Grooveshark is being sued for copyright infringement, so historically they have 'stayed afloat' by not paying royalties. It is much easier to keep costs low and provide a cheap (or free) product when your bypass such fees. The other services that the piece goes over are all paying royalties to one degree or another.
I wonder how much of this is just adjustment of the market to over-saturation.
That is not to say the RIAA is not shooting itself in the foot by pushing for higher royalties then the consumer will bare, but I do wonder if the explosion in sites has lead to more then there is room for.
While it is hard to draw exact parallels, society already holds engineers to similar standards to doctors. The outrage over doctors experimenting on helpless test subjects is pretty similar to, say, when engineers use live subjects for testing weapons.
Thing is, getting service working in dense urban areas has always been the low bar. Expanding it out to suburban and rural ones is where it gets difficult.
That tends to be the main problem. Tesla assumed that power would be too cheap to meter and thus efficiency wouldn't be an issue, but that never really panned out Even if you direct it to try to reduce loss, it is still extremely wasteful and last time I checked keeping up with electricity demand is already a looming problem.
I actually have seen wireless power used in some situations though, mainly places where the distances are small and it is cheaper to broadcast power then run a bunch of wires or traces to individual components.
Unfortunately, competition does not just magically appear because we want it. Historically telecoms and other utility-like entities have only had brief spurts of competition followed by long periods of lock in. Since their networks are all about interoperability, the only entities that can really compete with them are others of similar size and power, so existing ones can fight each other but new ones find they are locked out of even interfacing.
It would also not help. The issue is not if individuals can find ways around the filtering, but what effect the filtering has on the companies they are targeting. Even if a person finds a 100% perfect way around, if the company looses 50% of its clients because they didn't, well, that still hurts the person who did.
There are individual freedoms, and systemic freedoms. The later is the bigger problem in this context.
It is questionable how well anything Smith talked about can be translated into today's structure. At the time most of the arguments were in the context of countering theocratic backed states, providing an alternative system to the idea that god controls wealth and power and thus needing a philosophical framework for how non-royalty could still own property and engage in trade. The idea that non-royalty would get powerful enough to have some of the same problems was just not on the radar.
Compared to the violations we saw before, say, the 50s, yeah, I am dead serious. Constitutional protections are taken seriously today in ways that would have been laughed out of court 70s years ago when they barely even pretended to have equal treatment. Civil rights fundamentally changed the way the law interacts with the constitution and opened up a whole new chapter in 'yes, you actually DO have to follow this'.
On the other hand, pushing something underground, while it makes it more concentrated, tends to de-normalize it. An open, normalized movement can be a pretty powerful political shift. If you look at all the major changes in US politics, it was only after groups became open and normalized (more or less) that they actually got traction and got policy put in place. When they were underground they had strong core groups but their general connection to the population was minimal.
Eh, historically the constitution was pretty routinely ignored too. Even before the final draft lawmakers were making it clear that they did not intend to follow its literal interpretation and instead had all sorts of 'well of course we didn't mean XYZ, use common sense!'. Much of the bill of rights only really started gaining legal traction over the last few decades as civil rights pushed literal meanings more. For instance, cases involving religion, until very recently, assumed that freedom of religion only applied to 'real' religions such as Protestants. Quakers, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, even though they were 'close' were not considered 'real' religions and thus the establishment clause (and freedom of speech) did not apply, and religions not from the same tree were even less protected.
'left' and 'right' wing in general are pretty useless for trying to draw parallels. What they mean in any particular culture changes so much even over a decade or two, they are pretty meaningless when one attempts to apply them across cultures and nearly a century.
As with many things there is a tricky balance between what freedom a society allows vs restricting freedoms that have negative consequences to others. In Germany's case they have a pretty clear example of this particular freedom having pretty horrific consequences, so I can not blame them for being touchy about allowing such things to grow again. For Germany, Nazism is not just some abstract philosophical threat, but a particular culture that had a very concrete negative impact.
There has actually been some rather cool work with brainscans of transgendered people, and often they will show neurological structures indicative of the sex they feel rather then the one their primary and secondary sex characteristics indicate.
Gay and lesbian generally just show up as whatever cis body they are.
Usually in intersexed brains it depends on what hormones and other bits were doing at the time the particular structures developed. So you generally end up with a mish-mash of gendered neurology.
So a study noted some interesting neurological structural differences, which is cool.
What is likely to be not cool are the coming comments about how this is just more evidence that divides in fields like STEM, management, finance, etc, are somehow the result of natural drives/talents and that women really do just want to be relegated to the low paid, low respect fields which have minimal chances for advancement, and that they are paid less because they are simply less capable.
Slashdot Mirror
Grooveshark is being sued for copyright infringement, so historically they have 'stayed afloat' by not paying royalties. It is much easier to keep costs low and provide a cheap (or free) product when your bypass such fees. The other services that the piece goes over are all paying royalties to one degree or another.
Because analyzing what a market is doing and what forces are shifting it is interesting to some people?
I wonder how much of this is just adjustment of the market to over-saturation.
