Yup, but the publisher has to work on one step more of precision and/or abstraction than the reader. The reader consumes his material in one way, but the publisher has to make sure that multiple readers can consume in different ways, and therefore must make a technically correct product.
But the point is generally to pretend to be someone the susp^H^H^H^Hperson of interest already knows and trusts. An undercover cop invents a new identity. An online cop steals a pre-existing one.
Yes, but remember that radiowaves propagate at lightspeed, even if they're too primitive for ET now, they might not have been millions of years ago....
And Spain formed a government that was overthrown by a fascist military coup. A few years later, the rest of Europe celebrated the defeat of fascism in Europe, while refusing to do a thing to restore democracy in Spain... because Spain voted for socialism.
You know very little about the English court systems.
More than you do, apparently.
They were actually several courts in competition with one another, and common law was used because it was least influenced by the special interests and even incorporated (gasp!) professional jurors. That's why it had to be taken over by the government.
It was created by the government, or at least the king. The professionals of the court were employed by the king (Henry II started this off). I'm sorry if this doesn't fit the liberal anarchist narrative you've built for yourself, but history is clear on this. The Wikipedia entry seems to match pretty closely what the book I was using when teaching the subject in university says....
The Scots lived for 1000 years with no central government.
Erm... the entire history of Scotland up to the union with England was one of a hereditary monarchy. If you mean no democratic government, that's a different thing entirely and irrelevant to your point. Even though the king held sovereign power, like most medieaval monarchs, he held parliament in his court, from the 13th century at the latest. If the Lordship of the Isles sometimes went against the king, that doesn't imply there was no central government, just that it wasn't 100% effective. Some consider the Lordship of the Isles as effectively a second "kingdom" within Scotland -- a second state with its own effective government under the "Mòd" (parliament) that MacDonald of the Isles would call with the lesser clan chiefs.
The 'wild west' of the U.S. was essentially stateless and was actually one of the most peaceful regions in the history of the U.S.
And what is the biggest hangover of frontier law in modern US law today? Plea bargaining. Buying testimony with a "get out of jail free" card.
Besides, there was law in the "wild west". There was a state. There were sheriffs, and judges, and marshals. I fail to see your point.
All of the core assumptions in your argument are wrong, and of particular note is your unwillingness to address how common law applied in the U. S. worked very strongly to protect individuals from pollution while the government pollution laws have worked to protect polluters from individuals.
Well, before restating that you'll have to actually present some facts to support your ridiculous notion of a "government-less" Scotland, and to deny the accepted wisdom of the Platagenet kings' common law courts.
As for pollution... well, all that proves is the system is corrupt. All systems can be corrupt, stated or stateless.
Now, tell me this: without a state, how would a legal system work?
"Common law" is a state system. The common law was a synonym for the king's legal system. It was a power play by the English king to take control away from local feudal lords, as the citizens were given the right to choose the king's common England-wide law in any disputes, as opposed to the local law.
As for insurance companies having agreements to avoid court fees... well... yes. But if there were no courts, there would be no fees, and no fees means no fees to avoid. Without a government there is no-one to enforce the decisions of the court, except mercenaries. How does that do anything but support the entrenched interests of the elites? And as for having a court without state... sorry, once you have a court, you have a territorial jurisdiction with its own laws and norms... and that sounds like a state to me.
Top Gear themed rides? Well, I suppose it gives an excuse to be a little shit. The "Be a Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car" roller coaster: not quite as fast or thrilling as the "Ferraris" at other theme parks....
Which leads to an interesting question -- why limit it to BBC? Alice in Wonderland is out of copyright, and the Disney production borrowed its aesthetic very heavily from the original illustrations. Why not be some kind of "Britainland" for American tourists?
BBC Worldwide is a commercial entity that gets money by reselling BBC content oversees. It gets no part of the license fee or any other public funding. It is arguable that it has unfair advantage in that the production costs of most of its assets were covered by the BBC; however, it's a fair stretch to say that the public will be paying for this theme park, particularly given that they're looking to outside investors to fund it.
