- Finding the devil has stolen your soul - Losing all meaningful connection with the rest of humanity - Being unable to tell a decent joke - Waiting staff hating you from behind their smiles
I believe most people going into the industry find these risks quite acceptable.
Yes, I've heard the Broken Window Fallacy. It's about artificial stimuli such as deficit spending and protectionism. It has nothing to do with this story.
If you're going to come across bitter, best to at least sound well informed...
You're not fucking blind - you can use a device with a 3.7" screen. So a pathetic whining brat struggling to see through your self-pitying tears maybe, but not blind. So you're short sighted. Join the club. It would be really funny at this point if you wanted to get in to the whole game of "who is more visually impaired?".
"Zooming and panning is NOT a substitute for raw screen area and pixel density."
- So what, you just download Google Maps for the entire planet and look closely at the bit you're interested in?
"Look at TVs. Look at portable media players. Look at the iPad."
- Great examples! Every single one about 200ppi or less, used at a distance greater than 12", and with significantly lower resolution than pictures taken with a decent camera (e.g. 1,920 * 1080p TV vs 4,272 * 2,848 pixel picture). Some people might say that when making a point about using a bigger screen to avoid zooming, these would be incredibly fucking stupid examples to give. But I say you must be a genius visiting from another reality where it makes sense.
"Who the fuck came up with the 12" inch rule?"
- No one. It's not even a rule. But as a guideline, it is simply an observation of the reality the rest of us live in. Try staying for a while. It's fun, honest. You might even learn how to speak to people.
Listen, I know you're probably real pleased with your journey to this world so far. Figuring out that a TV screen is larger than a mobile phone must have been a real achievement, coming from a place where 1080 is more than 2848 and all. But there's some tricky stuff you need to get to grips with, like being able to understand two sentences at a time. Entire paragraphs, even. Here's an example:
"Not to mention when using a computing device rather than print, zoom is a reasonable substitute for taking a closer look. So do screens need to get better than 300ppi?"
Humans use this thing called context. It helps deal with complex concepts where individual sentences aren't enough. I mean, you could just read the first sentence above on its own, but that's kind of stupid. On its own, you might start thinking about devices with less than 300ppi. That would lead to some pretty moronic thinking, thinking about phones with lower resolution, or something really dumb like TV screens in a thread about high density computer displays. Not good - people will wonder what's wrong with you. Your disguise might not hold up.
Words like "reasonable" are a dead giveaway, too. That pretty much tells you the discussion is going to require some subtlety. Be sure you're capable of understanding the conversation before diving in.
Not everyone's going to think you're a genius. So my tips: learn how to count, learn how to read, cut the swearing so you don't draw to much attention to yourself. And enjoy your stay.
Well, if you've got all the patience of a two year old looking at a marshmallow, expect to get fucking sick of a lot of things in life. Just don't expect anyone to care.
If you take your head out your arse for a second, you'll have noticed we weren't talking about you and your phone. Once you're past 300ppi, where the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to notice any improvements, then zooming or holding the screen 6" away are your only options. And you'd complain just as much about having to move the screen closer, I reckon. So zoom is a reasonable substitute to wanting 1200ppi.
Still, I'm sure you've got a lengthy list of engineering and manufacturing achievements with which you'll embarrass me for thinking you're an idiot. I quake in anticipation.
But the first thing I think of in terms of looking at fine detail is moving my eye closer to the page. I would not expect to do any of these things with a mobile phone, at least not for many years when such high quality might become available.
Not to mention that when using a computing device rather than print, zoom is a reasonable substitute for taking a closer look. So do screens need to get better than 300ppi?
Except of course it makes perfect sense. It's a simple way to relate the resolution of the screen (over 300ppi) to the fact that most people's eyes can't see the dots at over 300dpi in typical use cases. Pretty simple stuff.
Calling it the Achilles Heel Display - that wouldn't make sense.
Anyone who "hates the fucking iPad" because it is an evolution of a still-quite-new mobile platform has psychological issues. There's no other explanation.
which news outlet would pick up on the Pirate party's view of this story?.. we prioritize on issues that give us the most visibility.. I just checked the PPUK front page
Oh, grow up. A blog post takes a few minutes. Here's out it works - look at the various evidence available, note all the many and various things happening in the world, spot the overwhelming concentration of the Pirate Party on their core issue around copyright, the internet, digital media etc. If after that you can still honestly say all three "core" issues are equally important, then you exactly the kind of unreliable, divorced-from-reality person we seem to end up with for politicians.
You seem to need some kind of statistical analysis of just how much significant content there is regarding geek issues compared to the others. Well done, you can latch onto isolated facts like a terrier with a bone. This is exactly the kind of smart-arse-schoolboy-on-Slashdot level of thinking that makes the PPUK a bad bet in my eyes.
Really? We've got things on our agenda like abolition of drug patents to make medication cheaper
Yes, really. The Green's environment / sustainability concern is definitely a bigger picture vision than yours. There's a reason climate change is a huge international story. In the body of your manifesto, the bit on drug patents is buried in the small print. Blink and you'll miss it. It's a useful debating point for you and little more.
the same lib-dems who made the digital economy bill worse
The issues at the heart of Amendment 120A are twofold. First, it replaces Clause 17, which would have given the secretary of state unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. These powers would not have been used to do anything but make the situation worse. This means that it is in fact an improvement on the bill. Based on the facts, it's just bullshit to say it makes it worse.
Second, it takes a valid concern about law breaking, and attempts to address in a specific manner. I think copyright needs reform, I don't agree with web blocking. But a specific law that could get addressed in future, particularly with major corporate interests against it? That amendment in fact makes it possible, so what the Lib Dems have done is not exactly the sin you make it out to be.
