I'm all for going after the record industry over payola.
However, at some point you have to ask yourself if having some state AG go after them is the right way. Isn't that the whole point of electing a legislature? Should the regulatory policies of an industry be decided by one all-powerful unelected state official?
I'm sure this will go over the heads of the slashdot faithful until some state AG decides to take on something we like. At that point slashdot will roundly criticize them for being undemocratic, while failing to appreciate the irony.
Just remember -- for everything you like done without legislative approval (like going after the record industry) there's going to be something you don't like (like some judge deciding we should have software patents). The best way is to do things the right way or don't do them at all.
I've run out of data I can get my hands on. Also irritating when info probably from a gov't document (which I can find) is instead cited from a paper (which I can't). Not talking about you, of course:)
Anyway, there were roughly 100k jobs added just in the programming/software engineering field, however, and even if total numbers of H-1Bs went up by twice that it's hard to say no new US programmers were hired.
And that ignores that H-1Bs will have higher turnover (skewing the hiring numbers) and the effects of retirees from the field.
I want to ditch the H-1B and L-1s too, I'm just not sure they're necessarily driving US programmers to extinction.
Considering the tech burst, the generally faltering economy, outsourcing, the MPAA, and 9/11, it's pretty good. Especially if you aren't a programmer (incidentally, they average around 8-10k less a year than the software engineers, IIRC).
I'm not a wonk, I'm a geek, so please forgive if I have my numbers or sources wrong somehow.
Pornography has never been more legal in the history of the United States than it is now. The slippery slope has been headed firmly in the other direction for 40 or 50 years now.
This sort of thinking was exposed during the whole Janet Jackson thing, anyway. People claimed that free speech was threatened, but it's fairly obvious that that sort of thing has never been acceptable. Despite that we've maintained a thriving democracy with some of the best free speech protection in the world for more than 300 years nevertheless.
Only on slashdot could a story about the chinese communists cracking down on porn turn into a condemnation of american democracy.
When government types warn of a digital Pearl Harbor, it's because they're idiots who don't understand technology.
But when government types don't pay enough attention to cyber security... it's because they're idiots who don't understand technology.
It drives me nuts trying to figure out how so many slashdot geeks can be anti-state and liberal. It must just be an even stronger sense of self-loathing.
You know how nobody thinks sports teams should get public money? And they always do anyway?
Think of that multiplied by one billion. That's the incentive for states and localities to devise sweetheart deals for corporations that employ large numbers of locals.
Why? Here's a mental exercise : try to think of something more important to voters than jobs.
Plus, a public corporation really has more of a duty to shareholders to pay as little taxes as legally possible than it does to a home state to pay as much taxes as possible.
Not disclosing classified information given to us by foreign governments is the keystone of our intelligence sharing.
The concept is simple : if you decided a bit of information should be classified, and pass it to another country, they won't suddenly decide anybody can know about it.
I could see this being overridden in very specific cases, maybe as part of a war crimes investigation or some such. But files on a dead celebrity? Please.
There's nothing before patriot that would protect you from having those movies used against you in a court as evidence. If you were accused of pedophilia, the police would probably get a warrant for your apartment. They'd find the movies, and could use them as evidence. If required, they could get a sneak-and-peek so you never knew they were there.
Nothing about Patriot changed whether or not books or movies you own could be used as evidence against you (or introduced sneak-and-peeks). They just have more sources for the information.
Look here for good definition of the political left.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to slashdot readers... the two organizations that are down on violent video games (both often mentioned here) are the Lion and the Lamb project (left-leaning outfit) and the National Institute on Media and the Family (right-leaning outfit). Guess which one supports (unconstitutional) legislation limiting sales of violent videogames? I'll give you a hint : it's not the right-leaning one.
Also, the US is probably one of the most right-leaning industrialized nations, and also has the best free speech protections of all of them.
Scientist 1 : Can you think of any problems with residential housing that sits 15 feet in the air?
Scientist 2 : Why, no! Brilliant! Maybe if humanity comes together we could build standard residential housing that sits hundreds of feet in the air for no reason!
