As a music recordist and producer, do you support the government's compelling me (at gunpoint, or under the threat of incarceration or large fine) to record and produce white supremacist music?
>> Pai - FCC dismantling agent => no net neutrality => no freedom in communication and information
Okay, so the GOVERNMENT gives you freedom? Getting rid of Government Regulation is anti-freedom? I don't really think you understand what freedom actually is. "Give the government more power so we can be free!" would be a relatively crappy bumper sticker.
It's funny that this is marked "Insightful" while only ambiguously citing two big companies, with absolutely no specific context.
Netflix attempted a non-government, business-friendly solution by offering a hardware solution to offset their disproportionate bandwidth use because so many people loved Netflix. Comcast, because they did not want to compete with a new and ultimately better technology (because Netflix's on-demand programming was way better than Comcast's "pay us $200 per month for this crappy package, only 2% of which you will watch,") leaned on the government to regulate the market.
That is corporatism at its worst. The "insight" here is that "Net Neutrality" is an ironic name for a corporatist, corrupt government regulation.
This is one of those times when the designation "Democratic Republic" is important to consider. A bunch of sheep were actually convinced that something called "Net Neutrality," which was actually Government Regulation of the Internet, was good. As far as I remember, "the Internet as we knew it" had no regulation. So, we're going back to the ideal.
I'd be curious to know, from an "OMG THE INTERNET IS OVER/TRUMP IS BAD" person why/how government regulation of the Internet is better than consumer choice that would result from a free (that is, unregulated) market? Hint: The government can enforce stuff (like censorship) with guns. Businesses are at the mercy of your wallet.
Of course, it would be really helpful to enforce immigration laws so that illegals don't inherit the same, if not more, rights than actual US citizens. Then perhaps homeless people could get low-skilled jobs, a little dignity, and maybe even an address. Unfortunately, if the minimum wage keeps getting pushed higher, there will be no businesses left to hire them anyway. Luckily, the Silicon Valley elites will remain secure in their gated communities, pushing all of the buttons that keep the robots on patrol. Onward and upward, comrade!
Couple climate change mass hysteria with a fear of going against the grain and public ridicule, and you don't even have to take "paychecks" into account.
>> all that matters is paying workers as little as possible
That is a very infantile way of understanding business.
"Delivery" is one of the most basic skillsets that any human being can do, so its value in the market place is low. Your call to "morality, ethics, and common decency" sound cute, but have nothing to do with the morality, ethics, and common decency of the free market that has lifted the maximum number of people out of poverty.
A minimum wage, while it *sounds* ethical, decreases available jobs because business owners can't afford to pay low-skilled workers that much and will either do more with less or shut down. "A living wage" is not something that people are entitled to, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Okay, so you don't know anyone who wants to travel to the states, yet the US has a huge illegal immigration problem.
Why do those immigrants come to the US? Do they crave a hateful and bigoted environment that is lacking in their native country? I think you have a tragic case of cognitive dissonance.
If you are laughing at the US, you are most likely an ill informed, brainwashed progressive addicted to virtue signalling. Quick-- you might be missing some anti-Trump propaganda bananas on CNN!
"The point of copyright laws was to encourage people to create media for the public domain."
No. Without a financial incentive to create, there would be nothing to add to the public domain. I sense that you are arguing from a "greed is bad" perspective, or an "everything should be free for everyone" perspective, which is essentially the antithesis of a civilized society.
Do you do something important for the world? Do you work for completely altruistic reasons, rather than collecting a pay check?
It seems that you are a consumer of creativity, rather than a creator. You should really go a little deeper in your research, because you seem to be alluding to "big media" examples (I would guess that you want Mickey Mouse to be in the public domain?), and ignoring "creating for a living" scenarios (e.g. creating to pay the rent vs. becoming mega-rich).
I'm always curious when self-driving discussions appear. I'm "somewhat" informed on this topic, and am relatively neutral; but, I can't help but believe that tech folks are a bit too optimistic about the benefits of "eliminating human error." For example, I see in these types of discussions the example of debris on the road. Theoretically, most human drivers have the ability to see such debris and determine a course of action, and most of the time they choose correctly and avoid disaster.
On the other hand, it would only take a single bug in an AI "debris subroutine" running in a whole bunch of self-driving cars to choose the wrong course of action 100% of the time. Such a bug would *probably* only be identified after enough failures were accurately recorded to piece together a pattern that could point to it (i.e., an incomplete test plan didn't catch it, a code review didn't catch it, differences between virtual test worlds vs. the real world hid the defect, etc.).
I guess if someone could convince me that it is possible to write 100% bug-free code, I would feel better about this. However, what I perceive as the somewhat naive optimism of technical folks is somewhat terrifying in this context.
Only, with a massive adoption of piracy, 1) Lots of people are breaking the law, and 2) Less and less revenue is generated to support the entertainment industry.
This. I can't help but notice that the repulsive nature of Nazism seems to create a reality distortion field that causes folks to inflate how big of a problem this group of people is. And it seems like many people buy into this distorted view of the "threat" that they pose.