But, as my original premise was I wonder whether PPUK membership is particularly comfortable dealing with complex realities, I don't expect you to believe any of that for a second.
So anyway, your policies are ones I support. In time - I don't believe in this election - the Pirate Party may come across as a more mature group. So go participate in democracy, vote for what you believe in. It's more than most of us do.
what "serious" parties are there that cover the same policies as PPUK? There simply isn't one.
Thing is, if you stop and think, then the most obvious implication of this is that the PPUK's policies are therefore not serious ones. If you think and do a bit of reading, you realise you can drop copyright reform as an issue (you don't think it's important anyway), and then the Lib Dem's policies do in fact cover some of the PPUK policies. In short: your talking out your arse.
Your assertion that PPUK is simply a "single issue party" is nothing more than that: a personal assertion
No, try the thinking trick again. If it were nothing more than just an assertion, there would be no supporting logic or facts. But the three core ideas readily reduce to a platform addressing copyright reform, or digital rights as was mentioned in a separate post. The simplest solution is often the best one, so mine is not an assertion but a conclusion based upon the facts. Besides, look at this page: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Manifesto. Clearly the over-riding inspiration is intellectual property related matters.
The three issues that they are campaigning on are clearly stated on the PPUK website and the official manifesto.
Assuming of course that these documents possess both intellectual honesty and rigour. I do not believe they do, for reasons already given.
I'm a member because Privacy and Freedom of Speech are important to me.
Even though there is a more established party that is far more likely to get results on those issues? Why?
Could you back up that allegation with some facts?
Sure. There is a direct lineage from the PPUK through the International Pirate Party to the Swedish Pirate Party to the Pirate Bay, whose prominence is widely known to have driven the crucial early membership of the Party, and whose legal advisor became a Pirate Party board member. The Pirate Bay was found guilty of profiting from assisting from copyright violations in 2009.
Of course, if you did think copyright reform was important, you would have an honest argument in favour of the Pirate Bay. There's at least one I've made mysefl in the past, seeing as I do believe in copyright reform. As it is, you seem to be taking more of a "wilful ignorance" approach.
until now we've not had a way to respond to news stories
So that's why wi-fi catches your eye, but for instance the John Venables story plastered all of the news, with the comment pages full of privacy vs. disclosure debates, didn't register? The fact remains that it simply doesn't seem coincidental that none of the stories on the site on are really about freedom of speech or privacy, but a narrow set of interests.
As a PPUK member I can tell you that I believe in all three core ideals
Yes, so do I - amongst other critical issues right now. But when a party born of an anti-copyright movement has three "core ideas" that all directly flow from the central theme of copyright reform - it appears to be a classic case of the simplest explanation most likely being the correct one. There is simply no reason whatsoever of any kind to believe that there is anything more than a single theme driving the party. You know, like UKIP has a full platform but everyone knows it's really just got one idea.
The Green Party also really just has one core idea, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Sustainability runs through their entire platform. They take a single issue, but demonstrate the importance of that idea by showing its relevance to so many areas. It isn't surprising the Pirate Party has not been able to do that with their central concern of copyrights - it has a rather more limited vision.
So I won't join, because the Pirate Party is fundamentally flawed. The idea of a political party whose members mostly come from a similar domain of knowledge is kind of offputting, too. Oh, and if Green doesn't appeal, the Lib Dems and their Freedom Bill would deliver a number of the PPUK policy goals. Your efforts will have more effect feeding into an existing political machine rather than a new one. Really, why take a the less effective route to realise your goals?
The problem isn't the wi-fi story - it's the absence of any substantial, non-tech stories that's the problem.
I did read your manifesto. And I still suspect you're nothing but a single issue party whose motivation is based on self-interest (either copyright or ego based, depending on the individual), but with enough smarts to bring other issues to bear try and justify their existence.
It doesn't matter whether you expect to field a candidate, let alone win a seat, let alone form a government. Your policies would have economic impact, and on public spending. Given that these are big topics, and you make no real attempt to address them - well, you just can't be taken seriously, can you?
I guess this all sounds rather harsh, it's just I think you need to be more than a nice enough person with a couple of good ideas to justify asking people for money. I happen to care quite a bit about all three policies and I'd prefer them to be treated seriously. You're more likely to reduce them to laughing stock.
Not only am I not wilfully ignorant, if you'd read my post you would notice that I reference all of their three issues. However, seeing as I'm capable of thinking for myself, I'm not obliged to simply accept their assertions. It seems a fair criticism to describe the Pirate Party as a single issue party, only interested in privacy and freedom of speech to the extent that it helps them in their primary goal. The Pirate Party has its roots in individuals making a profit from flouting copyright law, and using privacy and freedom of speech arguments as legal defences.
I don't disagree with their policies. But I don't have to believe they support them beyond their own self-interest, either. I don't think it's any coincidence that a party with a supposed interest in freedom of speech and privacy has nothing other than technology related headlines. If you're more worried about the other two issues, then give your money and support to Liberty, or a serious party. Because how could a party so transparently limited in its outlook have any real influence?
So, to paraphrase you post - if you don't think doing something useful about privacy and freedom of speech is important, then don't degenerate [sic] those of us who genuinely do.
Most of all, I'm hugely in favour of anyone voting for any party other than Conservative or Labour. The two party state approach we have in the UK is causing huge amounts of damage. Voter apathy is completely understandable - I didn't vote last time myself - but let's face it, apathy is never impressive. Vote if you can, there is a genuine opportunity to shake up the established, economy-and-freedom destroying order of things.
Second, I'm broadly in favour of the policies of the Pirate Party.
