Hope for More Open Distribution/Revenue Models
on
Boxee Drops Hulu Support
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ugh, this reminds me of how the networks pressured NetFlix into killing their Red Envelope independent publishing division. Every time I see something like this, I lose some of the hope that new, more open distribution models will win out over industry inertia.
Easy (well, not easy to implement, but...), trade unions. Trade unions have open membership for people who meet their standards. People within a trade union can trade freely. Trade unions can set terms of trade with other trade unions.
Trade unions don't have to be 1 union : 1 person. Unions can be multinational. They can include things like labor and pay standards, or even go as far as being miniature opt-in governments with income taxes. Switching unions needs to be easy. Fractioning into new unions (taking a large percentage of the body) needs to be easy.
This is more about touchstones than about blaming AirTran. It almost doesn't matter if AirTran is innocent. This is how we have public discussions. It's not optimal, but you can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Thank you for demonstrating the unjustifiably guilt-ridden, timid narrative that inhibits widespread adoption of sane ideas. It's human nature to individuals to develop rationales that justify their behavior. I tend to think that your unjustified assertions and hyperbole betray an underlying cowardice.
Please clarify this. I know deeply religious people who are highly intelligent, well educated, and were likely advancing their non-religious, technical fields back when you still thought binary referred to your daily routine of 'Whack off. Go to sleep. Whack off. Go to sleep.'
In all fairness, I think that made me a better lover.
I was trying to make the opposite point, and I accidentally double-negated. Oops. My point was that deeply religious people are *more* than capable of finding common ground. The most devout fundamentalist Christians, I find, are deeply studious.
To suggest that the concepts of Bayesian inference, justifiability, history and psychology are not inaccessible to a deeply religious person is condescending to the extreme[...]
I heartily disapprove of this "play nice" rhetoric.
A few points: 1) Apologists like you prefer to think that the literalists are a small minority. A third of the people I know are young earth creationists, and I live in Massachusetts. 48% of the US public are young earth creationists. 16% of high school BIOLOGY teachers are young earth creationists. If you only get one thing out of this, let it be this: have some fucking intellectual integrity and stop understating the issue. Please.
2) You're right to suggest that an argument can't be productive if there's no common ground from which to argue. It is, however, insulting to assume that there is no such common ground. To suggest that the concepts of Bayesian inference, justifiability, history and psychology are not inaccessible to a deeply religious person is condescending to the extreme -- certainly far more condescending than the comments of the GP.
3) Your comment implies that there is no merit to demonstrating intolerance to bad ideas. That's a very popular conception, and I think that, as a liberal policy, it's been utterly disastrous. Now, clearly, it can be effective in a discussion or argument to assume that the other person is capable of meaningfully participating in that discussion or argument, but that's not the same as tolerating bad ideas. Cultural pressure is one of the great factors in meme progression and suppression, and it needs to be used.
When you don't believe in apodictic truth, it's easy to have reservations about sharing your ideas, because they aren't so much correct as "merely" good. Secularists need to sack up and realize that good is good enough to be loud. Timidity is not a good policy.
As far as I can tell, under the current law, copyright holders have the right to enforce their copyright through lawsuits....Are you saying that lawyers tend not to represent poor people? I agree, that is a problem.
You mean "the" problem, right? There's a meme that needs to spread, and quickly: Measuring reality against an idealized system and judging the mismatches is an intellectual and moral defect.
You construct your idealized system was constructed in light of goals, and it is by those larger goals that aspects of reality must be judged. The natural consequence of such thinking is a certain degree of pragmatism. It's not like this is trademark law -- you're not going to lose your rights if you don't pursue your copyright aggressively. This is a tort.
Absolutely. The beauty of the community model is that there is always a small number of people willing to digest, integrate, and increase the availability of valuable information. Like Wikipedia, 90% of the contributions come from 10% of the participants, but the 90% still reap the benefit. That's known as the power law.
It's off-topic, but let me just say that this is why I want academic journals opened up. I know there's a case to be made against it, and we'll have to deal with those concerns. But I want a world where this community mechanism applies to science, where the operations of different graduate labs across the country are understood in context in an accessible way.
If that's your concern, couldn't we just adopt a social system where we get less relevant as we age? Killing off the elderly is a pretty fucking ham-handed solution.
Unless you're just trying to rationalize the inevitable, in which case your sentiment is total garbage.
As we get older, couldn't we just adopt a social system that makes us older instead of, you know, dying? Killing off the elderly is a pretty ham-handed solution.
Unless you're just trying to rationalize the inevitable, in which case your sentiment is total garbage.
The gold standard for any useful definition of truth is, "What is most likely given the information available. Incorporate the uncertainty into your answer."
In this light, the Wikipedia standard is almost as good as it could possibly be.