That is not to say the RIAA is not shooting itself in the foot by pushing for higher royalties then the consumer will bare, but I do wonder if the explosion in sites has lead to more then there is room for.
Not really no. Caught and punished yes. killed? No.
While it is hard to draw exact parallels, society already holds engineers to similar standards to doctors. The outrage over doctors experimenting on helpless test subjects is pretty similar to, say, when engineers use live subjects for testing weapons.
Thing is, getting service working in dense urban areas has always been the low bar. Expanding it out to suburban and rural ones is where it gets difficult.
Personally, no. Just responding within the structure of the OP's karma comment.
The best guess right now is that they stole the truck for the crane it was carrying.
Having been jumped and beating unconscious, I still do not wish a painful horrible death on the people who did it.
The karma in this case seems rather disproportional. Yeah, what they did was horrible, but death, esp such an ugly death, seems a bit out of balance.
Unless it is really close range or carefully directed, we are more likely to be looking at 10% transfer then 10% loss.
That tends to be the main problem. Tesla assumed that power would be too cheap to meter and thus efficiency wouldn't be an issue, but that never really panned out
Even if you direct it to try to reduce loss, it is still extremely wasteful and last time I checked keeping up with electricity demand is already a looming problem.
I actually have seen wireless power used in some situations though, mainly places where the distances are small and it is cheaper to broadcast power then run a bunch of wires or traces to individual components.
Unfortunately, competition does not just magically appear because we want it. Historically telecoms and other utility-like entities have only had brief spurts of competition followed by long periods of lock in. Since their networks are all about interoperability, the only entities that can really compete with them are others of similar size and power, so existing ones can fight each other but new ones find they are locked out of even interfacing.
It would also not help. The issue is not if individuals can find ways around the filtering, but what effect the filtering has on the companies they are targeting. Even if a person finds a 100% perfect way around, if the company looses 50% of its clients because they didn't, well, that still hurts the person who did.
There are individual freedoms, and systemic freedoms. The later is the bigger problem in this context.
Government regulated, not backed. The telecoms had monopolies long before the government got involved and would still have them today.
It is questionable how well anything Smith talked about can be translated into today's structure. At the time most of the arguments were in the context of countering theocratic backed states, providing an alternative system to the idea that god controls wealth and power and thus needing a philosophical framework for how non-royalty could still own property and engage in trade. The idea that non-royalty would get powerful enough to have some of the same problems was just not on the radar.
Compared to the violations we saw before, say, the 50s, yeah, I am dead serious. Constitutional protections are taken seriously today in ways that would have been laughed out of court 70s years ago when they barely even pretended to have equal treatment. Civil rights fundamentally changed the way the law interacts with the constitution and opened up a whole new chapter in 'yes, you actually DO have to follow this'.
Well, there is what 'most cops' will do, and then there is what 'individual cops can do'.
On the other hand, pushing something underground, while it makes it more concentrated, tends to de-normalize it. An open, normalized movement can be a pretty powerful political shift. If you look at all the major changes in US politics, it was only after groups became open and normalized (more or less) that they actually got traction and got policy put in place. When they were underground they had strong core groups but their general connection to the population was minimal.
Eh, historically the constitution was pretty routinely ignored too. Even before the final draft lawmakers were making it clear that they did not intend to follow its literal interpretation and instead had all sorts of 'well of course we didn't mean XYZ, use common sense!'. Much of the bill of rights only really started gaining legal traction over the last few decades as civil rights pushed literal meanings more. For instance, cases involving religion, until very recently, assumed that freedom of religion only applied to 'real' religions such as Protestants. Quakers, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, even though they were 'close' were not considered 'real' religions and thus the establishment clause (and freedom of speech) did not apply, and religions not from the same tree were even less protected.
'left' and 'right' wing in general are pretty useless for trying to draw parallels. What they mean in any particular culture changes so much even over a decade or two, they are pretty meaningless when one attempts to apply them across cultures and nearly a century.
As with many things there is a tricky balance between what freedom a society allows vs restricting freedoms that have negative consequences to others. In Germany's case they have a pretty clear example of this particular freedom having pretty horrific consequences, so I can not blame them for being touchy about allowing such things to grow again. For Germany, Nazism is not just some abstract philosophical threat, but a particular culture that had a very concrete negative impact.
There has actually been some rather cool work with brainscans of transgendered people, and often they will show neurological structures indicative of the sex they feel rather then the one their primary and secondary sex characteristics indicate.
Gay and lesbian generally just show up as whatever cis body they are.
Usually in intersexed brains it depends on what hormones and other bits were doing at the time the particular structures developed. So you generally end up with a mish-mash of gendered neurology.
So a study noted some interesting neurological structural differences, which is cool.
What is likely to be not cool are the coming comments about how this is just more evidence that divides in fields like STEM, management, finance, etc, are somehow the result of natural drives/talents and that women really do just want to be relegated to the low paid, low respect fields which have minimal chances for advancement, and that they are paid less because they are simply less capable.