No, but using drunk driving stats to create fear to reinstitute prohibition (which we have actually done with many other drugs) would be spreading FUD. In pretty much 99% of the cases where the gov. has responded to "terrorism" it has always been a FUD tactic. If they truly wanted to fight terrorism, they would change their foreign policy and stop exploiting other countries.
Bombing: Afghanistan, Iraq, most of the countries where "terrorists" are coming from.
Exploitation: Look at the effects of the economic policies which the IMF/World Bank have imposed on many developing nations to open up "free markets."
And my argument has nothing to do with whether people are forced to watch the webcams. The Gestapo didn't force anyone to denounce their neighbors. It's simply the attitude that certain systems foster.
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with the software detection system either really. It's just the public attitude that this is bound to encourage. A lot of people are already looking at the wrong places to blame all of our societal issues. This is just going to allow politicians to scapegoat illegal immigrants even more.
That's not a good analogy. A better analogy would be if the government set up cameras in residential areas and streamed the feeds over the internet for anyone to watch; and below the stream they put a number to dial to report illegal/suspicious activities by your neighbors and such. This implentation of public surveilence would encourage people to spy on each other and fosters a general atmosphere of paranoia and mutual suspicion. It would cause people to be naturally suspicious of their neighbors. Afterall, why else would there be a need to watch them with video surveilence so closely?
Also, Ayn Rand is the founder of objectivism (which is a morally bankrupt and fundamentally flawed philosophy that has little to do with objectivity) and a staunch advocate of capitalism (which objectivism tries to justify morally/philosophically). Perhaps you should actually read some of writing of a person whose name you're gonna drop. A more appropriate name in that sentence would be Hellen Keller.
In any case, it's not that I'm worried about illegal immigrants getting taken away by the police, it's that we could soon live in a society where people are all too eager to rat each other out and act as informants for the govenrment. We already have law enforcenment for that, we don't need the entire public spying on each other. It creates a very hostile/paranoid/suspicious atmosphere.
And quite frankly, those people hopping the border are generally living pretty hard lives already. This system would just encourage more xenophobic attitudes against people we should be more sympathetic towards. Instead of focusing on treating these people as criminals we should be asking why they need to resort to such desperate/extreme measures to make a better life for themselves here.
Why do you think so many Mexicans come here illegally? Do you think they prefer to come here illegally so they can be ineligible for healthcare, insurance, driver's licenses, financial aid for college, property ownership, all but the least desireable jobs, etc.? Do you think they prefer to be crammed into the poorly-ventilated cargo area of a smuggler's boat, ride in the cramped and suffocating trunk of a smuggler's car, or travel through the desert with inadequate food/water/shelter, and risk their very lives to come to the U.S. rather than simply present their passport and hop on a plane?
What did you do to properly earn your right to live and work in the U.S.?
With our current immigration policies it's just not possible for those that come here illegally to gain citizenship "properly." Why? Because they were born in the wrong country and socio-economic stratum. I guess what's written on the Statue of Liberty doesn't mean shit anymore:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
I think someone who is willing to risk being killed by disease/heat/other bodily harm on their passage to the U.S. and risks being sold as a sex slave or forced into sweatshop labor has earned their right to live here even if they weren't privileged enough to be born in one of the countries where immigration into the U.S. isn't heavily restricted. These are individuals who have had a much harder life than most of the people who want to keep them out, and are much less fortunate than those who were able to gain citizenship. I think they're much more deserving than someone who was simply born here and never had to take those risks, make those sacrifices, or endure those hardships to be here.
You can sit there and smugly say that illegal immigrants ought to just "properly earn their right to live here" because you take the privileges you were born into for granted and don't realize that for some people, risking their lives to come here illegally is the only way for them to seek the opportunities and quality of life that you enjoy. And even after they get here illegally they still face hardships that you wouldn't know anything about, despite many of them being created by your sort of attitude.
Actually, I do live in Southern California, and I don't see illegal immigrants as much of a threat or problem. Would you care to give some specifics--eithers flaws in my argument or one of the issues I'm not comprehending?
That's not the issue I have with the act. I never said we should get rid of border patrols. If they instituted a law that ordered border patrol officers to shoot anyone that tried to cross illegally, that'd be trying to secure the borders too. But the method/fashion by which they're trying to achieve that objective, and the extent to which they're willing to go is a little ridiculous. I mean c'mon, having thousands of border patrol officers isn't enough, we need to get citizens to sit in front of their computers and watch for people trying to sneak in?