I'd like to point out that almost certainly the smoke seen on screen would have been CGI. Bans on smoking in public places and workplaces typically extend to TV studios. Furthermore, if there's children in shot, there's no way they'd have real smoke.
The main difference, though, isn't about equipment quality, it's about art and craft, and getting it right first time. Digital makes it too easy to "fix it in the mix", and therefore encourages too much fiddling with the recording after the fact. Also, any amateur recorders now expect the equipment to do the job, but never learn how to use the equipment properly.
Listen to a Beatles recording vs. anything recent.
Except that recent Beatles rereleases have been remastered with extra compression. In fact, I read an article once on "the compression wars" which compared multiple releases of Beatles (or was it Rolling Stones...?) recordings to chart the phenomenon.
Sounds like a win-win. The big problem all news houses have is that if they step out of Google News individually, it doesn't change the market, and they just end up with a smaller audience share. If they all step out together, there will be cries of "collusion" and "cartels". But the legislation gave Google a choice: if Google News was important to them, they would have paid; but it wasn't, so they switched off. Now it is possible for Spanish news outlets to build their own audience again, and even if overall eyeballs decrease, the value of individual ads will increase again, because they have their own demographic to market to.
Unfortunately, one of the big drivers for the drop in journalistic quality is the lack of money coming in. The quality of journalism ten to twenty years ago didn't stop the decline in revenues, so reintroducing similar quality won't magically bring the money back either.
In the good old days, newspapers really didn't make that much from subscriptions.
True fact.
Most of their revenue was from advertising.
True fact.
Google, by making a story from a given site that probably has ads, is helping.
Untrue conjecture.
The bigger problem news outlets have is that they no longer have captive audiences.
Replace the word "captive" with "specific", and you have the truth.
The problem isn't just about location, but about wider demographics. By virtue of having a particular voluntary readership (whether that readership is "locals", or "geeks", or "conservatives", or "working-class people"), the newspaper had a premium product for the advertisers -- it was a form of targeted advertising in and of itself. It also associated the product with the newspaper brand, for extra positive effect.
A link from Google News does nothing to build up a demographic, or to build up the brand. A link from Google News is a low value proposition for advertisers, and the newspapers need a high value proposition.
Yes, but the value of each page impression in advertising in print media comes from knowing the demographic that you're selling to. The only really successful virtual newspaper I know of is The Register, and they can handle their own advertising content precisely because they have a specific demographic. Their readership consists mainly of tech professionals with geeky hobbies, and there are multiple big sponsors looking to get the attention of that audience -- whether it's IT vendors like Citrix or Cisco, or the studio behind Transformers trying to sell robot nostalgia to the children of the 80s. But if you don't have a demographic, you're left scraping the same barrel as the lowliest bloggers, getting an ad aggregator to pay you fractions of a cent for impressions.
The problem for newspaper is precisely that -- that they're in the advertising business, and the advertising model isn't working for them. Getting off the aggregators is a way to rebuild that idea of having a "readership", a particular group that come to you for the stories; but it doesn't work if only some of the newspapers do it.
The iPad's sound chip has phenomenal fidelity, as does most digital hardware. (Although laptops often suffer signal noise due to unshielded signal lines outside the chip.) If he thinks we're getting poorer quality than in the 60s, he's mad. An iPad can produce a higher quality recording than anything the Beatles ever produced.
On the other hand, if he's talking about his recent material, sound quality is meaningless if the song is unlistenably crap.
Except that this was reputedly the original, but the song was proposed by a band member who was completely off his face and slurring his speech, and the slurred version stuck.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, but the publisher has to work on one step more of precision and/or abstraction than the reader. The reader consumes his material in one way, but the publisher has to make sure that multiple readers can consume in different ways, and therefore must make a technically correct product.
Sorry, that hyphen does nothing. What on Earth is one of those when it's at home?!?
But the point is generally to pretend to be someone the susp^H^H^H^Hperson of interest already knows and trusts. An undercover cop invents a new identity. An online cop steals a pre-existing one.