I measure these moral qualms against what I see as the (perhaps unattainable) gold standard of opt-in government.
The government is magically set up so that it's easy for a large number of people to secede into a new government or to change governments. People get to evolve methods of governance, and each government decides how it relates to the other governments economically. People can create a government of one, but then their ability to engage in any sort of commerce with other people depends upon the whims of those people's respective governments.
You can always split to get a government closer to what you want, but your government loses power with fewer human resources, so you have to decide how to compromise.
In the above description, "government" is kind of a misnomer. You can see these governments as organizations bound contractually to their members, which the members can rip up at any time. It's very libertarian-friendly.
I think we need this kind of large-scale collaboration that the government provides. However, since the gold standard is unacceptable, you have to weigh laws against the metric of, "If this government would opt-in, would most people want to split? Would this law make the situation worse or better?" Of course, the whole point of the opt-in system is that one size *doesn't* fit all, so it's not a perfect metric, but it's a good one given current pragmatic constraints.
Absolutely. Well, almost. "Manage" is a strong word. It's too compatible with something I see fair too often -- the drive to seek a devilish consistency in the ramification of one's feelings at the expense of other feelings, particularly matters of conscience and social justice.
No, at the heart of every justification is a value judgment. Every public policy decision, every social decision, every choice in spending a night out or choosing a job or lifestyle, is rooted in a value judgment.
The very worst breed of intellectualism is that which seeks to supplant human concerns with an inhuman, unthinking, and presumptive moral calculus.
No, sir. Intellectualism gave but one gift to the world. The ethos that one need not (and perhaps should not) believe those things for which he has no justification.
The rest is human decency, valuing the needs and concerns of your fellow men.
Nah, logic is just another tool in the arsenal of people who want to manufacture justifications for their biases. Recognizing the limitations of logic and of hard & fast philosophies is the first step to any real intellectual maturity.
IMV, The fundamental answer to this is for the DRM frameworks to be consumer-owned and managed. Due to a complete lack of any private social organization, however, that would have to involve government intervention, just like we need government intervention to enable cellphone number transfers.
Lame, lame, lame. If consumers were organized around consumer interests, so many things would be possible, and as many corporate abuses would be impossible. And it'd be 100% libertarian friendly.
Let me add my voice to the resounding consensus and say that you should just buy a domain and use the free version Google Apps. It's easy to set up, and it's a really great mail solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh, this reminds me of how the networks pressured NetFlix into killing their Red Envelope independent publishing division. Every time I see something like this, I lose some of the hope that new, more open distribution models will win out over industry inertia.
In short, I have no patience for ideologues who think that bad faith ends at a EULA. *spit*
Hey, if you look at the new WhiteHouse.gov, you may find that, unless I'm mistaken, it's running WordPress.
Uh-huh. You do realize that one of the first actions of our founding fathers was to buy up state debt to establish national credit, right?
Easy (well, not easy to implement, but...), trade unions. Trade unions have open membership for people who meet their standards. People within a trade union can trade freely. Trade unions can set terms of trade with other trade unions.
Trade unions don't have to be 1 union : 1 person. Unions can be multinational. They can include things like labor and pay standards, or even go as far as being miniature opt-in governments with income taxes. Switching unions needs to be easy. Fractioning into new unions (taking a large percentage of the body) needs to be easy.
This is more about touchstones than about blaming AirTran. It almost doesn't matter if AirTran is innocent. This is how we have public discussions. It's not optimal, but you can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
No it shouldn't. Frickin' narcissist, get off my lawn!
Thank you for demonstrating the unjustifiably guilt-ridden, timid narrative that inhibits widespread adoption of sane ideas. It's human nature to individuals to develop rationales that justify their behavior. I tend to think that your unjustified assertions and hyperbole betray an underlying cowardice.
In all fairness, I think that made me a better lover.
I was trying to make the opposite point, and I accidentally double-negated. Oops. My point was that deeply religious people are *more* than capable of finding common ground. The most devout fundamentalist Christians, I find, are deeply studious.
s/are not inaccessible/are inaccessible/
I heartily disapprove of this "play nice" rhetoric.
A few points:
1) Apologists like you prefer to think that the literalists are a small minority. A third of the people I know are young earth creationists, and I live in Massachusetts. 48% of the US public are young earth creationists. 16% of high school BIOLOGY teachers are young earth creationists. If you only get one thing out of this, let it be this: have some fucking intellectual integrity and stop understating the issue. Please.
2) You're right to suggest that an argument can't be productive if there's no common ground from which to argue. It is, however, insulting to assume that there is no such common ground. To suggest that the concepts of Bayesian inference, justifiability, history and psychology are not inaccessible to a deeply religious person is condescending to the extreme -- certainly far more condescending than the comments of the GP.