Personally, I'm against such a closed-border policy as we already have. I think that in itself is wrong and fosters/reflects a really unhealthy cultural attitude within our society. I'm one of those people who truly believes in the Thomas Paine quote "[My] country is the world, and my religion is to do good." But it's not the act of watching the borders with video surveilance that I'm particularly opposed to in this case. It's the fact that this act seems to encourage individuals to sit at their computers watching for people crossing the border illegally and be government informants. I mean, how is anyone going to tell that some illegal immigrant is a "terrorist"? They can't. And what are the chances that this is actually going to catch any terrorists? Probably close to nil. Do you know how many people we have patroling the Canadian border? Do you honestly think that terrorists will try to hop the Mexican border rather than simply forge a fake passport or come in from Canada? And what kind of people do you think are actually going to waste their time with this border-watch nonsense?
The kind of people this will encourage are what I'm worried about. It's sorta like if the government started offering money to people to report illegal immigrants. You could argue that it's to secure our nation, but that's a stretch. Sure it's just enforcing our borders, but the social consequences of encouraging people to rat out a really quite benign segment of our society just because they were born in a different country and wanted to make a better life for themselves here is much more detrimental to our society than any terrorist attack.
I just think that not bombing the shit out of other countries and exploiting developing nations would do much more for our national security than having the public monitor the borders. This act just perpetuates unfounded fears that merely serve as a political distraction while the real threats go unnoticed.
Right... so you're just making up rules as you go along. Where does that "rule of thumb" come from? How does it fit into the definition of public place or privacy? You can't seem to back up your position with any convincing arguments.
In anycase, why isn't it alright/legal to electronically tap your phone?
So the government setting up a camera in your home wouldn't be police-state-like as long as they used it for enforcing just laws? The power the Gestapo had over German society also had nothing to do with anti-semetic laws. The control it gave the Nazi regime came from the paranoia, self-spying, and turning the public into informants. It had nothing to do with the laws passed, but the cultural attitude that was fostered.
Whether the cameras are turned outward or inward, it still fosters a paranoid population of citizen informants--xenophobia isn't much of a consolation. And how is it not hysterical to think that illegal-immigration is such a threat to national security that it warrants having ordinary citizens monitoring border-activity at all times?
Whether your items are concealed in a backpack or you are in a tent doesn't change the fact that you are occupying a public space. You are still in public, and those are still matters of personal privacy. Your argument that visibility is what defines being in public is rather tenuous, but I'll let you have that one.
But do you believe that others have the right to monitor your cellphone conversations as long as you are in public (and openly visible)? Or more generally, if someone sets up a hidden mic in a public park and listens in on other people's conversations, are they not encroaching on one's basic rights to privacy? Would you not object to someone following you around wherever you go in public with a camera and broadcasting everything you do for others to see?
Exaggerating the threat posed by illegal immigrants (hardly an issue of national security) and persuading people to sit in front of their computers to monitor border activity isn't encouraging xenophobia (fear of outsiders)?
And spying is defined as watching the activities of others without their knowing/consent. If the individuals on cops didn't sign release forms, then it would be spying in a sense. It has nothing to do with it being a public act or not. I could follow you around all day in public and spy on you as long as I'm watching you without you knowing.
I think you may be confusing the concept of "privacy" with something else, perhaps "invisibility".
When you are out in public, you can expect to share the public space with others. The concept of privacy means the freedom from unsanctioned intrusions--whether you are in public or not does have any bearing on that freedom.
If you want to camp out somewhere in the woods for the weekend, just because you're in a public space doesn't mean others can barge into your tent and start snapping pictures of you and your girlfriend or your wife. If you want to carry a bunch of porno magazines in your backpack as you walk through downtown, you have the right to do so without everyone knowing that you're carrying them--that is privacy.
Likewise, if I want to take a girl on a date somewhere, I have the right to privacy to not have that date broadcasted on the internet for all to see, even if we are going on a date in public. By taking my date to a restaurant or other public place, I am not sanctioning to have my date recorded on video or broadcasted on the internet. Using a public bathroom or changing room doesn't mean that I relinquish my right to privacy in those public facilities.
The whole argument that privacy doesn't exist in public places is just ignorant conflation of two unrelated ideas.
A slippery slope argument can be valid if there is a logical mechanism comparing the two events. If you don't believe that individuals have the right to privacy in public places, then what is wrong with having surveilence in all public spaces? If you believe there shouldn't be surveilence in certain public spaces, then you have just contradicted yourself.
So you want to live in a world where one only has privacy when one is in their own home? Should we put up surveilance cameras to cover every inch of public space? Should people not be allowed to have some privacy when they go camping in the woods or mountains or go to the beach? Is it okay for others to peak in on you when you're in a public restroom? Is it okay for the feds to listen in on your cellphone conversations as long as you're in a public place?
Being in public doesn't mean you have no right to privacy. Being in public just means you are in a shared space with others, where one can expect to interact with others, where everyone has a right to be. It doesn't have anything to do with surrending your right to privacy. Your private life isn't just private when you're in your own home. Your employer doesn't have the right to spy on your private life just because you're at the mall or at a public park. Same goes for the government.