Scientist 1 and 2 : (imagine where they will make space in their office for the Nobel prizes)
TV shows need advertisers. Companies that pay for the program so they can take a short moment to promote themselves.
So if you tell them that, because of their support of a particular program, you will, in fact not patronize them, it will get their attention pretty quick.
I know this article tries to sympathize with the people who work directly on the show, and a boycott would hurt them too. But the copyright holders only understand discourse in the form of money. There needs to be a monetary penalty for the mistreatment of fans. Start boycotting the advertisers and tell them know why.
It is far easier now than it ever has been to start a news/media company. Distribution is always the biggest expense and the internet significantly reduces that cost.
However, it is probably harder than it has ever been to start a traditional media company. If you want to start a new paper, or a new tv channel, or a new radio station... they just exist on a grander scale than they used to, so you need more money to get into it.
The question is, unless you're Ted Turner, why would you want to start a new traditional media company? The people who are good enough to make a difference in the industry are also smart enough to avoid competing against incumbents for table scraps in a shrinking market.
It's like worrying about Matt Drudge getting all the good Monica Lewinsky stories : it might not be fair but if you're smart you know it's no longer 1998, the last time traditional media or Monica counted for anything.
An industry that has kissed liberal ass more than the film and music industries.
Republicans have yet to cease being pro-business, regarding those industries.
It's hard to imagine a business republicans would despise. Well, excluding paleocons, anyway.
Plus, all the people in the past 20 years that have been the biggest pain in the ass about the entertainment industry have been dems. Think : tipper gore and joe lieberman. At least now the FCC is reacting to something.
For its own peculiar reasons, beeb shows tend to have extremely short seasons (four to eight shows is not atypical). This likely has positive effects on the quality of the shows.
I was going to put this in my original comment, but it started to get unwieldy.
Yes, SP is politically biased.
I can handle intelligent conversation, and/or views I am sympathetic to. I don't like sophomoric criticism of my views, but sophomoric vindication doesn't bother me. Ideally, you aren't sophomoric at all, but I don't think there are many that really mind sophomoric expressions of views they espouse. I think the ratings are in agreement with me on this.
Hence, SP, but no DS or SNL.
I mostly mentioned south park because it's humorous to me that I find it less offensive than the Daily Show:)
When you think that only about 40% of american consumers agree with the message hollywood and tv are so eager to ram down our throats... then think about the rising popularity of videogames (which rarely have a message), it's hard to believe that it's a coincidence.
Witness "The Passion", which was an enormous success largely because it got people out to movies that normally can't stomach them. I think videogames tap into some of that.
As an example, I find SNL and the Daily Show irritating because lately they try to make lame political statements. So I just don't watch them anymore... instead I stick to Chapelle Show, South Park, and adult swim.
I've kind of moved away from most movies, tv and music and towards videogames for similar reasons. They don't have a sophomoric political message to irritate me. I hope that doesn't change.
I hate spyware too, but any additional regulations or laws on our industry will mean the industry as a whole have to shell out more money to lawyers. This will be both for the purposes of making sure you are legally not 'spyware', and to litigate the illegitimate civil and/or criminal claims that are likely to arise.
I hate spyware as much as the next guy, but we can't act like we can regulate and legislate our industry in a vacuum. There's a cost for every law or regulation, and we shouldn't ignore that. And frankly, spyware is not enough of a threat for me to want to raise the lawyer tax.
The geek in me says that complexity is very, very, very bad. The words "ala cart channels", "de facto public utility", and "billing system" conjure visions of exponents whose exponents have exponents.
Finally, the fiscal conservative in me says that it will raise costs for the cable companies, which will raise costs for consumers, which will in the end probably price some people out of cable.
And then as an added bonus, we get to pay the government to take cable away from poor people. That way everybody wins.
But how many mod chip users are interested in making honest backups? You could probably fit them all into the trunk of a Cadillac, with space left over for a spare tire.
More concerned a boston globe reporter is plotting to kidnap me.