While I wouldn't miss the presence of Nazis if they disappeared, we (are supposed to) have equal protection under the law (IOW, civilized society). If a Nazi does something bad (murder, assault, etc.) then that Nazi should be brought to justice accordingly. Otherwise, they're just loudmouths saying stuff to piss people off.
Honest question: Are you basing your understanding of "censorship" squarely on *state* "censorship?" It seems so.
Censorship can, in fact, be practiced by any entity that has access to media of communication. The US government (in theory) is pretty much explicitly prohibited from practicing censorship. But businesses, communities, and even individuals can (and seemingly do increasingly) practice censorship regularly.
One method of interpersonal censorship is public shaming of particular viewpoints to the point where a person being censored simply decides to shut up. That might seem like a "good thing," but I tend think about speech as being civilization's alternative to violence. This non-state censorship, because it is decentralized and actively encouraged, is a particularly disturbing bellwether of a crumbling society. Worse, the ability to censor "wrongthink" or "alternate viewpoints" or however you want to label it is being conflated with "free speech."
The website self-describes as "protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen." What comprises a "direct action"? What is the intention of a person who visits that website? What about a person who signs up for a newsletter? What should you assume about a person who indicates that s/he will attend future events sponsored by this group?
I'm still amazed at the cognitive dissonance of Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. Just because public death threats against the President of the US have been normalized in the public square doesn't mean they are any more acceptable now than they were before Trump's election. The Far Left now owns the Democratic Party, or at least the message of it that permeates mainstream culture. If you are a rational Liberal, you should own up to that (at least enough to understand that people whom you lump into the "deplorable" bucket are lumping you into this Far Left bucket).
If you don't want the State to crack down on you, stop threatening the state *with violence*. Or, to put a finer point on it, stop conflating "peaceful protests" with *rioting*. Or to put it another way, your destruction of cities and property is *not free speech*.
Slashdot Mirror
If I cared that much about Netflix over my cellular connection, I would then conclude that I should dump Verizon and go with Sprint as my provider.
Good thing there are decent choices of cell providers in the free market.
Sooooo, not paying = paying a price. Nice Doublespeak, comrade.
The division, which only exists because people are now hyper-aware of terrorism and related issues, goes something like:
Right: Terrorism is bad; open borders contribute to insecure nations. We shouldn't have open borders.
Left: This is our new way of life; you are a racist if you can't deal with it.
This is exactly the line of thought that Sweden followed to cover up the negative effects of mass migration. So, good luck with this, New York.
As a music recordist and producer, do you support the government's compelling me (at gunpoint, or under the threat of incarceration or large fine) to record and produce white supremacist music?
>> Pai - FCC dismantling agent => no net neutrality => no freedom in communication and information
Okay, so the GOVERNMENT gives you freedom? Getting rid of Government Regulation is anti-freedom? I don't really think you understand what freedom actually is. "Give the government more power so we can be free!" would be a relatively crappy bumper sticker.
>> What business does *the government" have caring about how I use my *internet*?
FTFY
>> Congress can pass a law
The first and biggest mistake of your argument.
It's funny that this is marked "Insightful" while only ambiguously citing two big companies, with absolutely no specific context.
Netflix attempted a non-government, business-friendly solution by offering a hardware solution to offset their disproportionate bandwidth use because so many people loved Netflix. Comcast, because they did not want to compete with a new and ultimately better technology (because Netflix's on-demand programming was way better than Comcast's "pay us $200 per month for this crappy package, only 2% of which you will watch,") leaned on the government to regulate the market.
That is corporatism at its worst. The "insight" here is that "Net Neutrality" is an ironic name for a corporatist, corrupt government regulation.
This is one of those times when the designation "Democratic Republic" is important to consider. A bunch of sheep were actually convinced that something called "Net Neutrality," which was actually Government Regulation of the Internet, was good. As far as I remember, "the Internet as we knew it" had no regulation. So, we're going back to the ideal.
I'd be curious to know, from an "OMG THE INTERNET IS OVER/TRUMP IS BAD" person why/how government regulation of the Internet is better than consumer choice that would result from a free (that is, unregulated) market? Hint: The government can enforce stuff (like censorship) with guns. Businesses are at the mercy of your wallet.
Repeats are strange things to filter out if you are looking for something that is trending. Wtf?
Of course, it would be really helpful to enforce immigration laws so that illegals don't inherit the same, if not more, rights than actual US citizens. Then perhaps homeless people could get low-skilled jobs, a little dignity, and maybe even an address. Unfortunately, if the minimum wage keeps getting pushed higher, there will be no businesses left to hire them anyway. Luckily, the Silicon Valley elites will remain secure in their gated communities, pushing all of the buttons that keep the robots on patrol. Onward and upward, comrade!
You are a bully trying to assert that "models" are "facts." That is funny.
Couple climate change mass hysteria with a fear of going against the grain and public ridicule, and you don't even have to take "paychecks" into account.