Unwanted surveilence is a form of harassment, and just because you are in a public place doesn't mean you have to be subjected to it. If you enter onto someone's private property, and they have surveilence equipment, then you agreed to the surveilence by entering onto their property. But one should be able to go out in public and not expect to be under constant surveilance.
It's utterly moronic to think that the concept of privacy only exists within one's own home. Is it ok for the government to mount a camera in front of every person's frontdoor and monitor who you socialize with? Is it ok for them to monitor what books you check out at the public library or what stores/public establishments you visit? If you see someone wearing a backpack in public, do they have to show you the contents of their backpack if you ask just because they're in public?
Here's a clue: just because two different words/phrases share a word or root-word doesn't mean they're talking about the same concept. Like, if someone dies from taking a pain-killer it doesn't mean that the pharmacutical company can't get sued. The opposite of public space is private space, but privacy is an entirely other concept.
So you think that police state does not exist as long as big brother turns the citizenry into its watchdogs?
Guess again.
The Gestapo didn't have extensive networks of undercover spies to check up on German citizens. In fact, the only undercover spies they empoyed were used for the surveilance of underground socialist groups. The way they kept tabs on the public was through voluntary denunciations submitted to local Gestapo offices by ordinary citizens. That's how they chose who to arrest, how they monitored what was going on in German society, how they kept people in a perpetual state of fear, and how the Nazis were able to maintain control over German society.
This act may not be directed against American citizens, but it's another step towards posturing our culture to be more accepting of fascist policies. Not only is it promoting xenophobia, but it also encourages/trains American citizens to spy on others. Today it's our international neighbors, tomorrow maybe it's our domestic hispanic/arab/non-caucasian population, and then who knows where that paranoia and suspicion will spread to?
If anyone needs to be monitored more carefully by the American public, it's our government officials who have sold out the American people to their corporate masters. This is just one more distraction to keep Americans from addressing the real crisis that our nation is facing.
You could say the same about heroin, alcohol, mairjuana, sex, or anything else that people get addicted to. It's their own fault that they get addicted, but people should still be warned about the addiciton potential of those substances/activities. It isn't denying personal responsibility, it's acknowledging realities that have been experienced by millions of people.
Just cause cellphone manufacturers are working on new cellphone features doesn't mean that cellphone service providers aren't trying to improve service.
Also, people who don't want expensive phones with robust features can get cheap ones that have minimal function. As has been brought up many times, there are plenty of options for people who don't want extra features, so this is all a moot argument. The only reason consumers would be disatisifed with their phones because of having too many "superfluous" features is because they're an idiot.
You can easily go into any cellphone store and buy a phone with only the basic features. Even if you got your phone from signing a long-term contract they still provide bottom-line phones without any fancy features. The only reason people are still complaining is because they chose to go with a phone with all the extra features and are now complaining pointlessly because they were too dumb to realize that they didn't want those features. Well, too bad for those people. Mobile phone manufacturers shouldn't stop making advanced phones because some people are idiots and don't know what they want.
This is akin to saying that airlines shouldn't provide kosher meals because I'm a goddamn retard and I keep ordering a kosher meal even though I don't want one, and the only way I'll stop is if they simply remove that option--it's fucking ridiculous.
Are you serious? So you think that because the law was incorrectly enforced in one case that murder should be legalized? Well, let's legalize robbery and rape as well then since I'm sure just as many individuals have been wrongfully imprisoned for those crimes also.
Or maybe the more rational approach would be to address what actually went wrong in that situation: incorrect interepretation/enforcement of the law. Instead of legalizing murder (do I even need to explain why this is a stupid idea?), maybe the decision should be appealed and the judge who passed that decision should be investigated for incompetence--if what you claimed to have happen is in fact accurate.
In most countries there's a difference between murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide. These legal definitions are put in place so that the law can't be interpreted askewed and enforced differently from their original intent. So there's no reason to legalize murder just because one judge--supposedly--mistook justifiable homicide for murder.
Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the original quote, which was a statement about persecution. The original quote meant that in a society that doesn't stand up to the persecution of targeted minorities by an oppressive regime, no one is safe. Protecting society from murderers is not a form of persecution, nor is it a characteristic of an oppressive regime. Protecting society from murderers isn't an injustice that will snowball if let to persist. The logic simply doesn't work applied in the context you're using it in. If you're going to use a quote to demonstrate a point, atleast try to understand its meaning.
You are off by an order of magnitude. I just priced out 10,000 DVDs, with Amaray cases, 4/0 wrap with 4-color printing and shrink wrap. That's 88 cents per disc at the first place I checked and $1.03 at the 2nd. Don't even bother scrambling to add in authoring costs, I own the Gondry/Jonze/Cunningham DVDs from Palm and my 5 year-old could have done a better job of authoring.