But third - if you vote Pirate Party, I would wonder if you're handling the whole process of being a grown adult particularly well.
The driving force behind the party seems to me to be selfishness. They seem to desire these freedoms not because of the bad things that happen, but what they get out of it. Primarily filesharing because you might get free music and movies, and surveillance and freedom of speech concerns because they directly support that primary goal - with the added benefit of giving you the appearance of some moral high ground.
Nothing about financial reform, war or the economy. Nothing about the environment, taxes or the spending thereof. It might even just be people starting a political party as an egotistical exercise. I can't say I'm inspired. I know they have graphic designers and programmers as leaders, but wonder if they are employed on a work-for-hire basis. Nothing wrong with that - but it does mean that while you are a creative person, your income is not dependent on the actual creative industries, or even copyright law to a large extent. So their professed support for the creative industry is no more credible than their support for freedom of speech.
Still, copyright definitely needs to be severely reformed, and reducing it to 5 years is exactly the right degree to take reform to. And I'm definitely all for voting for smaller, even single-issue parties as a way of voting for something you believe in. Voting for the Green Party, for instance, is a vote that won't win but I can respect (in those constituencies where it has a chance - vote Green!). Voting Pirate Party however is self-interest plus silliness, at a once-in-a-generation opportunity to see the established duopoly hurting : temptingly fertile grounds for taking the piss down the pub.
Rather than simple assertions and "that old thing" wisecracks, perhaps you should explain how the right to free speech means that, in this case, Doogan has no right to free speech?
Not at all? Here's one clue: "extreme left-wing" is an emotive term, lacking in objectivity when you compare the Huffington Post to extreme sites like DailyKos on left, or Powerline on right.
Headlines show bias pretty quickly...
In which case, you should try reading the headlines. Currently, it is "WHITE HOUSE STRUGGLES TO CONTRAST WALL STREET AND AUTO BAILOUTS" as they criticize the Obama administration for being biased towards Wall St. The sub-headline is "More Financial News: Stocks Fall On New Plan For Automakers... Ford Shuts Down Chicago Plant... Morgan Stanley Suggests Major Stock Sale... CBS Stock Falls On Analyst Downgrade, Auto Industry Fears" - all fairly negative.
Then the top three featured blogs (you know, the columnists that set the tone of the site) start with these comments:
"Critical and constructive analysis of President Obama's policies is certainly more useful than our Black Media's continued uncritical celebration of our new president."
"Fear and anger are rising in Michigan. New York gets what it wants, when it wants it, from Washington; Michigan gets slapped in the face."
"I fear that these columns have been too polite. What we have is something perilously close to a dictatorship of the Fed and the Treasury, acting in the interests of Wall Street."
I don't think anyone but the most deluded think that Obama has actually made no mistakes and has acted perfectly since he's been in office, do they?
No. But you no have no comprehension skills if you think that is view of the Huffington Post. Although I guess if you can only think in the black & white terms of perfection, and ignore facts that don't support your viewpoint so that you can talk about the headlines yet ignore them at the same time, then you might not really appreciate what flamebait is.
By that logic, then in the past it would have been a simple matter to say that the "weakness" of creationism and ID is that they are not based on science, are not scientific explanations, and thus can not be discussed. But it didn't work that way before, so why expect it to now?
If the board had a genuine intent to either keep ID out of the classroom, or restrict content and discussions to established scientific theory, then they could have chosen much clear wording than what appears to be nothing but a re-phrasing of the language specifically intended to get creationism and ID into science class.
If the goal is in fact to keep religion in the science class, then real science is in trouble because this ruling still provides an excuse to insist that ID is introduced for critical examination. Let's not forget, the goal of the creationist is not to win a logical argument, but to win grassroots level, political battles to twist what kids learn in school to their personal agenda. We all know that what kids learn is not necessarily what the teacher is trying to teach them. Creationists could care less if science class gets bogged down in pointless discussion, because learning about science (or even critical thinking) simply isn't a priority for them.
No matter how often you read about such stories, I'm always saddened by things like this. "Educators" wanting to impose their own opinions on subjects which they don't understand is bad enough. But to be, as I see it, fundamentally dishonest and sly (in the public eye, no less) in trying to get your way is such a betrayal of the future of the children you should feel responsible for. The big lesson here for kids won't be about science or religion, it will be about how to use political influence to get what you can't justify on its own merits. And how the truth isn't as important as, say, a good Christian might like to think it is.
On a lighter note, they've provided a fantastic example of thinking by committee. The fundamental decision they've made appears to have been to change "strengths and weaknesses" to "all sides". Rather than the outcome of the vote, I'd be more interested in the suicide rates of people forced to endure such discussions...
"If they were, we would call them lies. Libels and lies may be close but they are not the same."
This is a court case we're talking about, not playground gossip. Lying isn't illegal, so clearly we would not call them that. Using the American Heritage Dictionary for the definitions, what are the substantial differences between "a false publication" (libel) and "a false statement" (lie)? Because frankly it sounds like you're indulging in weasel words and slippery logic. It only gets worse when you completely lose perspective and argue that only by a court sentence can someone be considered to have done something wrong.
Personally, I like words to have meaning and the courts to apply the law in a predictable fashion. You suggest using the rumor mill as a form of punishment, and disregarding the truth in favor of someone with the chutzpah to use the legal system to get compensation under obscure clauses quite possibly written to limit the freedom of speech. That's the kind of thing that makes me contribute regularly to civil liberties groups.
It's interesting you've got a thing about the "ruling class". As my post made clear, one reason I'm against this ruling is that I don't like highly compensated people trusted with other people's money shying away from taking responsibility for their own actions. You however support the idea of changing the law so that telling the truth about breaking the rules is a bad thing. Maybe the ruling class doesn't really bother you that much.