3) Your comment implies that there is no merit to demonstrating intolerance to bad ideas. That's a very popular conception, and I think that, as a liberal policy, it's been utterly disastrous. Now, clearly, it can be effective in a discussion or argument to assume that the other person is capable of meaningfully participating in that discussion or argument, but that's not the same as tolerating bad ideas. Cultural pressure is one of the great factors in meme progression and suppression, and it needs to be used.
When you don't believe in apodictic truth, it's easy to have reservations about sharing your ideas, because they aren't so much correct as "merely" good. Secularists need to sack up and realize that good is good enough to be loud. Timidity is not a good policy.
You mean "the" problem, right? There's a meme that needs to spread, and quickly: Measuring reality against an idealized system and judging the mismatches is an intellectual and moral defect.
You construct your idealized system was constructed in light of goals, and it is by those larger goals that aspects of reality must be judged. The natural consequence of such thinking is a certain degree of pragmatism. It's not like this is trademark law -- you're not going to lose your rights if you don't pursue your copyright aggressively. This is a tort.
Absolutely. The beauty of the community model is that there is always a small number of people willing to digest, integrate, and increase the availability of valuable information. Like Wikipedia, 90% of the contributions come from 10% of the participants, but the 90% still reap the benefit. That's known as the power law.
It's off-topic, but let me just say that this is why I want academic journals opened up. I know there's a case to be made against it, and we'll have to deal with those concerns. But I want a world where this community mechanism applies to science, where the operations of different graduate labs across the country are understood in context in an accessible way.
If that's your concern, couldn't we just adopt a social system where we get less relevant as we age? Killing off the elderly is a pretty fucking ham-handed solution.
Unless you're just trying to rationalize the inevitable, in which case your sentiment is total garbage.
As we get older, couldn't we just adopt a social system that makes us older instead of, you know, dying? Killing off the elderly is a pretty ham-handed solution.
Unless you're just trying to rationalize the inevitable, in which case your sentiment is total garbage.
The gold standard for any useful definition of truth is, "What is most likely given the information available. Incorporate the uncertainty into your answer."
In this light, the Wikipedia standard is almost as good as it could possibly be.
I measure these moral qualms against what I see as the (perhaps unattainable) gold standard of opt-in government.
The government is magically set up so that it's easy for a large number of people to secede into a new government or to change governments. People get to evolve methods of governance, and each government decides how it relates to the other governments economically. People can create a government of one, but then their ability to engage in any sort of commerce with other people depends upon the whims of those people's respective governments.
You can always split to get a government closer to what you want, but your government loses power with fewer human resources, so you have to decide how to compromise.
In the above description, "government" is kind of a misnomer. You can see these governments as organizations bound contractually to their members, which the members can rip up at any time. It's very libertarian-friendly.
I think we need this kind of large-scale collaboration that the government provides. However, since the gold standard is unacceptable, you have to weigh laws against the metric of, "If this government would opt-in, would most people want to split? Would this law make the situation worse or better?" Of course, the whole point of the opt-in system is that one size *doesn't* fit all, so it's not a perfect metric, but it's a good one given current pragmatic constraints.
It's encouraging to see that people can and do escape Iowa, but that probably doesn't help your point.
Absolutely. Well, almost. "Manage" is a strong word. It's too compatible with something I see fair too often -- the drive to seek a devilish consistency in the ramification of one's feelings at the expense of other feelings, particularly matters of conscience and social justice.
Logic combined with facts? Seriously?
No, at the heart of every justification is a value judgment. Every public policy decision, every social decision, every choice in spending a night out or choosing a job or lifestyle, is rooted in a value judgment.
The very worst breed of intellectualism is that which seeks to supplant human concerns with an inhuman, unthinking, and presumptive moral calculus.
No, sir. Intellectualism gave but one gift to the world. The ethos that one need not (and perhaps should not) believe those things for which he has no justification.
The rest is human decency, valuing the needs and concerns of your fellow men.
Nah, logic is just another tool in the arsenal of people who want to manufacture justifications for their biases. Recognizing the limitations of logic and of hard & fast philosophies is the first step to any real intellectual maturity.
IMV, The fundamental answer to this is for the DRM frameworks to be consumer-owned and managed. Due to a complete lack of any private social organization, however, that would have to involve government intervention, just like we need government intervention to enable cellphone number transfers.
Lame, lame, lame. If consumers were organized around consumer interests, so many things would be possible, and as many corporate abuses would be impossible. And it'd be 100% libertarian friendly.
Let me add my voice to the resounding consensus and say that you should just buy a domain and use the free version Google Apps. It's easy to set up, and it's a really great mail solution.
By that logic, why have a range?