I call bullshit. Either you just pulled those numbers out of your ass or those places you "checked" do piss-poor quality work. Commercial quality DVD-9's cost atleast ~$2 per unit to manufacture and print the discs themselves, packaging and assembly (which are sometimes necessary to do by hand, especially if you want to include things such as external obie strips) costs atleast $1-2 per unit. So that's ~$3 minimum if you find a cheap place and only use simple inserts on light-weight paper. The Chris Cunningham collection happens to come with a 24-page booklet of illustrations/photos/stills which is printed on moderately heavy gloss/matte paper enclosed in a heavy card stock. The booklet itself is of pretty high quality, as with the packaging and the actual DVD. Adding on the cost of the booklet the per unit price for the publishing company is guaranteed to be atleast ~$5 by a moderate estimate.
A DVD made for less than $1 per unit might pass for a medium-sized business that needs them for internal purposes or for distributing cheap video-pamphlets, but for a business that deals primarily in CDs and DVDs they would not fly. In fact, the prices you give are more along the lines of unit prices for CDs in regular jewel cases, and nowhere near the cost of DVD manufacturing costs.
Also, I happen to have some experience designing CD/DVD artwork & layouts, and I do in fact own a copy of the Chris Cunningham DVD myself. The design, quality, and artwork of the inserts, booklets, along with the DVD contents all happen to be superb. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it would behoove you to just give it a rest.
My guess is you've probably never seen a cheap poorly printed/packaged CD or DVD and have never worked in a business that deals exclusively with those types of digital media. Perhaps if you were selling crap-quality pirated DVDs like those you find being sold by Asian street vendors, you could use $1.03 packaged DVDs, but not if you work in the music business and digital media is your primary product.
Yea, you anticipated that I would mention a pertinent detail that stands in contradiction to your position, but simply by ignoring that reality and saying "it's pedantic to say this" doesn't refute it. It just shows that you like to conveniently ignore facts that contradict you.
And for someone who thinks he has such an astute understanding of how the music business works, you sure seem to be pretty oblivious to the economics of merchandising. Most professionally done music videos cost around $5000-6000 to $50,000-60,000 to make, depending on how big the band is. A DVD, including packaging, usually costs about $4 to $9 per unit to manufacture in bulk. So having 10,000 DVDs manufactured easily costs more than the original production costs of the video--or did you think that once a music video is shot, the label can just pull packaged DVDs out of thin air?
Now, why would a record label have all these DVDs manufactured and stocked in retail stores if there weren't a demand for them? Why would companies like Palm Pictures license these works from the artists and labels to feature them on DVDs if no one buys them? Do you think Palm and other studios/production companies just wants to pay Warped Records, Sony BMG, etc. to 'advertise' for them?
You've done about as much debunking as a creationist saying "don't give me any of that evolution crap" in an argument about human origin. And just because you don't recognize music videos as creative works in their own right doesn't make mentioning their artistic merits and entertainment value irrelevant. How can it be irrelevant when we're arguing about whether music videos are creative works having their own 'artistic' merits or merely advertisements devoid of any intrinsic 'entertainment' value?
The fact that 'art' is neither a factor in the OP's claim nor yours regarding a product of the 'music' industry is exactly why you're both wrong. But I guess since I disagree with the OP I must be off-topic--what a tactful way to weasel out of the argument. But I guess if you STILL can't understand the difference between promotional content and advertising, then there's really no use in trying to explain it to you...
What does patent reforms have to do with the New Deal? What part of the proposal increases the role of government? How would reducing the role of government improve the patent system?
Well, that is what the argument is about: whether music videos are mere advertisements or if they have intrinsic artistic/entertainment value. If you can't give a constructive argument against what I've said, then simply don't reply. All you're doing now is trolling with ad hominem attacks and immature retorts.
Here's the summary of all responses -- Irrelevant to art.
However, I choose to back up my position with reasoned arguments and by pointing out the gaping holes in your reasoning. But apparently you still don't get it.
My point about Chris Cunningham was that people do go out and buy his works on DVD, so there are plenty of people who enjoy watching music videos for its own sake. A publishing company wouldn't license his works, and the works of other music video directors, to put out a series of music video compilations if there were no market for such content. This is secondary licensing which is completely separate from the original comissioning of the music videos.
I never denied the marketing value of music videos, and I've acknowledged the fact that they are aired to promote bands/albums. What I'm arguing is that music videos aren't just advertisements, atleast no more than singles that get played on the radio, radio/magazine interviews, and touring. Promotional content is different from an ad. Labeling something as promotional content doesn't change its intrinsic entertainment value of the original content. Because something is funded as a commercial endeavor doesn't preclude it from having intrinsic entertainment/artistic value.
I never claimed to be a performer. I'm a graphic designer--I design album artwork, posters, stickers, t-shirts, etc. And I understand why musicians get screwed, and the ugly nature of the recording industry. I'm very close with the record label owner and I have no illusions about how he percieves the music and the artists. However, that doesn't change the artistic merits of the musicians, nor does his financial motives undermine the artistic vision created by the director and the band.
