I'd say, as far as network TV and the music industry goes, the golden age was between the 1950s and the 1990s, when, by and large, the business model remained static. By the first few years of the 2000s, broadband was becoming common enough that P2P began to impact those industries. Of course they completely misunderstood what was happening, as they continue to, and did not view piracy as an expression of consumer desire, giving new players like Netflix and Apple the opportunity to build new business models.
I simply don't think the traditional entertainment units know what to do. They see their profits in jeopardy, but I doubt piracy is their chief fear. Their chief fear is that their "new media" competitors are simply going to abandon them completely and produce their own content. Amazon and Netflix are doing this, and some musical artists are already beginning to think beyond the old paradigm of the record label.
Frankly, I think traditional media is screwed; whether that's network entertainment, network news, newspapers, radio; you name it. Maybe they can twist governments' arms for a decade or two, but in the end, if they don't abandon the old models, they're dead, and seeing as they still spend an astonishing amount of time trying to defend their turf through the courts, lawmakers and international treaties, I don't think they'll ever be in a position to adapt. They don't get the customer base, and cannot accept that the captive audience of yesteryear is rapidly becoming a distant memory.
When newspapers think using scam advertisers like Outbrain is an innovative way of creating revenue, you know that media group is fucked beyond all repair.
Appeal to authority, to someone who has been dead for decades and was an astronomer, not a physicist.
But do go on showing what a lunatic you are. The scientific community has long moved past nonsense like the electric universe. It's just idiocy adopted by useless fucktards who are too lazy and too stupid, but so desperately want attention. You're a nobody, and you will forever be a nobody.
Random guy on Internet claims physicists are wrong, misunderstands optics and doesn't seem to understand gravity lenses don't work when they are really close by and filled with fucking stars. But hey, he must be a fucking genius.
But of course, it's an electric universe advocate.
I think you're mixing up what is meant by determinism. Quantum effects do not appear to be deterministic, in that individual events have some degree of randomness or unpredictability, but QM is probabilistic in that the sum of all quantum events will tend in one direction or another (i.e. the history of a single photon cannot be known with complete certainty, but the paths of a beam of light made up of billions or trillions of photons can be predicted).
In this regard, while the laws that influenced the Early Universe certainly are testable, because quantum effects played such a huge role when the universe was too hot and dense for gravity to play a major part, the fundamental nature of quantum interactions means the universe could have turned out differently than it did, without violating any notion of the determinism of physical principles.
I thought the fully deterministic universe wasn't all that popular these days, particularly with QM mucking things up, particularly at the earliest moments after the Big Bang, when quantum effects dwarfed gravity.
The first opinion, while unpopular, does not really target any individual group, except broadly those who live in poorer economic conditions, so no, I can't say as he would be dismissed. In the second case, no, I probably wouldn't seek dismissal, but the employee would be under some degree of scrutiny. You're not going to fire someone for privately held beliefs that they keep quiet, or at least I wouldn't. But really it's situation specific. What if the situation was as you described, and you discovered, say, a youth counselor who works with youth in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. Would you keep him on, knowing that he was a white supremacist Neo-Nazi?
The Civil Rights Acts will certainly come down on you hard if you try to recreate Jim Crow segregation. But then again, that's how Jim Crow was destroyed.
People can have all the convictions they want. When they work in organizations whose client base is made up of the very populations that this hypothetical person is publicly espousing bigotry against, then they can take their convictions with them along with their personal effects. We will not lose clients because some asshole decides to publicly start making racist or homophobic declarations. Clients and customers come first... always.
So it's purely an accident that there has been precisely one black president since the 13th Amendment was passed over 150 years go, and no female presidents since the 19th Amendment nearly 96 years ago, right?
The KKK is granddad's white's only club. The current white supremacist movements overtook them a long time ago.
But the KKK didn't come to its low point simply because people walked away. The FBI spent years undermining, much as it does with newer white supremacist organizations.
In the Jim Crow south, there was a body of law that sought to deprive blacks of political and economic rights. Segregation wasn't merely a sort of social agreement between white folk, it was the law in several states.
Except the actual "biological" races, such as they are, are considerably different from the Eurocentric ideas concocted from the 16th to 19th centuries. So really, most "ethno nationalists" are just invoking racial pseudoscience from the 19th century.
