAA. I was pointing out the flaw in the logic of:
"A" told me x, but I don't believe "A" because "B" was wrong.
Not only that, with energy you need a "glut" all the time so that you can handle unexpected shutdowns, demand spikes - or for hydro - droughts. Just like our food supply, we certainly don't want shortages.
But then the whole town would become USEFUL, and that would create a paradox that would tear space time apart.
Your objection applies to any heat engine. If the temperature drop is high enough it justifies pumping the water.
The entire East Coast does not have the same probability of getting hit by a hurricane. The Outer Banks get nailed almost every decade. The Jersey shore? The chance of getting hit each season is approximately 1 in 200. That said, one hit in 1903 and another in 1944. Then you have Sandy. So over the last 100 years, it looks more like once every 40-60 years (based on a whole 3 data points). Check out the risk maps.
You are conflating what NASA said with something your local weatherman may have said.
I'm happy. The more the merrier. People who grew up in the Microsoft-dominated era of personal computing don't remember how much fun it was to have many PC choices. The phone market is like that now.
If you view it as bad people are not going to want to run businesses.
I can't agree with you. People have sole proprietorships today, and they certainly had them 100+ years ago prior to the creation of the modern limited liability corporation.
My view is more nuanced than agreeing or disagreeing with the limited liability model. I can agree that it is a good thing for blind investors - you shouldn't be liable for an Exxon oil spill just because you own some shares in your 401(k). I don't think that it's a good idea for activist owners or employees.
Ya know? My base ideology tends toward Libertarian, but living in NYC made me realize a few things. Mainly, gentrification is a generally good thing, but it really presents a hardship for certain classes of people in a city as large as NYC (or London, for that matter). Gentrification in a place like Philadelphia is no big deal, because 5 blocks from the $400,000 rowhomes are "ghetto" rowhomes for 1/4 the price. New York is different. Practically the entire island of Manhattan is pretty much unaffordable to the working poor. Anything within striking distance of Midtown or Wall Street in Brooklyn or Queens is unaffordable to the lower class. They are stuck in places without decent subway service and instead take a number of buses to get to their job in Manhattan - it is no exaggeration to say that it takes over an hour for them to commute, and their job is menial.
I can certainly see now how the people of NYC have decided to try and make living in the city affordable for lower class people. You correctly (and with admirable sarcasm) point out that their efforts are somewhat unsuccessful - but I have to admit that I can understand their intentions. Personally, I think they should probably try a limited version of the Singapore model.