Additionally, Chris Cunningham's Rubber Johnny video was originally commissioned as a promotional clip for the new Aphex Twin album. However, the band and the director liked the concept so much that they decided to expand it into a full-length music video and feature it on its own DVD. The content is so disturbing to some that it was banned by many networks and doesn't get any play on any major music television networks, and pretty much the only people who see the video are those who buy/download the DVD for its own sake. Clearly the director & the band weren't only motivated by commercial interests to create the music video. Calling music videos for bands like Aphex Twin, Marilyn Manson, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, the Cure, and many others, mere advertisements is an insult to the band and to the directors. There's nothing about the format that precludes it from having intrinsic artistic and entertainment value.
Slashdot Mirror
How did Europe become 99% Judeo-Christian? How did the U.S. get established in North America?
No, but using drunk driving stats to create fear to reinstitute prohibition (which we have actually done with many other drugs) would be spreading FUD. In pretty much 99% of the cases where the gov. has responded to "terrorism" it has always been a FUD tactic. If they truly wanted to fight terrorism, they would change their foreign policy and stop exploiting other countries.
Bombing: Afghanistan, Iraq, most of the countries where "terrorists" are coming from.
Exploitation: Look at the effects of the economic policies which the IMF/World Bank have imposed on many developing nations to open up "free markets."
And my argument has nothing to do with whether people are forced to watch the webcams. The Gestapo didn't force anyone to denounce their neighbors. It's simply the attitude that certain systems foster.
Exactly. I wouldn't have a problem with the software detection system either really. It's just the public attitude that this is bound to encourage. A lot of people are already looking at the wrong places to blame all of our societal issues. This is just going to allow politicians to scapegoat illegal immigrants even more.
That's not a good analogy. A better analogy would be if the government set up cameras in residential areas and streamed the feeds over the internet for anyone to watch; and below the stream they put a number to dial to report illegal/suspicious activities by your neighbors and such. This implentation of public surveilence would encourage people to spy on each other and fosters a general atmosphere of paranoia and mutual suspicion. It would cause people to be naturally suspicious of their neighbors. Afterall, why else would there be a need to watch them with video surveilence so closely?
Also, Ayn Rand is the founder of objectivism (which is a morally bankrupt and fundamentally flawed philosophy that has little to do with objectivity) and a staunch advocate of capitalism (which objectivism tries to justify morally/philosophically). Perhaps you should actually read some of writing of a person whose name you're gonna drop. A more appropriate name in that sentence would be Hellen Keller.
In any case, it's not that I'm worried about illegal immigrants getting taken away by the police, it's that we could soon live in a society where people are all too eager to rat each other out and act as informants for the govenrment. We already have law enforcenment for that, we don't need the entire public spying on each other. It creates a very hostile/paranoid/suspicious atmosphere.
And quite frankly, those people hopping the border are generally living pretty hard lives already. This system would just encourage more xenophobic attitudes against people we should be more sympathetic towards. Instead of focusing on treating these people as criminals we should be asking why they need to resort to such desperate/extreme measures to make a better life for themselves here.
Why do you think so many Mexicans come here illegally? Do you think they prefer to come here illegally so they can be ineligible for healthcare, insurance, driver's licenses, financial aid for college, property ownership, all but the least desireable jobs, etc.? Do you think they prefer to be crammed into the poorly-ventilated cargo area of a smuggler's boat, ride in the cramped and suffocating trunk of a smuggler's car, or travel through the desert with inadequate food/water/shelter, and risk their very lives to come to the U.S. rather than simply present their passport and hop on a plane?
What did you do to properly earn your right to live and work in the U.S.?
With our current immigration policies it's just not possible for those that come here illegally to gain citizenship "properly." Why? Because they were born in the wrong country and socio-economic stratum. I guess what's written on the Statue of Liberty doesn't mean shit anymore:
I think someone who is willing to risk being killed by disease/heat/other bodily harm on their passage to the U.S. and risks being sold as a sex slave or forced into sweatshop labor has earned their right to live here even if they weren't privileged enough to be born in one of the countries where immigration into the U.S. isn't heavily restricted. These are individuals who have had a much harder life than most of the people who want to keep them out, and are much less fortunate than those who were able to gain citizenship. I think they're much more deserving than someone who was simply born here and never had to take those risks, make those sacrifices, or endure those hardships to be here.
You can sit there and smugly say that illegal immigrants ought to just "properly earn their right to live here" because you take the privileges you were born into for granted and don't realize that for some people, risking their lives to come here illegally is the only way for them to seek the opportunities and quality of life that you enjoy. And even after they get here illegally they still face hardships that you wouldn't know anything about, despite many of them being created by your sort of attitude.
Actually, I do live in Southern California, and I don't see illegal immigrants as much of a threat or problem. Would you care to give some specifics--eithers flaws in my argument or one of the issues I'm not comprehending?