"The word "libel" isn't as important as the public knowing that an act is wrong."
Don't be ridiculous. This is a libel case, and as the article points out, to change the meaning of the word is to change the meaning of the law. To say the word isn't important is to disregard the main point of the article.
With respect to false light, how is your argument different to my closing paragraph where I point out that the individual may in fact have been wronged, in which case they should argue the case on its merits e.g. as a false light claim? You are also incorrect in your understanding of law - false light is related to privacy tort, not defamation. Further, false light is not supported by all courts. Clearly this issue is not as simple as you think, and certainly deserving of a more nuanced opinion than self-righteous statements about two wrongs not making a right.
"Letting Staples get off sends the message to companies that it's okay to single out workers for public humiliation if you fire them"
Conversely, finding Staples guilty would send the message that no matter what rules a worker breaks in their own self-interest, they would still have a right to privacy. I don't see how either of these simplistic arguments could be expected to hold true in all circumstances.
You never actually say what it is that "bothers" you about my post. Was it the way I pointed out a couple of sides to the issue, even admitted to making assumptions and an element of emotion rather logic, rather than simply stating a simple one-sided black & white opinion ladens with value judgments?
Wow, this story covers pretty much all the angles that annoy me about bad legal decisions:
Suddenly a word that had a well known meaning in the real world (i.e. libels are lies) has a different meaning in law.
The plaintiff is complaining about a situation in which they were the ones doing something fundamentally wrong.
The truth seems to be less important than the ability to use weasel words and slippery logic.
It encourages bad behaviour e.g. in this case sales people with expense accounts who feel they don't need to keep records, and should suffer no adverse effects if they get caught.
I'm a consultant, I claim expenses, I work with sales people who also claim expenses, and I don't see a need to be naive here. If you're sacking someone for what is essentially a free-loading lack of integrity, I don't you should be obliged by law to keep that fact hidden. True, normally it's a more respectful "John is moving on to new challenges" kind of message that goes out, but it shouldn't be illegal to let people know that bad behaviour can be caught and punished. Particularly in job roles that are typically well compensated in the context of any given employer, and where they are effectively entrusted with other people's money.
I'm assuming here that the "sloppy" record keeping means money has been claimed that wasn't supported by an appropriate paper trail. Because who sacks people for claiming less expenses than they were due? That said, it's possible this was a vindictive sacking over a minor infringement made in genuine error. But if that's the case, fight the legal battle on those grounds rather than trying to set a precedent that could have far broader impact. I gotta say my gut feel is that people who distort language so much as to say libel means telling the truth are not to be trusted...
Your words were "pushes traditional media aside", which neither means nor implies "more exposure". "Pushes aside" is synonymous with "replaces", so my paraphrasing is perfectly valid. Try taking responsibility for what you write.
I assumed (poor assumption on Slashdot, I know) that everyone read the article and would realize the the labels are already getting a cut of the profits.
An even poorer assumption is that tired attempts at sarcasm are a good substitute for rational thinking. Yes, they were already getting a cut. You're simply assuming that Warner is wrong to assert that it was "staggeringly low", and this particular point might remind you that reading is not the same as comprehending. Perhaps like your buying anecdote, you are inclined to see your own opinions as carrying serious weight. Get over yourself.
Negotiating a bigger split is not inherently wrong. I'm not inclined to give a free pass to either side of a multinational corporate dispute. Effectively asserting that a deal should never be re-negotiated is naive. The question remains: how did you get to your late 30s thinking that every deal is perfect first time?
Oh really? Wrote and performed the songs in question did they? If your argument is that copyright shouldn't exist, that's one argument. Is that the one you're making, or are you disputing who is in fact producing the content?
stargate.wikia.com is not a fanclub because its also hosted by a large corporation.
Bad example. Are any of the articles actually written by an employee of the hosting corporation? Is the website itself owned by a large corporate? Do the people that run the website also get the ad revenue? Would a court see the substantial work that has gone into writing the articles, and its not-for-profit nature, as granting fair use of the Stargate content? Etc.
as digital media gains more traction, it pushes traditional media to the side.
In other words, it does not provide more exposure, it is simply replacing exposure that already exists. And if you're listening to your favourite playlists, you're being exposed to less new music than just sticking on the radio.
Of course not, I never claimed that they should receive *no* compensation
Yes you did:
The labels don't mind paying MTV to play their videos, but they want Youtube to pay them?
Once again, the record industry just doesn't get it.
If what you said only minutes ago doesn't count, you can hardly blame a re-negotiation after 2 years. How on earth did you make it to your late 30's thinking that every deal is perfect first time?!
CD sales are flatlined, YouTube popularity is growing, and yet I'm supposed to think your behaviour is representative? I reckon the guy with the more self-centred argument should be the one to find data to support his case, not the one challenging it.
Here's my anecdote: I buy music, I buy it after seeing acts on YouTube, and now I don't go to record stores as much as I used to. My patterns have changed but my expenditure has changed only due to changes to disposable income, not internet exposure. I've never encountered this effect whereby digital media provides more exposure to music than the radio, friend's mix tapes, watching TV, going to gigs, music press, references in books, receiving presents, etc.
this Youtube deal is irrelevant to them - it's not like they will suddenly stop pirating music just because they can't see videos on Youtube. I'm referring only to those consumers that actually are willing to pay money for music.
You really should stop focusing on yourself. Of course people who refuse to pay are relevant. If they go to YouTube, which is popular and free, then Warner could get money.