>> all that matters is paying workers as little as possible
That is a very infantile way of understanding business.
"Delivery" is one of the most basic skillsets that any human being can do, so its value in the market place is low. Your call to "morality, ethics, and common decency" sound cute, but have nothing to do with the morality, ethics, and common decency of the free market that has lifted the maximum number of people out of poverty.
A minimum wage, while it *sounds* ethical, decreases available jobs because business owners can't afford to pay low-skilled workers that much and will either do more with less or shut down. "A living wage" is not something that people are entitled to, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
The most accurate definition I've seen/heard is "speech that I disagree with."
Okay, so you don't know anyone who wants to travel to the states, yet the US has a huge illegal immigration problem.
Why do those immigrants come to the US? Do they crave a hateful and bigoted environment that is lacking in their native country? I think you have a tragic case of cognitive dissonance.
If you are laughing at the US, you are most likely an ill informed, brainwashed progressive addicted to virtue signalling. Quick-- you might be missing some anti-Trump propaganda bananas on CNN!
Only, the software is Windows only-- or, requires "Cubase" on a Mac. Not quite so open.
"The point of copyright laws was to encourage people to create media for the public domain."
No. Without a financial incentive to create, there would be nothing to add to the public domain. I sense that you are arguing from a "greed is bad" perspective, or an "everything should be free for everyone" perspective, which is essentially the antithesis of a civilized society.
Do you do something important for the world? Do you work for completely altruistic reasons, rather than collecting a pay check?
It seems that you are a consumer of creativity, rather than a creator. You should really go a little deeper in your research, because you seem to be alluding to "big media" examples (I would guess that you want Mickey Mouse to be in the public domain?), and ignoring "creating for a living" scenarios (e.g. creating to pay the rent vs. becoming mega-rich).
I'm always curious when self-driving discussions appear. I'm "somewhat" informed on this topic, and am relatively neutral; but, I can't help but believe that tech folks are a bit too optimistic about the benefits of "eliminating human error." For example, I see in these types of discussions the example of debris on the road. Theoretically, most human drivers have the ability to see such debris and determine a course of action, and most of the time they choose correctly and avoid disaster.
On the other hand, it would only take a single bug in an AI "debris subroutine" running in a whole bunch of self-driving cars to choose the wrong course of action 100% of the time. Such a bug would *probably* only be identified after enough failures were accurately recorded to piece together a pattern that could point to it (i.e., an incomplete test plan didn't catch it, a code review didn't catch it, differences between virtual test worlds vs. the real world hid the defect, etc.).
I guess if someone could convince me that it is possible to write 100% bug-free code, I would feel better about this. However, what I perceive as the somewhat naive optimism of technical folks is somewhat terrifying in this context.
Only, with a massive adoption of piracy, 1) Lots of people are breaking the law, and 2) Less and less revenue is generated to support the entertainment industry.
This. I can't help but notice that the repulsive nature of Nazism seems to create a reality distortion field that causes folks to inflate how big of a problem this group of people is. And it seems like many people buy into this distorted view of the "threat" that they pose.
While I wouldn't miss the presence of Nazis if they disappeared, we (are supposed to) have equal protection under the law (IOW, civilized society). If a Nazi does something bad (murder, assault, etc.) then that Nazi should be brought to justice accordingly. Otherwise, they're just loudmouths saying stuff to piss people off.
Honest question: Are you basing your understanding of "censorship" squarely on *state* "censorship?" It seems so.
Censorship can, in fact, be practiced by any entity that has access to media of communication. The US government (in theory) is pretty much explicitly prohibited from practicing censorship. But businesses, communities, and even individuals can (and seemingly do increasingly) practice censorship regularly.
One method of interpersonal censorship is public shaming of particular viewpoints to the point where a person being censored simply decides to shut up. That might seem like a "good thing," but I tend think about speech as being civilization's alternative to violence. This non-state censorship, because it is decentralized and actively encouraged, is a particularly disturbing bellwether of a crumbling society. Worse, the ability to censor "wrongthink" or "alternate viewpoints" or however you want to label it is being conflated with "free speech."
The website self-describes as "protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen." What comprises a "direct action"? What is the intention of a person who visits that website? What about a person who signs up for a newsletter? What should you assume about a person who indicates that s/he will attend future events sponsored by this group?
I'm still amazed at the cognitive dissonance of Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers. Just because public death threats against the President of the US have been normalized in the public square doesn't mean they are any more acceptable now than they were before Trump's election. The Far Left now owns the Democratic Party, or at least the message of it that permeates mainstream culture. If you are a rational Liberal, you should own up to that (at least enough to understand that people whom you lump into the "deplorable" bucket are lumping you into this Far Left bucket).
If you don't want the State to crack down on you, stop threatening the state *with violence*. Or, to put a finer point on it, stop conflating "peaceful protests" with *rioting*. Or to put it another way, your destruction of cities and property is *not free speech*.