That's not the issue I have with the act. I never said we should get rid of border patrols. If they instituted a law that ordered border patrol officers to shoot anyone that tried to cross illegally, that'd be trying to secure the borders too. But the method/fashion by which they're trying to achieve that objective, and the extent to which they're willing to go is a little ridiculous. I mean c'mon, having thousands of border patrol officers isn't enough, we need to get citizens to sit in front of their computers and watch for people trying to sneak in?
Personally, I'm against such a closed-border policy as we already have. I think that in itself is wrong and fosters/reflects a really unhealthy cultural attitude within our society. I'm one of those people who truly believes in the Thomas Paine quote "[My] country is the world, and my religion is to do good." But it's not the act of watching the borders with video surveilance that I'm particularly opposed to in this case. It's the fact that this act seems to encourage individuals to sit at their computers watching for people crossing the border illegally and be government informants. I mean, how is anyone going to tell that some illegal immigrant is a "terrorist"? They can't. And what are the chances that this is actually going to catch any terrorists? Probably close to nil. Do you know how many people we have patroling the Canadian border? Do you honestly think that terrorists will try to hop the Mexican border rather than simply forge a fake passport or come in from Canada? And what kind of people do you think are actually going to waste their time with this border-watch nonsense?
The kind of people this will encourage are what I'm worried about. It's sorta like if the government started offering money to people to report illegal immigrants. You could argue that it's to secure our nation, but that's a stretch. Sure it's just enforcing our borders, but the social consequences of encouraging people to rat out a really quite benign segment of our society just because they were born in a different country and wanted to make a better life for themselves here is much more detrimental to our society than any terrorist attack.
I just think that not bombing the shit out of other countries and exploiting developing nations would do much more for our national security than having the public monitor the borders. This act just perpetuates unfounded fears that merely serve as a political distraction while the real threats go unnoticed.
Right... so you're just making up rules as you go along. Where does that "rule of thumb" come from? How does it fit into the definition of public place or privacy? You can't seem to back up your position with any convincing arguments.
In anycase, why isn't it alright/legal to electronically tap your phone?
So the government setting up a camera in your home wouldn't be police-state-like as long as they used it for enforcing just laws? The power the Gestapo had over German society also had nothing to do with anti-semetic laws. The control it gave the Nazi regime came from the paranoia, self-spying, and turning the public into informants. It had nothing to do with the laws passed, but the cultural attitude that was fostered.
Whether the cameras are turned outward or inward, it still fosters a paranoid population of citizen informants--xenophobia isn't much of a consolation. And how is it not hysterical to think that illegal-immigration is such a threat to national security that it warrants having ordinary citizens monitoring border-activity at all times?
Whether your items are concealed in a backpack or you are in a tent doesn't change the fact that you are occupying a public space. You are still in public, and those are still matters of personal privacy. Your argument that visibility is what defines being in public is rather tenuous, but I'll let you have that one.
But do you believe that others have the right to monitor your cellphone conversations as long as you are in public (and openly visible)? Or more generally, if someone sets up a hidden mic in a public park and listens in on other people's conversations, are they not encroaching on one's basic rights to privacy? Would you not object to someone following you around wherever you go in public with a camera and broadcasting everything you do for others to see?
Exaggerating the threat posed by illegal immigrants (hardly an issue of national security) and persuading people to sit in front of their computers to monitor border activity isn't encouraging xenophobia (fear of outsiders)?
And spying is defined as watching the activities of others without their knowing/consent. If the individuals on cops didn't sign release forms, then it would be spying in a sense. It has nothing to do with it being a public act or not. I could follow you around all day in public and spy on you as long as I'm watching you without you knowing.
I think you may be confusing the concept of "privacy" with something else, perhaps "invisibility".
When you are out in public, you can expect to share the public space with others. The concept of privacy means the freedom from unsanctioned intrusions--whether you are in public or not does have any bearing on that freedom.
If you want to camp out somewhere in the woods for the weekend, just because you're in a public space doesn't mean others can barge into your tent and start snapping pictures of you and your girlfriend or your wife. If you want to carry a bunch of porno magazines in your backpack as you walk through downtown, you have the right to do so without everyone knowing that you're carrying them--that is privacy.
Likewise, if I want to take a girl on a date somewhere, I have the right to privacy to not have that date broadcasted on the internet for all to see, even if we are going on a date in public. By taking my date to a restaurant or other public place, I am not sanctioning to have my date recorded on video or broadcasted on the internet. Using a public bathroom or changing room doesn't mean that I relinquish my right to privacy in those public facilities.
The whole argument that privacy doesn't exist in public places is just ignorant conflation of two unrelated ideas.
A slippery slope argument can be valid if there is a logical mechanism comparing the two events. If you don't believe that individuals have the right to privacy in public places, then what is wrong with having surveilence in all public spaces? If you believe there shouldn't be surveilence in certain public spaces, then you have just contradicted yourself.
Simply screaming "slippery slope! OMG!" doesn't refute the points I've raised.