The industry can either embrace how people want to find and consume music and find ways to monetize it, or simply drive consumers underground. Maybe people are willing to pay for music if it's available the way they want it.
Here's an idea - provide access via sites such as YouTube and negotiate a split of the ad revenue. Sounds good to me!
Of course, I don't know what terms they are seeking, but based on the payout the industry was seeking from online broadcasters, it was likely exorbitant.
Excellent point, but not one that supports your argument that Warner should just aim for free exposure. Are you changing your position?
Actually, according to the article other companies are *not* allowing their content for free.
You didn't say asking for a split is fair, you said Warner was losing out on free advertising by not simply accepting whatever Google chooses to give them, which is an interesting approach to negotiation. The notion of "free advertising" makes no sense under one particular assumption, namely that online distribution via YouTube is in fact one of the products they see a market for. Whether it will prove true I don't know, but it seems an entirely reasonable assumption to me.
Not getting compensated by one of the biggest distributors of your product in the world is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the main ones are:
- Finding the devil has stolen your soul
- Losing all meaningful connection with the rest of humanity
- Being unable to tell a decent joke
- Waiting staff hating you from behind their smiles
I believe most people going into the industry find these risks quite acceptable.
Yes, I've heard the Broken Window Fallacy. It's about artificial stimuli such as deficit spending and protectionism. It has nothing to do with this story.
If you're going to come across bitter, best to at least sound well informed...
You're not fucking blind - you can use a device with a 3.7" screen. So a pathetic whining brat struggling to see through your self-pitying tears maybe, but not blind. So you're short sighted. Join the club. It would be really funny at this point if you wanted to get in to the whole game of "who is more visually impaired?".
"Zooming and panning is NOT a substitute for raw screen area and pixel density."
- So what, you just download Google Maps for the entire planet and look closely at the bit you're interested in?
"Look at TVs. Look at portable media players. Look at the iPad."
- Great examples! Every single one about 200ppi or less, used at a distance greater than 12", and with significantly lower resolution than pictures taken with a decent camera (e.g. 1,920 * 1080p TV vs 4,272 * 2,848 pixel picture). Some people might say that when making a point about using a bigger screen to avoid zooming, these would be incredibly fucking stupid examples to give. But I say you must be a genius visiting from another reality where it makes sense.
"Who the fuck came up with the 12" inch rule?"
- No one. It's not even a rule. But as a guideline, it is simply an observation of the reality the rest of us live in. Try staying for a while. It's fun, honest. You might even learn how to speak to people.
Listen, I know you're probably real pleased with your journey to this world so far. Figuring out that a TV screen is larger than a mobile phone must have been a real achievement, coming from a place where 1080 is more than 2848 and all. But there's some tricky stuff you need to get to grips with, like being able to understand two sentences at a time. Entire paragraphs, even. Here's an example:
"Not to mention when using a computing device rather than print, zoom is a reasonable substitute for taking a closer look. So do screens need to get better than 300ppi?"
Humans use this thing called context. It helps deal with complex concepts where individual sentences aren't enough. I mean, you could just read the first sentence above on its own, but that's kind of stupid. On its own, you might start thinking about devices with less than 300ppi. That would lead to some pretty moronic thinking, thinking about phones with lower resolution, or something really dumb like TV screens in a thread about high density computer displays. Not good - people will wonder what's wrong with you. Your disguise might not hold up.
Words like "reasonable" are a dead giveaway, too. That pretty much tells you the discussion is going to require some subtlety. Be sure you're capable of understanding the conversation before diving in.
Not everyone's going to think you're a genius. So my tips: learn how to count, learn how to read, cut the swearing so you don't draw to much attention to yourself. And enjoy your stay.
Well, if you've got all the patience of a two year old looking at a marshmallow, expect to get fucking sick of a lot of things in life. Just don't expect anyone to care.
If you take your head out your arse for a second, you'll have noticed we weren't talking about you and your phone. Once you're past 300ppi, where the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to notice any improvements, then zooming or holding the screen 6" away are your only options. And you'd complain just as much about having to move the screen closer, I reckon. So zoom is a reasonable substitute to wanting 1200ppi.
Still, I'm sure you've got a lengthy list of engineering and manufacturing achievements with which you'll embarrass me for thinking you're an idiot. I quake in anticipation.
But the first thing I think of in terms of looking at fine detail is moving my eye closer to the page. I would not expect to do any of these things with a mobile phone, at least not for many years when such high quality might become available.
Not to mention that when using a computing device rather than print, zoom is a reasonable substitute for taking a closer look. So do screens need to get better than 300ppi?
Except of course it makes perfect sense. It's a simple way to relate the resolution of the screen (over 300ppi) to the fact that most people's eyes can't see the dots at over 300dpi in typical use cases. Pretty simple stuff.
Calling it the Achilles Heel Display - that wouldn't make sense.
Anyone who "hates the fucking iPad" because it is an evolution of a still-quite-new mobile platform has psychological issues. There's no other explanation.
Oh, grow up. A blog post takes a few minutes. Here's out it works - look at the various evidence available, note all the many and various things happening in the world, spot the overwhelming concentration of the Pirate Party on their core issue around copyright, the internet, digital media etc. If after that you can still honestly say all three "core" issues are equally important, then you exactly the kind of unreliable, divorced-from-reality person we seem to end up with for politicians.
You seem to need some kind of statistical analysis of just how much significant content there is regarding geek issues compared to the others. Well done, you can latch onto isolated facts like a terrier with a bone. This is exactly the kind of smart-arse-schoolboy-on-Slashdot level of thinking that makes the PPUK a bad bet in my eyes.
