Rather than giving it to him, give it to someone who worked to make sure McCain didn't get elected
You know, folks like you told me over and over again during 2008 that if I voted for McCain that we'd wind up having more troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they were absolutely right. I did vote for McCain and sure enough.
There is a precedent for Nobel prizes to other than natural persons, and for the prize to not be awarded in a particular year. There's no reason they couldn't allocate the prize money back into the prize fund (like they did in 1972) while issuing a proclamation praising the Internet for whatever they like.
The alternative would be to award the prize to DARPA, which is probably not really in keeping with the spirit of the award.
Censorship is bad when the government does it or requires it. A merchant is within his rights to decide what he wishes or does not wish to stock in his store (modulo anti-trust concerns, which do not even come close to applying here). Calling an exercise of that right "censorship" is an insult to censors.
Satie is a fictional character, of course, but it's likely that he was speaking about government censorship. Until and unless Apple can put people in jail (or worse), I'd say that such implied comparisons are at best overblown.
And if anyone makes a "there's an app for that" joke about jail, they probably should be sent to one immediately.
So the argument "but it's good for them", no matter how true, is simply inapt -- it is not the right criterion on which to judge the legality of the action.
Did he say anything about the legality of it? He said that the sports bar owners should be compensated (yes, he actually put the words in your mouth, but that's beside the point) for encouraging lots of people to watch ad-supported content. Everything you say about that not actually being the case is true, but is orthogonal to his point that it should be.
I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm just saying that you missed his point.
Arguments that they are deciding poorly are not equivalent to arguments that they do not have the right to make the decision.
He didn't say that they do not have that right. He either said they ought not to have that right or that they ought not to exercise it, depending on how you interpret what he wrote.
It amazes me how many people seem to find this concept shocking.
Prime time hour long dramas are something like a million dollars per hour to produce (that's a reasonable average - the spread is fairly broad). Those that air first-run on broadcast TV are free to the viewing public to watch - despite the fact that the electricity alone to run the transmitters costs tens of thousands of dollars (nation wide).
Networks rely on these statistics because they are the only thing they have to show to advertisers.
But the advertisers are only interested in statistics that involve viewers who view their ads. That's why Neilsen doesn't include TiVo and online viewing in the surveys.
I think if demographics that view this content heavily online were counted, they would not have been so easy to cancel these shows.
If the online viewership were able to pay as much as traditional advertising does, you'd have a decent argument.
The dirty little secret in TV is that you, the viewer, are not the customer. You're the product being sold. The advertiser is the customer. Neilsen conducts its measurements in order to discern how many people are exposed to the ads. That's why they leave out TiVo and online viewers - because the advertisers don't want to pay for those viewers, since they get no benefit from their viewing.
You can pretty much guarantee a 100x price premium in the former case or perhaps 10-20x in the latter case.
Of course, requiring government certification for things upon which the general public relies for life safety is not necessarily a bad thing, but the price premium that comes from the certification requirement probably is proportional to the square of the cost of doing whatever is necessary to obtain said certification.
In the really, really, REALLY old days of telephony, there were no numbers. You rang up the operator and asked to be connected to the Smith house, and the operator connected your plug to their socket.
Once that stopped scaling, numbers were used because it made looking them up on a plug board a lot faster. When automatic dialing came, that scaled similarly because you could cascade stepper relays to do the dialing.
But nowadays telephone switches have more in common with Cisco routers than they do the old gear. There's no reason that you have to number stuff anymore. The instant messaging folks - particularly jabber - are closer to what we need than the old tired PSTN numbering scheme.
I know, the MST3K folks are off doing newthings, and that's good. All the more reason for a reboot - bring in new talent, a new idea for a series story arc... There are plenty of lousy movies out there to deconstruct. All it takes is a crew of interns to chase down the rights to them...
How is it a reboot when the series itself is an assortment of more or less unrelated short stories? The Outer Limits did have a revival back in the 90s, and it was... well, the same show that it was in the 50s (except for being in color, having better effects, and worse writing).
do you mean the ADA further marginalizes the handicapped because now it's not about helping them, but rather about lawsuit avoidance, which can also be avoidance of handicapped persons....??
Pretty much, yeah.
If you owned a business, you'd probably understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you say "ad hominem?"
I thought not.
Rather than giving it to him, give it to someone who worked to make sure McCain didn't get elected
You know, folks like you told me over and over again during 2008 that if I voted for McCain that we'd wind up having more troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they were absolutely right. I did vote for McCain and sure enough.
There is a precedent for Nobel prizes to other than natural persons, and for the prize to not be awarded in a particular year. There's no reason they couldn't allocate the prize money back into the prize fund (like they did in 1972) while issuing a proclamation praising the Internet for whatever they like.
The alternative would be to award the prize to DARPA, which is probably not really in keeping with the spirit of the award.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Censorship is bad when the government does it or requires it. A merchant is within his rights to decide what he wishes or does not wish to stock in his store (modulo anti-trust concerns, which do not even come close to applying here). Calling an exercise of that right "censorship" is an insult to censors.