First, there's less incentive to make more money when you are taxed more. For an extreme example of that, consider that Ralph Nader at one point suggested taxing 100% of income over 100k. Why would anyone then want to make that much money? It's possible to lower tax rates and have tax revenues increase.
Second, rich people tend to spend money on all sorts of useful things, the most important being investment. Businesses get more capital, which allows them to grow more quickly, etc
The unemployment rate is going down... the current rate is better than in most other industrialized nations and is about the same as clinton's during his first term.
It's just that with all the, ahem, "technological advances" we've made in the past few years, reporters now have a much easier time finding unemployed workers to interview every single night than they did a mere 10 years ago. Ain't technology grand?
Slashdot Mirror
So what do you think happens when people go hog-wild on gas buying? Does it drive prices down?
Another great new meme : Hitler Tux. Ha ha!
However, at some point you have to ask yourself if having some state AG go after them is the right way. Isn't that the whole point of electing a legislature? Should the regulatory policies of an industry be decided by one all-powerful unelected state official?
I'm sure this will go over the heads of the slashdot faithful until some state AG decides to take on something we like. At that point slashdot will roundly criticize them for being undemocratic, while failing to appreciate the irony.
Just remember -- for everything you like done without legislative approval (like going after the record industry) there's going to be something you don't like (like some judge deciding we should have software patents). The best way is to do things the right way or don't do them at all.
I've run out of data I can get my hands on. Also irritating when info probably from a gov't document (which I can find) is instead cited from a paper (which I can't). Not talking about you, of course :)
Anyway, there were roughly 100k jobs added just in the programming/software engineering field, however, and even if total numbers of H-1Bs went up by twice that it's hard to say no new US programmers were hired.
And that ignores that H-1Bs will have higher turnover (skewing the hiring numbers) and the effects of retirees from the field.
I want to ditch the H-1B and L-1s too, I'm just not sure they're necessarily driving US programmers to extinction.
1999 Numbers :
2000 Numbers :
2001 Numbers :
2002 Numbers :
2003 Numbers :
Difference, 1999-2003
Considering the tech burst, the generally faltering economy, outsourcing, the MPAA, and 9/11, it's pretty good. Especially if you aren't a programmer (incidentally, they average around 8-10k less a year than the software engineers, IIRC).
I'm not a wonk, I'm a geek, so please forgive if I have my numbers or sources wrong somehow.
This sort of thinking was exposed during the whole Janet Jackson thing, anyway. People claimed that free speech was threatened, but it's fairly obvious that that sort of thing has never been acceptable. Despite that we've maintained a thriving democracy with some of the best free speech protection in the world for more than 300 years nevertheless.
Only on slashdot could a story about the chinese communists cracking down on porn turn into a condemnation of american democracy.
But when government types don't pay enough attention to cyber security ... it's because they're idiots who don't understand technology.
It drives me nuts trying to figure out how so many slashdot geeks can be anti-state and liberal. It must just be an even stronger sense of self-loathing.
Think of that multiplied by one billion. That's the incentive for states and localities to devise sweetheart deals for corporations that employ large numbers of locals.
Why? Here's a mental exercise : try to think of something more important to voters than jobs.
Plus, a public corporation really has more of a duty to shareholders to pay as little taxes as legally possible than it does to a home state to pay as much taxes as possible.
The concept is simple : if you decided a bit of information should be classified, and pass it to another country, they won't suddenly decide anybody can know about it.
I could see this being overridden in very specific cases, maybe as part of a war crimes investigation or some such. But files on a dead celebrity? Please.
Nothing about Patriot changed whether or not books or movies you own could be used as evidence against you (or introduced sneak-and-peeks). They just have more sources for the information.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to slashdot readers ... the two organizations that are down on violent video games (both often mentioned here) are the Lion and the Lamb project (left-leaning outfit) and the National Institute on Media and the Family (right-leaning outfit). Guess which one supports (unconstitutional) legislation limiting sales of violent videogames? I'll give you a hint : it's not the right-leaning one.