Yes, really. The Green's environment / sustainability concern is definitely a bigger picture vision than yours. There's a reason climate change is a huge international story. In the body of your manifesto, the bit on drug patents is buried in the small print. Blink and you'll miss it. It's a useful debating point for you and little more.
The issues at the heart of Amendment 120A are twofold. First, it replaces Clause 17, which would have given the secretary of state unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. These powers would not have been used to do anything but make the situation worse. This means that it is in fact an improvement on the bill. Based on the facts, it's just bullshit to say it makes it worse.
Second, it takes a valid concern about law breaking, and attempts to address in a specific manner. I think copyright needs reform, I don't agree with web blocking. But a specific law that could get addressed in future, particularly with major corporate interests against it? That amendment in fact makes it possible, so what the Lib Dems have done is not exactly the sin you make it out to be.
But, as my original premise was I wonder whether PPUK membership is particularly comfortable dealing with complex realities, I don't expect you to believe any of that for a second.
So anyway, your policies are ones I support. In time - I don't believe in this election - the Pirate Party may come across as a more mature group. So go participate in democracy, vote for what you believe in. It's more than most of us do.
Thing is, if you stop and think, then the most obvious implication of this is that the PPUK's policies are therefore not serious ones. If you think and do a bit of reading, you realise you can drop copyright reform as an issue (you don't think it's important anyway), and then the Lib Dem's policies do in fact cover some of the PPUK policies. In short: your talking out your arse.
No, try the thinking trick again. If it were nothing more than just an assertion, there would be no supporting logic or facts. But the three core ideas readily reduce to a platform addressing copyright reform, or digital rights as was mentioned in a separate post. The simplest solution is often the best one, so mine is not an assertion but a conclusion based upon the facts. Besides, look at this page: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Manifesto. Clearly the over-riding inspiration is intellectual property related matters.
Assuming of course that these documents possess both intellectual honesty and rigour. I do not believe they do, for reasons already given.
Even though there is a more established party that is far more likely to get results on those issues? Why?
Sure. There is a direct lineage from the PPUK through the International Pirate Party to the Swedish Pirate Party to the Pirate Bay, whose prominence is widely known to have driven the crucial early membership of the Party, and whose legal advisor became a Pirate Party board member. The Pirate Bay was found guilty of profiting from assisting from copyright violations in 2009.
Of course, if you did think copyright reform was important, you would have an honest argument in favour of the Pirate Bay. There's at least one I've made mysefl in the past, seeing as I do believe in copyright reform. As it is, you seem to be taking more of a "wilful ignorance" approach.
So that's why wi-fi catches your eye, but for instance the John Venables story plastered all of the news, with the comment pages full of privacy vs. disclosure debates, didn't register? The fact remains that it simply doesn't seem coincidental that none of the stories on the site on are really about freedom of speech or privacy, but a narrow set of interests.
Yes, so do I - amongst other critical issues right now. But when a party born of an anti-copyright movement has three "core ideas" that all directly flow from the central theme of copyright reform - it appears to be a classic case of the simplest explanation most likely being the correct one. There is simply no reason whatsoever of any kind to believe that there is anything more than a single theme driving the party. You know, like UKIP has a full platform but everyone knows it's really just got one idea.
The Green Party also really just has one core idea, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Sustainability runs through their entire platform. They take a single issue, but demonstrate the importance of that idea by showing its relevance to so many areas. It isn't surprising the Pirate Party has not been able to do that with their central concern of copyrights - it has a rather more limited vision.
So I won't join, because the Pirate Party is fundamentally flawed. The idea of a political party whose members mostly come from a similar domain of knowledge is kind of offputting, too. Oh, and if Green doesn't appeal, the Lib Dems and their Freedom Bill would deliver a number of the PPUK policy goals. Your efforts will have more effect feeding into an existing political machine rather than a new one. Really, why take a the less effective route to realise your goals?
The problem isn't the wi-fi story - it's the absence of any substantial, non-tech stories that's the problem.
I did read your manifesto. And I still suspect you're nothing but a single issue party whose motivation is based on self-interest (either copyright or ego based, depending on the individual), but with enough smarts to bring other issues to bear try and justify their existence.
It doesn't matter whether you expect to field a candidate, let alone win a seat, let alone form a government. Your policies would have economic impact, and on public spending. Given that these are big topics, and you make no real attempt to address them - well, you just can't be taken seriously, can you?
I guess this all sounds rather harsh, it's just I think you need to be more than a nice enough person with a couple of good ideas to justify asking people for money. I happen to care quite a bit about all three policies and I'd prefer them to be treated seriously. You're more likely to reduce them to laughing stock.
Not only am I not wilfully ignorant, if you'd read my post you would notice that I reference all of their three issues. However, seeing as I'm capable of thinking for myself, I'm not obliged to simply accept their assertions. It seems a fair criticism to describe the Pirate Party as a single issue party, only interested in privacy and freedom of speech to the extent that it helps them in their primary goal. The Pirate Party has its roots in individuals making a profit from flouting copyright law, and using privacy and freedom of speech arguments as legal defences.
I don't disagree with their policies. But I don't have to believe they support them beyond their own self-interest, either. I don't think it's any coincidence that a party with a supposed interest in freedom of speech and privacy has nothing other than technology related headlines. If you're more worried about the other two issues, then give your money and support to Liberty, or a serious party. Because how could a party so transparently limited in its outlook have any real influence?
So, to paraphrase you post - if you don't think doing something useful about privacy and freedom of speech is important, then don't degenerate [sic] those of us who genuinely do.