Satie is a fictional character, of course, but it's likely that he was speaking about government censorship. Until and unless Apple can put people in jail (or worse), I'd say that such implied comparisons are at best overblown.
And if anyone makes a "there's an app for that" joke about jail, they probably should be sent to one immediately.
The quote in your message body and the quote in your .sig seem to go together in an oddly remarkable way.
Not really. The quote in the .sig is ironic, but you probably have to know who Montgomery Burns is to get it.
So the argument "but it's good for them", no matter how true, is simply inapt -- it is not the right criterion on which to judge the legality of the action.
Did he say anything about the legality of it? He said that the sports bar owners should be compensated (yes, he actually put the words in your mouth, but that's beside the point) for encouraging lots of people to watch ad-supported content. Everything you say about that not actually being the case is true, but is orthogonal to his point that it should be.
I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm just saying that you missed his point.
Arguments that they are deciding poorly are not equivalent to arguments that they do not have the right to make the decision.
He didn't say that they do not have that right. He either said they ought not to have that right or that they ought not to exercise it, depending on how you interpret what he wrote.
Hear hear! ... Or are you saying that the end of TV is a bad thing?
or call it a 'Super Bowl' party, since the term itself is copyright.
No it isn't. It's trademarked. Different thing.
Look! There's footprints in the snow ahead!
It amazes me how many people seem to find this concept shocking.
Prime time hour long dramas are something like a million dollars per hour to produce (that's a reasonable average - the spread is fairly broad). Those that air first-run on broadcast TV are free to the viewing public to watch - despite the fact that the electricity alone to run the transmitters costs tens of thousands of dollars (nation wide).
Cui bono?
But your too sure are smart and sophisticated aren't you?
Irony. It's what's for dinner.
Networks rely on these statistics because they are the only thing they have to show to advertisers.
But the advertisers are only interested in statistics that involve viewers who view their ads. That's why Neilsen doesn't include TiVo and online viewing in the surveys.
I think if demographics that view this content heavily online were counted, they would not have been so easy to cancel these shows.
If the online viewership were able to pay as much as traditional advertising does, you'd have a decent argument.
The dirty little secret in TV is that you, the viewer, are not the customer. You're the product being sold. The advertiser is the customer. Neilsen conducts its measurements in order to discern how many people are exposed to the ads. That's why they leave out TiVo and online viewers - because the advertisers don't want to pay for those viewers, since they get no benefit from their viewing.
And if the legal system encourages lawyers to rack up billable hours arguing other points, then the system is wasteful.
Go here, and skip in 2:44.
Premium?
Yes. Look it up in the dictionary. Specifically, where it says "a sum added to an ordinary price or charge."
To me anything that keeps me healthy and assures me that the plane I am flying in will not drop out of the sky can not have a value put on it.
Actually, it, like every physical object in the world and some that aren't, can, in fact, have a value put on it.
Want to make a mint selling ordinary hardware?
All you need to do is either
A. Get it FDA certified for use in medicine.
Or
B. Get it FAA approved for use in aviation.
You can pretty much guarantee a 100x price premium in the former case or perhaps 10-20x in the latter case.
Of course, requiring government certification for things upon which the general public relies for life safety is not necessarily a bad thing, but the price premium that comes from the certification requirement probably is proportional to the square of the cost of doing whatever is necessary to obtain said certification.
In the really, really, REALLY old days of telephony, there were no numbers. You rang up the operator and asked to be connected to the Smith house, and the operator connected your plug to their socket.
Once that stopped scaling, numbers were used because it made looking them up on a plug board a lot faster. When automatic dialing came, that scaled similarly because you could cascade stepper relays to do the dialing.
But nowadays telephone switches have more in common with Cisco routers than they do the old gear. There's no reason that you have to number stuff anymore. The instant messaging folks - particularly jabber - are closer to what we need than the old tired PSTN numbering scheme.
I know, the MST3K folks are off doing new things, and that's good. All the more reason for a reboot - bring in new talent, a new idea for a series story arc... There are plenty of lousy movies out there to deconstruct. All it takes is a crew of interns to chase down the rights to them...
How is it a reboot when the series itself is an assortment of more or less unrelated short stories? The Outer Limits did have a revival back in the 90s, and it was... well, the same show that it was in the 50s (except for being in color, having better effects, and worse writing).
So, based on your probable purchase history.... would it be hotels that specialize in rooms by the hour.
Whoosh!
I believe his point was that me.com implies Apple fanboi.
do you mean the ADA further marginalizes the handicapped because now it's not about helping them, but rather about lawsuit avoidance, which can also be avoidance of handicapped persons....??
Pretty much, yeah.
If you owned a business, you'd probably understand.
The posters on BART all say that in an emergency wheelchairs should be left behind and their occupants carried.
If that's good enough for BART...