Besides, they are just racists, invoking the same tired nonsense that those before them concocted. Somehow they think their bigotry is abated because, you know, they don't want to kill any Jews or blacks, they just want to make them leave.
If someone in my organization's employ was making homophobic remarks, then I'd say they're on tenuous ground. If they go to the level the KKK does, then yes, they're job is finished. Considering the number of LGBT clients, the organization simply could not tolerate someone like that.
No, they're both hateful. One just wants all the Jews dead, the other just wants the Jews moved somewhere else. I'd say the latter inevitably leads to the former, because you're going to find people don't want to move, or perhaps cannot, and thus you start with Hitler's ideas of moving all the Jews to one location,and ends with Auschwitz.
Sorry, "ethno nationalism" is racism. It is a repugnant creed concocted by evil people.
If I'm on a board of directors and the CEO comes out as a KKK member, there's going to be a reprisal; and that is that the CEO is going to be out on his ass. In fact, in the organization I'm working for right now, with the ethnically diverse client group, a KKK member at any level would do the organization harm, and they'd be out. The forms would be obeyed; they would given severance, but they simple could not work there any more.
There really is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. Even the Founding Fathers knew that. You can limit the state's ability to punish speech (i.e. the "yell FIRE in a theater" limitation), but society still has powerful levers and there was never any intent that we should all be somehow philosophically required to ignore someone who publicly espouses beliefs that society in general despises.
Can you define "consequences"? While I agree that no one has the right to do anything illegal, there is no right to be free of the consequences of your speech. If you publicly and openly espouse racist beliefs, then there will be consequences; everything from shunning by friends and neighbors to even potentially losing your job. The state cannot punish you for your beliefs, but society is not limited to state action.
So ignore the environmentalists. Look at what the scientists are saying. But of course, that's hard and gives you an answer you don't want, so better to construct a strawman for your small mind to knock down.
Jesus Christ. AGW is based on scientific observations, not on some elite trying to take over the world. From what I can tell, a large chunk of the elite actually have significant fossil fuel interests, and it is that elite that manipulates morons like you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say, as far as network TV and the music industry goes, the golden age was between the 1950s and the 1990s, when, by and large, the business model remained static. By the first few years of the 2000s, broadband was becoming common enough that P2P began to impact those industries. Of course they completely misunderstood what was happening, as they continue to, and did not view piracy as an expression of consumer desire, giving new players like Netflix and Apple the opportunity to build new business models.
I simply don't think the traditional entertainment units know what to do. They see their profits in jeopardy, but I doubt piracy is their chief fear. Their chief fear is that their "new media" competitors are simply going to abandon them completely and produce their own content. Amazon and Netflix are doing this, and some musical artists are already beginning to think beyond the old paradigm of the record label.
Frankly, I think traditional media is screwed; whether that's network entertainment, network news, newspapers, radio; you name it. Maybe they can twist governments' arms for a decade or two, but in the end, if they don't abandon the old models, they're dead, and seeing as they still spend an astonishing amount of time trying to defend their turf through the courts, lawmakers and international treaties, I don't think they'll ever be in a position to adapt. They don't get the customer base, and cannot accept that the captive audience of yesteryear is rapidly becoming a distant memory.
When newspapers think using scam advertisers like Outbrain is an innovative way of creating revenue, you know that media group is fucked beyond all repair.
Appeal to authority, to someone who has been dead for decades and was an astronomer, not a physicist.
But do go on showing what a lunatic you are. The scientific community has long moved past nonsense like the electric universe. It's just idiocy adopted by useless fucktards who are too lazy and too stupid, but so desperately want attention. You're a nobody, and you will forever be a nobody.
Random guy on Internet claims physicists are wrong, misunderstands optics and doesn't seem to understand gravity lenses don't work when they are really close by and filled with fucking stars. But hey, he must be a fucking genius.
But of course, it's an electric universe advocate.
Read the guy's posts. He blames Jews for pornography.
I think you're mixing up what is meant by determinism. Quantum effects do not appear to be deterministic, in that individual events have some degree of randomness or unpredictability, but QM is probabilistic in that the sum of all quantum events will tend in one direction or another (i.e. the history of a single photon cannot be known with complete certainty, but the paths of a beam of light made up of billions or trillions of photons can be predicted).