Most of all, I'm hugely in favour of anyone voting for any party other than Conservative or Labour. The two party state approach we have in the UK is causing huge amounts of damage. Voter apathy is completely understandable - I didn't vote last time myself - but let's face it, apathy is never impressive. Vote if you can, there is a genuine opportunity to shake up the established, economy-and-freedom destroying order of things.
Second, I'm broadly in favour of the policies of the Pirate Party.
But third - if you vote Pirate Party, I would wonder if you're handling the whole process of being a grown adult particularly well.
The driving force behind the party seems to me to be selfishness. They seem to desire these freedoms not because of the bad things that happen, but what they get out of it. Primarily filesharing because you might get free music and movies, and surveillance and freedom of speech concerns because they directly support that primary goal - with the added benefit of giving you the appearance of some moral high ground.
Rendition, torture, police using CCTV footage for blackmail? All genuine problems. What's the kind of thing that worries the Pirate Party? Not getting their wi-fi access: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2010/feb/28/digital-economy-bill-will-kill-wifi-hotspots/.
Nothing about financial reform, war or the economy. Nothing about the environment, taxes or the spending thereof. It might even just be people starting a political party as an egotistical exercise. I can't say I'm inspired. I know they have graphic designers and programmers as leaders, but wonder if they are employed on a work-for-hire basis. Nothing wrong with that - but it does mean that while you are a creative person, your income is not dependent on the actual creative industries, or even copyright law to a large extent. So their professed support for the creative industry is no more credible than their support for freedom of speech.
Still, copyright definitely needs to be severely reformed, and reducing it to 5 years is exactly the right degree to take reform to. And I'm definitely all for voting for smaller, even single-issue parties as a way of voting for something you believe in. Voting for the Green Party, for instance, is a vote that won't win but I can respect (in those constituencies where it has a chance - vote Green!). Voting Pirate Party however is self-interest plus silliness, at a once-in-a-generation opportunity to see the established duopoly hurting : temptingly fertile grounds for taking the piss down the pub.
Rather than simple assertions and "that old thing" wisecracks, perhaps you should explain how the right to free speech means that, in this case, Doogan has no right to free speech?
Not at all? Here's one clue: "extreme left-wing" is an emotive term, lacking in objectivity when you compare the Huffington Post to extreme sites like DailyKos on left, or Powerline on right.
In which case, you should try reading the headlines. Currently, it is "WHITE HOUSE STRUGGLES TO CONTRAST WALL STREET AND AUTO BAILOUTS" as they criticize the Obama administration for being biased towards Wall St. The sub-headline is "More Financial News: Stocks Fall On New Plan For Automakers... Ford Shuts Down Chicago Plant... Morgan Stanley Suggests Major Stock Sale... CBS Stock Falls On Analyst Downgrade, Auto Industry Fears" - all fairly negative.
Then the top three featured blogs (you know, the columnists that set the tone of the site) start with these comments:
"Critical and constructive analysis of President Obama's policies is certainly more useful than our Black Media's continued uncritical celebration of our new president."
"Fear and anger are rising in Michigan. New York gets what it wants, when it wants it, from Washington; Michigan gets slapped in the face."
"I fear that these columns have been too polite. What we have is something perilously close to a dictatorship of the Fed and the Treasury, acting in the interests of Wall Street."
No. But you no have no comprehension skills if you think that is view of the Huffington Post. Although I guess if you can only think in the black & white terms of perfection, and ignore facts that don't support your viewpoint so that you can talk about the headlines yet ignore them at the same time, then you might not really appreciate what flamebait is.
By that logic, then in the past it would have been a simple matter to say that the "weakness" of creationism and ID is that they are not based on science, are not scientific explanations, and thus can not be discussed. But it didn't work that way before, so why expect it to now?
If the board had a genuine intent to either keep ID out of the classroom, or restrict content and discussions to established scientific theory, then they could have chosen much clear wording than what appears to be nothing but a re-phrasing of the language specifically intended to get creationism and ID into science class.
If the goal is in fact to keep religion in the science class, then real science is in trouble because this ruling still provides an excuse to insist that ID is introduced for critical examination. Let's not forget, the goal of the creationist is not to win a logical argument, but to win grassroots level, political battles to twist what kids learn in school to their personal agenda. We all know that what kids learn is not necessarily what the teacher is trying to teach them. Creationists could care less if science class gets bogged down in pointless discussion, because learning about science (or even critical thinking) simply isn't a priority for them.
No matter how often you read about such stories, I'm always saddened by things like this. "Educators" wanting to impose their own opinions on subjects which they don't understand is bad enough. But to be, as I see it, fundamentally dishonest and sly (in the public eye, no less) in trying to get your way is such a betrayal of the future of the children you should feel responsible for. The big lesson here for kids won't be about science or religion, it will be about how to use political influence to get what you can't justify on its own merits. And how the truth isn't as important as, say, a good Christian might like to think it is.
On a lighter note, they've provided a fantastic example of thinking by committee. The fundamental decision they've made appears to have been to change "strengths and weaknesses" to "all sides". Rather than the outcome of the vote, I'd be more interested in the suicide rates of people forced to endure such discussions...
"If they were, we would call them lies. Libels and lies may be close but they are not the same."
This is a court case we're talking about, not playground gossip. Lying isn't illegal, so clearly we would not call them that. Using the American Heritage Dictionary for the definitions, what are the substantial differences between "a false publication" (libel) and "a false statement" (lie)? Because frankly it sounds like you're indulging in weasel words and slippery logic. It only gets worse when you completely lose perspective and argue that only by a court sentence can someone be considered to have done something wrong.