Yes, but remember that radiowaves propagate at lightspeed, even if they're too primitive for ET now, they might not have been millions of years ago....
Because it wears underpants.
Aren't we a robot too? A very advanced one.
Nope, I'm an operator.
(Etymologically speaking, robots are manual workers, labourers. I'm a trained professional who works at desks, tables and flipcharts.)
And Spain formed a government that was overthrown by a fascist military coup. A few years later, the rest of Europe celebrated the defeat of fascism in Europe, while refusing to do a thing to restore democracy in Spain... because Spain voted for socialism.
You know very little about the English court systems.
More than you do, apparently.
They were actually several courts in competition with one another, and common law was used because it was least influenced by the special interests and even incorporated (gasp!) professional jurors. That's why it had to be taken over by the government.
It was created by the government, or at least the king. The professionals of the court were employed by the king (Henry II started this off). I'm sorry if this doesn't fit the liberal anarchist narrative you've built for yourself, but history is clear on this. The Wikipedia entry seems to match pretty closely what the book I was using when teaching the subject in university says....
The Scots lived for 1000 years with no central government.
Erm... the entire history of Scotland up to the union with England was one of a hereditary monarchy. If you mean no democratic government, that's a different thing entirely and irrelevant to your point. Even though the king held sovereign power, like most medieaval monarchs, he held parliament in his court, from the 13th century at the latest. If the Lordship of the Isles sometimes went against the king, that doesn't imply there was no central government, just that it wasn't 100% effective. Some consider the Lordship of the Isles as effectively a second "kingdom" within Scotland -- a second state with its own effective government under the "Mòd" (parliament) that MacDonald of the Isles would call with the lesser clan chiefs.
The 'wild west' of the U.S. was essentially stateless and was actually one of the most peaceful regions in the history of the U.S.
And what is the biggest hangover of frontier law in modern US law today? Plea bargaining. Buying testimony with a "get out of jail free" card.
Besides, there was law in the "wild west". There was a state. There were sheriffs, and judges, and marshals. I fail to see your point.
All of the core assumptions in your argument are wrong, and of particular note is your unwillingness to address how common law applied in the U. S. worked very strongly to protect individuals from pollution while the government pollution laws have worked to protect polluters from individuals.
Well, before restating that you'll have to actually present some facts to support your ridiculous notion of a "government-less" Scotland, and to deny the accepted wisdom of the Platagenet kings' common law courts.
As for pollution... well, all that proves is the system is corrupt. All systems can be corrupt, stated or stateless.
Now, tell me this: without a state, how would a legal system work?
"Common law" is a state system. The common law was a synonym for the king's legal system. It was a power play by the English king to take control away from local feudal lords, as the citizens were given the right to choose the king's common England-wide law in any disputes, as opposed to the local law.
As for insurance companies having agreements to avoid court fees... well... yes. But if there were no courts, there would be no fees, and no fees means no fees to avoid. Without a government there is no-one to enforce the decisions of the court, except mercenaries. How does that do anything but support the entrenched interests of the elites? And as for having a court without state... sorry, once you have a court, you have a territorial jurisdiction with its own laws and norms... and that sounds like a state to me.
In a stateless society, insurance wouldn't exist, because there would be no judiciary to enforce liability. Why insure when no-one can sue you anyway?
Top Gear themed rides? Well, I suppose it gives an excuse to be a little shit. The "Be a Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car" roller coaster: not quite as fast or thrilling as the "Ferraris" at other theme parks....
Which leads to an interesting question -- why limit it to BBC? Alice in Wonderland is out of copyright, and the Disney production borrowed its aesthetic very heavily from the original illustrations. Why not be some kind of "Britainland" for American tourists?
BBC Worldwide is a commercial entity that gets money by reselling BBC content oversees. It gets no part of the license fee or any other public funding. It is arguable that it has unfair advantage in that the production costs of most of its assets were covered by the BBC; however, it's a fair stretch to say that the public will be paying for this theme park, particularly given that they're looking to outside investors to fund it.