In this regard, while the laws that influenced the Early Universe certainly are testable, because quantum effects played such a huge role when the universe was too hot and dense for gravity to play a major part, the fundamental nature of quantum interactions means the universe could have turned out differently than it did, without violating any notion of the determinism of physical principles.
Maybe it was you.
I thought the fully deterministic universe wasn't all that popular these days, particularly with QM mucking things up, particularly at the earliest moments after the Big Bang, when quantum effects dwarfed gravity.
The guy's account is called "jewsdid911". I'm thinking you don't want to see the kinds of papers he writes.
I can see why you post as an AC.
The first opinion, while unpopular, does not really target any individual group, except broadly those who live in poorer economic conditions, so no, I can't say as he would be dismissed. In the second case, no, I probably wouldn't seek dismissal, but the employee would be under some degree of scrutiny. You're not going to fire someone for privately held beliefs that they keep quiet, or at least I wouldn't. But really it's situation specific. What if the situation was as you described, and you discovered, say, a youth counselor who works with youth in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. Would you keep him on, knowing that he was a white supremacist Neo-Nazi?
I like how these stories always bring out the racists.
By "not so long ago", you mean half a century
The Civil Rights Acts will certainly come down on you hard if you try to recreate Jim Crow segregation. But then again, that's how Jim Crow was destroyed.
More properly he's a Libertarian.
People can have all the convictions they want. When they work in organizations whose client base is made up of the very populations that this hypothetical person is publicly espousing bigotry against, then they can take their convictions with them along with their personal effects. We will not lose clients because some asshole decides to publicly start making racist or homophobic declarations. Clients and customers come first... always.
So it's purely an accident that there has been precisely one black president since the 13th Amendment was passed over 150 years go, and no female presidents since the 19th Amendment nearly 96 years ago, right?
The KKK is granddad's white's only club. The current white supremacist movements overtook them a long time ago.
But the KKK didn't come to its low point simply because people walked away. The FBI spent years undermining, much as it does with newer white supremacist organizations.
In the Jim Crow south, there was a body of law that sought to deprive blacks of political and economic rights. Segregation wasn't merely a sort of social agreement between white folk, it was the law in several states.
Except the actual "biological" races, such as they are, are considerably different from the Eurocentric ideas concocted from the 16th to 19th centuries. So really, most "ethno nationalists" are just invoking racial pseudoscience from the 19th century.
Besides, they are just racists, invoking the same tired nonsense that those before them concocted. Somehow they think their bigotry is abated because, you know, they don't want to kill any Jews or blacks, they just want to make them leave.
If someone in my organization's employ was making homophobic remarks, then I'd say they're on tenuous ground. If they go to the level the KKK does, then yes, they're job is finished. Considering the number of LGBT clients, the organization simply could not tolerate someone like that.
No, they're both hateful. One just wants all the Jews dead, the other just wants the Jews moved somewhere else. I'd say the latter inevitably leads to the former, because you're going to find people don't want to move, or perhaps cannot, and thus you start with Hitler's ideas of moving all the Jews to one location,and ends with Auschwitz.
Sorry, "ethno nationalism" is racism. It is a repugnant creed concocted by evil people.
If I'm on a board of directors and the CEO comes out as a KKK member, there's going to be a reprisal; and that is that the CEO is going to be out on his ass. In fact, in the organization I'm working for right now, with the ethnically diverse client group, a KKK member at any level would do the organization harm, and they'd be out. The forms would be obeyed; they would given severance, but they simple could not work there any more.
There really is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. Even the Founding Fathers knew that. You can limit the state's ability to punish speech (i.e. the "yell FIRE in a theater" limitation), but society still has powerful levers and there was never any intent that we should all be somehow philosophically required to ignore someone who publicly espouses beliefs that society in general despises.
Can you define "consequences"? While I agree that no one has the right to do anything illegal, there is no right to be free of the consequences of your speech. If you publicly and openly espouse racist beliefs, then there will be consequences; everything from shunning by friends and neighbors to even potentially losing your job. The state cannot punish you for your beliefs, but society is not limited to state action.
So ignore the environmentalists. Look at what the scientists are saying. But of course, that's hard and gives you an answer you don't want, so better to construct a strawman for your small mind to knock down.
Jesus Christ. AGW is based on scientific observations, not on some elite trying to take over the world. From what I can tell, a large chunk of the elite actually have significant fossil fuel interests, and it is that elite that manipulates morons like you.