Personally, I like words to have meaning and the courts to apply the law in a predictable fashion. You suggest using the rumor mill as a form of punishment, and disregarding the truth in favor of someone with the chutzpah to use the legal system to get compensation under obscure clauses quite possibly written to limit the freedom of speech. That's the kind of thing that makes me contribute regularly to civil liberties groups.
It's interesting you've got a thing about the "ruling class". As my post made clear, one reason I'm against this ruling is that I don't like highly compensated people trusted with other people's money shying away from taking responsibility for their own actions. You however support the idea of changing the law so that telling the truth about breaking the rules is a bad thing. Maybe the ruling class doesn't really bother you that much.
"The word "libel" isn't as important as the public knowing that an act is wrong."
Don't be ridiculous. This is a libel case, and as the article points out, to change the meaning of the word is to change the meaning of the law. To say the word isn't important is to disregard the main point of the article.
With respect to false light, how is your argument different to my closing paragraph where I point out that the individual may in fact have been wronged, in which case they should argue the case on its merits e.g. as a false light claim? You are also incorrect in your understanding of law - false light is related to privacy tort, not defamation. Further, false light is not supported by all courts. Clearly this issue is not as simple as you think, and certainly deserving of a more nuanced opinion than self-righteous statements about two wrongs not making a right.
"Letting Staples get off sends the message to companies that it's okay to single out workers for public humiliation if you fire them"
Conversely, finding Staples guilty would send the message that no matter what rules a worker breaks in their own self-interest, they would still have a right to privacy. I don't see how either of these simplistic arguments could be expected to hold true in all circumstances.
You never actually say what it is that "bothers" you about my post. Was it the way I pointed out a couple of sides to the issue, even admitted to making assumptions and an element of emotion rather logic, rather than simply stating a simple one-sided black & white opinion ladens with value judgments?
Wow, this story covers pretty much all the angles that annoy me about bad legal decisions:
I'm a consultant, I claim expenses, I work with sales people who also claim expenses, and I don't see a need to be naive here. If you're sacking someone for what is essentially a free-loading lack of integrity, I don't you should be obliged by law to keep that fact hidden. True, normally it's a more respectful "John is moving on to new challenges" kind of message that goes out, but it shouldn't be illegal to let people know that bad behaviour can be caught and punished. Particularly in job roles that are typically well compensated in the context of any given employer, and where they are effectively entrusted with other people's money.
I'm assuming here that the "sloppy" record keeping means money has been claimed that wasn't supported by an appropriate paper trail. Because who sacks people for claiming less expenses than they were due? That said, it's possible this was a vindictive sacking over a minor infringement made in genuine error. But if that's the case, fight the legal battle on those grounds rather than trying to set a precedent that could have far broader impact. I gotta say my gut feel is that people who distort language so much as to say libel means telling the truth are not to be trusted...
Your words were "pushes traditional media aside", which neither means nor implies "more exposure". "Pushes aside" is synonymous with "replaces", so my paraphrasing is perfectly valid. Try taking responsibility for what you write.
An even poorer assumption is that tired attempts at sarcasm are a good substitute for rational thinking. Yes, they were already getting a cut. You're simply assuming that Warner is wrong to assert that it was "staggeringly low", and this particular point might remind you that reading is not the same as comprehending. Perhaps like your buying anecdote, you are inclined to see your own opinions as carrying serious weight. Get over yourself.
Negotiating a bigger split is not inherently wrong. I'm not inclined to give a free pass to either side of a multinational corporate dispute. Effectively asserting that a deal should never be re-negotiated is naive. The question remains: how did you get to your late 30s thinking that every deal is perfect first time?
Oh really? Wrote and performed the songs in question did they? If your argument is that copyright shouldn't exist, that's one argument. Is that the one you're making, or are you disputing who is in fact producing the content?
Bad example. Are any of the articles actually written by an employee of the hosting corporation? Is the website itself owned by a large corporate? Do the people that run the website also get the ad revenue? Would a court see the substantial work that has gone into writing the articles, and its not-for-profit nature, as granting fair use of the Stargate content? Etc.
In other words, it does not provide more exposure, it is simply replacing exposure that already exists. And if you're listening to your favourite playlists, you're being exposed to less new music than just sticking on the radio.
Yes you did:
If what you said only minutes ago doesn't count, you can hardly blame a re-negotiation after 2 years. How on earth did you make it to your late 30's thinking that every deal is perfect first time?!
CD sales are flatlined, YouTube popularity is growing, and yet I'm supposed to think your behaviour is representative? I reckon the guy with the more self-centred argument should be the one to find data to support his case, not the one challenging it.
Here's my anecdote: I buy music, I buy it after seeing acts on YouTube, and now I don't go to record stores as much as I used to. My patterns have changed but my expenditure has changed only due to changes to disposable income, not internet exposure. I've never encountered this effect whereby digital media provides more exposure to music than the radio, friend's mix tapes, watching TV, going to gigs, music press, references in books, receiving presents, etc.
You really should stop focusing on yourself. Of course people who refuse to pay are relevant. If they go to YouTube, which is popular and free, then Warner could get money.
Here's an idea - provide access via sites such as YouTube and negotiate a split of the ad revenue. Sounds good to me!
Excellent point, but not one that supports your argument that Warner should just aim for free exposure. Are you changing your position?
Actually, according to the article other companies are *not* allowing their content for free.
You didn't say asking for a split is fair, you said Warner was losing out on free advertising by not simply accepting whatever Google chooses to give them, which is an interesting approach to negotiation. The notion of "free advertising" makes no sense under one particular assumption, namely that online distribution via YouTube is in fact one of the products they see a market for. Whether it will prove true I don't know, but it seems an entirely reasonable assumption to me.
Not getting compensated by one of the biggest distributors of your product in the world is stupid.