I'd like to point out that almost certainly the smoke seen on screen would have been CGI. Bans on smoking in public places and workplaces typically extend to TV studios. Furthermore, if there's children in shot, there's no way they'd have real smoke.
The main difference, though, isn't about equipment quality, it's about art and craft, and getting it right first time. Digital makes it too easy to "fix it in the mix", and therefore encourages too much fiddling with the recording after the fact. Also, any amateur recorders now expect the equipment to do the job, but never learn how to use the equipment properly.
Listen to a Beatles recording vs. anything recent.
Except that recent Beatles rereleases have been remastered with extra compression. In fact, I read an article once on "the compression wars" which compared multiple releases of Beatles (or was it Rolling Stones...?) recordings to chart the phenomenon.
The UK's Daily Mail has taken casual "soft" content to the extreme. Their website is like a gossip mag and nothing like their print edition.
Sounds like a win-win. The big problem all news houses have is that if they step out of Google News individually, it doesn't change the market, and they just end up with a smaller audience share. If they all step out together, there will be cries of "collusion" and "cartels". But the legislation gave Google a choice: if Google News was important to them, they would have paid; but it wasn't, so they switched off. Now it is possible for Spanish news outlets to build their own audience again, and even if overall eyeballs decrease, the value of individual ads will increase again, because they have their own demographic to market to.
Unfortunately, one of the big drivers for the drop in journalistic quality is the lack of money coming in. The quality of journalism ten to twenty years ago didn't stop the decline in revenues, so reintroducing similar quality won't magically bring the money back either.
Ah yes. Spend more money, and put less advertising on the site. That's obviously going to work.
In the good old days, newspapers really didn't make that much from subscriptions.
True fact.
Most of their revenue was from advertising.
True fact.
Google, by making a story from a given site that probably has ads, is helping.
Untrue conjecture.
The bigger problem news outlets have is that they no longer have captive audiences.
Replace the word "captive" with "specific", and you have the truth.
The problem isn't just about location, but about wider demographics. By virtue of having a particular voluntary readership (whether that readership is "locals", or "geeks", or "conservatives", or "working-class people"), the newspaper had a premium product for the advertisers -- it was a form of targeted advertising in and of itself. It also associated the product with the newspaper brand, for extra positive effect.
A link from Google News does nothing to build up a demographic, or to build up the brand. A link from Google News is a low value proposition for advertisers, and the newspapers need a high value proposition.
Google News is not good news for the newspapers.
Yes, but the value of each page impression in advertising in print media comes from knowing the demographic that you're selling to. The only really successful virtual newspaper I know of is The Register, and they can handle their own advertising content precisely because they have a specific demographic. Their readership consists mainly of tech professionals with geeky hobbies, and there are multiple big sponsors looking to get the attention of that audience -- whether it's IT vendors like Citrix or Cisco, or the studio behind Transformers trying to sell robot nostalgia to the children of the 80s. But if you don't have a demographic, you're left scraping the same barrel as the lowliest bloggers, getting an ad aggregator to pay you fractions of a cent for impressions.
The problem for newspaper is precisely that -- that they're in the advertising business, and the advertising model isn't working for them. Getting off the aggregators is a way to rebuild that idea of having a "readership", a particular group that come to you for the stories; but it doesn't work if only some of the newspapers do it.
...and the downscaled, recompressed version will probably be the only version kept in the archive.
The iPad's sound chip has phenomenal fidelity, as does most digital hardware. (Although laptops often suffer signal noise due to unshielded signal lines outside the chip.) If he thinks we're getting poorer quality than in the 60s, he's mad. An iPad can produce a higher quality recording than anything the Beatles ever produced.
On the other hand, if he's talking about his recent material, sound quality is meaningless if the song is unlistenably crap.
Except that this was reputedly the original, but the song was proposed by a band member who was completely off his face and slurring his speech, and the slurred version stuck.