Also, the US is probably one of the most right-leaning industrialized nations, and also has the best free speech protections of all of them.
Scientist 2 : Why, no! Brilliant! Maybe if humanity comes together we could build standard residential housing that sits hundreds of feet in the air for no reason!
Scientist 1 and 2 : (imagine where they will make space in their office for the Nobel prizes)
Headline : "Court rules religious websites illegal."
TV shows need advertisers. Companies that pay for the program so they can take a short moment to promote themselves.
So if you tell them that, because of their support of a particular program, you will, in fact not patronize them, it will get their attention pretty quick.
I know this article tries to sympathize with the people who work directly on the show, and a boycott would hurt them too. But the copyright holders only understand discourse in the form of money. There needs to be a monetary penalty for the mistreatment of fans. Start boycotting the advertisers and tell them know why.
However, it is probably harder than it has ever been to start a traditional media company. If you want to start a new paper, or a new tv channel, or a new radio station ... they just exist on a grander scale than they used to, so you need more money to get into it.
The question is, unless you're Ted Turner, why would you want to start a new traditional media company? The people who are good enough to make a difference in the industry are also smart enough to avoid competing against incumbents for table scraps in a shrinking market.
It's like worrying about Matt Drudge getting all the good Monica Lewinsky stories : it might not be fair but if you're smart you know it's no longer 1998, the last time traditional media or Monica counted for anything.
Republicans have yet to cease being pro-business, regarding those industries.
It's hard to imagine a business republicans would despise. Well, excluding paleocons, anyway.
Plus, all the people in the past 20 years that have been the biggest pain in the ass about the entertainment industry have been dems. Think : tipper gore and joe lieberman. At least now the FCC is reacting to something.
Funny how the people on slashdot finally 'get' higher taxes costing jobs when their own necks are on the line.
For its own peculiar reasons, beeb shows tend to have extremely short seasons (four to eight shows is not atypical). This likely has positive effects on the quality of the shows.
Yes, SP is politically biased.
I can handle intelligent conversation, and/or views I am sympathetic to. I don't like sophomoric criticism of my views, but sophomoric vindication doesn't bother me. Ideally, you aren't sophomoric at all, but I don't think there are many that really mind sophomoric expressions of views they espouse. I think the ratings are in agreement with me on this.
Hence, SP, but no DS or SNL.
I mostly mentioned south park because it's humorous to me that I find it less offensive than the Daily Show :)
Witness "The Passion", which was an enormous success largely because it got people out to movies that normally can't stomach them. I think videogames tap into some of that.
As an example, I find SNL and the Daily Show irritating because lately they try to make lame political statements. So I just don't watch them anymore ... instead I stick to Chapelle Show, South Park, and adult swim.
I've kind of moved away from most movies, tv and music and towards videogames for similar reasons. They don't have a sophomoric political message to irritate me. I hope that doesn't change.
I hate spyware as much as the next guy, but we can't act like we can regulate and legislate our industry in a vacuum. There's a cost for every law or regulation, and we shouldn't ignore that. And frankly, spyware is not enough of a threat for me to want to raise the lawyer tax.
The geek in me says that complexity is very, very, very bad. The words "ala cart channels", "de facto public utility", and "billing system" conjure visions of exponents whose exponents have exponents.
Finally, the fiscal conservative in me says that it will raise costs for the cable companies, which will raise costs for consumers, which will in the end probably price some people out of cable.
And then as an added bonus, we get to pay the government to take cable away from poor people. That way everybody wins.
More concerned a boston globe reporter is plotting to kidnap me.
Second, rich people tend to spend money on all sorts of useful things, the most important being investment. Businesses get more capital, which allows them to grow more quickly, etc
The unemployment rate is going down ... the current rate is better than in most other industrialized nations and is about the same as clinton's during his first term.
It's just that with all the, ahem, "technological advances" we've made in the past few years, reporters now have a much easier time finding unemployed workers to interview every single night than they did a mere 10 years ago. Ain't technology grand?