So you want to live in a world where one only has privacy when one is in their own home? Should we put up surveilance cameras to cover every inch of public space? Should people not be allowed to have some privacy when they go camping in the woods or mountains or go to the beach? Is it okay for others to peak in on you when you're in a public restroom? Is it okay for the feds to listen in on your cellphone conversations as long as you're in a public place?
Being in public doesn't mean you have no right to privacy. Being in public just means you are in a shared space with others, where one can expect to interact with others, where everyone has a right to be. It doesn't have anything to do with surrending your right to privacy. Your private life isn't just private when you're in your own home. Your employer doesn't have the right to spy on your private life just because you're at the mall or at a public park. Same goes for the government.
Unwanted surveilence is a form of harassment, and just because you are in a public place doesn't mean you have to be subjected to it. If you enter onto someone's private property, and they have surveilence equipment, then you agreed to the surveilence by entering onto their property. But one should be able to go out in public and not expect to be under constant surveilance.
It's utterly moronic to think that the concept of privacy only exists within one's own home. Is it ok for the government to mount a camera in front of every person's frontdoor and monitor who you socialize with? Is it ok for them to monitor what books you check out at the public library or what stores/public establishments you visit? If you see someone wearing a backpack in public, do they have to show you the contents of their backpack if you ask just because they're in public?
Here's a clue: just because two different words/phrases share a word or root-word doesn't mean they're talking about the same concept. Like, if someone dies from taking a pain-killer it doesn't mean that the pharmacutical company can't get sued. The opposite of public space is private space, but privacy is an entirely other concept.
So you think that police state does not exist as long as big brother turns the citizenry into its watchdogs?
Guess again.
The Gestapo didn't have extensive networks of undercover spies to check up on German citizens. In fact, the only undercover spies they empoyed were used for the surveilance of underground socialist groups. The way they kept tabs on the public was through voluntary denunciations submitted to local Gestapo offices by ordinary citizens. That's how they chose who to arrest, how they monitored what was going on in German society, how they kept people in a perpetual state of fear, and how the Nazis were able to maintain control over German society.
This act may not be directed against American citizens, but it's another step towards posturing our culture to be more accepting of fascist policies. Not only is it promoting xenophobia, but it also encourages/trains American citizens to spy on others. Today it's our international neighbors, tomorrow maybe it's our domestic hispanic/arab/non-caucasian population, and then who knows where that paranoia and suspicion will spread to?
If anyone needs to be monitored more carefully by the American public, it's our government officials who have sold out the American people to their corporate masters. This is just one more distraction to keep Americans from addressing the real crisis that our nation is facing.
You could say the same about heroin, alcohol, mairjuana, sex, or anything else that people get addicted to. It's their own fault that they get addicted, but people should still be warned about the addiciton potential of those substances/activities. It isn't denying personal responsibility, it's acknowledging realities that have been experienced by millions of people.
Just cause cellphone manufacturers are working on new cellphone features doesn't mean that cellphone service providers aren't trying to improve service.
Also, people who don't want expensive phones with robust features can get cheap ones that have minimal function. As has been brought up many times, there are plenty of options for people who don't want extra features, so this is all a moot argument. The only reason consumers would be disatisifed with their phones because of having too many "superfluous" features is because they're an idiot.
You can easily go into any cellphone store and buy a phone with only the basic features. Even if you got your phone from signing a long-term contract they still provide bottom-line phones without any fancy features. The only reason people are still complaining is because they chose to go with a phone with all the extra features and are now complaining pointlessly because they were too dumb to realize that they didn't want those features. Well, too bad for those people. Mobile phone manufacturers shouldn't stop making advanced phones because some people are idiots and don't know what they want.
This is akin to saying that airlines shouldn't provide kosher meals because I'm a goddamn retard and I keep ordering a kosher meal even though I don't want one, and the only way I'll stop is if they simply remove that option--it's fucking ridiculous.
But they're run by godless liberals. Most conservatives would rather die than to support such an "evil" organization.
Are you serious? So you think that because the law was incorrectly enforced in one case that murder should be legalized? Well, let's legalize robbery and rape as well then since I'm sure just as many individuals have been wrongfully imprisoned for those crimes also.
Or maybe the more rational approach would be to address what actually went wrong in that situation: incorrect interepretation/enforcement of the law. Instead of legalizing murder (do I even need to explain why this is a stupid idea?), maybe the decision should be appealed and the judge who passed that decision should be investigated for incompetence--if what you claimed to have happen is in fact accurate.
In most countries there's a difference between murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide. These legal definitions are put in place so that the law can't be interpreted askewed and enforced differently from their original intent. So there's no reason to legalize murder just because one judge--supposedly--mistook justifiable homicide for murder.
Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the original quote, which was a statement about persecution. The original quote meant that in a society that doesn't stand up to the persecution of targeted minorities by an oppressive regime, no one is safe. Protecting society from murderers is not a form of persecution, nor is it a characteristic of an oppressive regime. Protecting society from murderers isn't an injustice that will snowball if let to persist. The logic simply doesn't work applied in the context you're using it in. If you're going to use a quote to demonstrate a point, atleast try to understand its meaning.
I call bullshit. Either you just pulled those numbers out of your ass or those places you "checked" do piss-poor quality work. Commercial quality DVD-9's cost atleast ~$2 per unit to manufacture and print the discs themselves, packaging and assembly (which are sometimes necessary to do by hand, especially if you want to include things such as external obie strips) costs atleast $1-2 per unit. So that's ~$3 minimum if you find a cheap place and only use simple inserts on light-weight paper. The Chris Cunningham collection happens to come with a 24-page booklet of illustrations/photos/stills which is printed on moderately heavy gloss/matte paper enclosed in a heavy card stock. The booklet itself is of pretty high quality, as with the packaging and the actual DVD. Adding on the cost of the booklet the per unit price for the publishing company is guaranteed to be atleast ~$5 by a moderate estimate.
A DVD made for less than $1 per unit might pass for a medium-sized business that needs them for internal purposes or for distributing cheap video-pamphlets, but for a business that deals primarily in CDs and DVDs they would not fly. In fact, the prices you give are more along the lines of unit prices for CDs in regular jewel cases, and nowhere near the cost of DVD manufacturing costs.
Also, I happen to have some experience designing CD/DVD artwork & layouts, and I do in fact own a copy of the Chris Cunningham DVD myself. The design, quality, and artwork of the inserts, booklets, along with the DVD contents all happen to be superb. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it would behoove you to just give it a rest.
My guess is you've probably never seen a cheap poorly printed/packaged CD or DVD and have never worked in a business that deals exclusively with those types of digital media. Perhaps if you were selling crap-quality pirated DVDs like those you find being sold by Asian street vendors, you could use $1.03 packaged DVDs, but not if you work in the music business and digital media is your primary product.
Yea, you anticipated that I would mention a pertinent detail that stands in contradiction to your position, but simply by ignoring that reality and saying "it's pedantic to say this" doesn't refute it. It just shows that you like to conveniently ignore facts that contradict you.
And for someone who thinks he has such an astute understanding of how the music business works, you sure seem to be pretty oblivious to the economics of merchandising. Most professionally done music videos cost around $5000-6000 to $50,000-60,000 to make, depending on how big the band is. A DVD, including packaging, usually costs about $4 to $9 per unit to manufacture in bulk. So having 10,000 DVDs manufactured easily costs more than the original production costs of the video--or did you think that once a music video is shot, the label can just pull packaged DVDs out of thin air?
Now, why would a record label have all these DVDs manufactured and stocked in retail stores if there weren't a demand for them? Why would companies like Palm Pictures license these works from the artists and labels to feature them on DVDs if no one buys them? Do you think Palm and other studios/production companies just wants to pay Warped Records, Sony BMG, etc. to 'advertise' for them?
You've done about as much debunking as a creationist saying "don't give me any of that evolution crap" in an argument about human origin. And just because you don't recognize music videos as creative works in their own right doesn't make mentioning their artistic merits and entertainment value irrelevant. How can it be irrelevant when we're arguing about whether music videos are creative works having their own 'artistic' merits or merely advertisements devoid of any intrinsic 'entertainment' value?
The fact that 'art' is neither a factor in the OP's claim nor yours regarding a product of the 'music' industry is exactly why you're both wrong. But I guess since I disagree with the OP I must be off-topic--what a tactful way to weasel out of the argument. But I guess if you STILL can't understand the difference between promotional content and advertising, then there's really no use in trying to explain it to you...
What does patent reforms have to do with the New Deal? What part of the proposal increases the role of government? How would reducing the role of government improve the patent system?
Well, that is what the argument is about: whether music videos are mere advertisements or if they have intrinsic artistic/entertainment value. If you can't give a constructive argument against what I've said, then simply don't reply. All you're doing now is trolling with ad hominem attacks and immature retorts.
I could just as well post:
However, I choose to back up my position with reasoned arguments and by pointing out the gaping holes in your reasoning. But apparently you still don't get it.
Additionally, Chris Cunningham's Rubber Johnny video was originally commissioned as a promotional clip for the new Aphex Twin album. However, the band and the director liked the concept so much that they decided to expand it into a full-length music video and feature it on its own DVD. The content is so disturbing to some that it was banned by many networks and doesn't get any play on any major music television networks, and pretty much the only people who see the video are those who buy/download the DVD for its own sake. Clearly the director & the band weren't only motivated by commercial interests to create the music video. Calling music videos for bands like Aphex Twin, Marilyn Manson, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, the Cure, and many others, mere advertisements is an insult to the band and to the directors. There's nothing about the format that precludes it from having intrinsic artistic and entertainment value.