By your logic, we should also let muggers keep the money they steal, because after all, if you're dumb or weak enough to let your money get stolen from you, you don't deserve it.
Not to nitpick terminology, but watermarking is a form of DRM. I understand that by "DRM" you mean "encrypted content" but the terms are not synonymous -- locking content with encryption is only one form of DRM.
Maybe I'm just seeing the past through rose-colored glasses, but I remember MTV being musical, substantive and entertaining in the past.
No, you're right, MTV definitely was all good and musical back in the day.
What I took issue with was when you said that "maybe they had a small role in killing music buy [sic] changing it from an artform to a cheap plastic commodity", which is a conclusion based on bad logic:
Premise 1: music was changed from an artform to a cheap plastic commodity Premise 2: #1 resulted in music being "killed" (whatever that means) Assertion: MTV did #1 thereby causing #2
None of these things are true. MTV definitely treats music more like a CPC than an artform these days, but its doing so has not altered music overall, nor has it caused music to be "killed":)
Good lord, learn a little history. Music was a "cheap plastic commodity" at least as early as the 1950s; the big labels were hitmakers back then just as they are now (well, before the Internet started killing their business model, anyway). There were manufactured pop bands long before you or I were born.
MTV didn't invent this, it's just another in a long line of corporate tools for promoting bands. There's been plenty of good, "artistic" music both before and after MTV was born.
Every generation thinks its music is the best and the new stuff sucks.
Many people in each generation thinks that, but not everyone does. It'd be neat to see if there's any research into people's perception of the quality of modern music based on when they grew up, and see just how much old-fogeyism there really is. I'm not sure there's any solid data that currently supports any real conclusions at this point.
I have never had a CFL that lasted less than a couple of years. Hell, I actually can't remember ever replacing a CFL in my apartment or house, although I probably have at least once... but we installed about a dozen CFLs around our house when we moved in 10 months ago, and not one has burned out yet. And several of those bulbs came from our apartment where we lived for 5 years before that, and most of THOSE bulbs were a couple years old when we moved out.
So, take that as another data point, I guess, but it's an oddly nice feeling when you can't remember how to remove the cover on a ceiling fixture because it's been so long since you last replaced the bulb on it!
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
Nothing remarkable about it. If there is a large number of universes with different, randomly determined values, then it stands to reason that in at least one of them, life would arise and end up wondering at how unlikely that is; but then it's just the anthrophic principle. In the universes where life didn't arise, there was no one around to wonder why it wasn't there.
Alternatively, there could be only one universe, but perhaps this set of values is the only set of values that was possible -- or perhaps all sets of values would allow life of some kind to arise. Or perhaps there is only one universe, but it cycles over and over with different values each time, and most of the time the universe has no life, but occasionally it has the right values for life.
And maybe this is all just a bunch of ultimately pointless mental wanking;) But it sure is fun!
Rules and laws laid down by governments should be about enhancing competition and moving closer to this "ideal economy" and in ensuring that goods and services are produced by those producers who are most efficiantly able to produce them (yes I know it cant ever happen in the real world but we can certainly get a LOT closer than we are now)
(Forgive me in advance if you're already aware of everything I'm about to say:) )
While relatively free markets are, in general, a good thing, there are certain markets that do not function efficiently when left to their own devices. Pretty much all markets can end up controlled by a monopoly; no matter what the product or service, there's always the ability for one player to acquire control of the market and abuse it to their own ends, which does nobody any good except for the tiny number of people who control that market.
As an individual, it's in my interest to prevent any one entity (even myself) from controlling a market, and I choose to do that by empowering the government to prevent monopolies from forming (...where appropriate). There's not really any other good way to stop abusive monopolies aside from government intervention, so that's how I choose to do it. (Obviously, when I say I "empower" the government to do this, it's not like I'm unilaterally granting them the right and ability to do it; but I support that function of government and vote for those politicians/measures who support it, which is the most the average person can do in a democracy.)
Some markets, like most physical goods markets, can and should be mostly unrestricted, since they obey the standard supply/demand laws; competition means innovation and that's good for everyone. But there are many markets that are what is called "market failures", that is, they do not obey those laws, and in order to function efficiently, need to be regulated in other ways. Utilities, for example, are market failures because of limited physical space. Imagine if there were a dozen water companies competing for your business in a big city, and they each have their own pipe network running under the city. That'd be physically infeasible to manage; it'd be horrendously expensive if you wanted to change providers, since someone would have to come out and run their own pipes onto your property that connect to their water network -- and first, the old company would have to come out and disconnect their pipes, and remove them. Any new company that wanted to get into the act would have to surmount an impossibly high barrier to entry (laying a huge amount of pipes through a large section of a city is a hugely disruptive and expensive undertaking).
As a result, in such an environment, there'd inevitably end up with one company that owns all the water pipes in the city. And they'd have no competition. And so then they could charge whatever they want, because where else are people going to go to get water? This is a so-called "natural monopoly", meaning that the market is most efficient when there's only one player in it.
And if a private company was left to its own devices to provide water, they'd inevitably end up charging through the nose for clean water. The rich and (maybe) middle-class could afford it, but not the poor, and so the poor would be left without potable water. Well, one way to look at it is like any other market: We wouldn't force companies to provide plasma TVs or nice furniture or free liquor to the poor, so why should we force them to provide water? Well, in this particular case, when people don't have access to clean, potable water, that causes disease epidemics, which also affect the rich and the middle-class, not just by making them sick, but by also increasing crime. Thus it's in the interest of the middle-class and rich to have a water supply system that supplies EVERYONE; if you've ever looked at literature from your water or power companies, they always have lots of programs to provide those utilites to
Well, as I understand it, the windmill turns the wind into bread, and the building simply sways back and forth in an impressive display of capitalism....but, um, that's not what you were asking, is it? Nevermind.
Greedo wasn't credible as a bounty hunter in the first place; not ordering Han to keep his hands on the table was a stupid rookie mistake. Missing at point-blank range moved away from "the character is stupid" to "the filmmaker is stupid", though, but Greedo wasn't a credible threat in the first place.
Han was still smart and devious, if slightly less fast, in the Special Edition. At least, he was no less smart or devious in that instance, but Han made plenty of dumb mistakes during the trilogy. I think he gets more credit for cleverness than he deserves for the Greedo thing and for coming back at the last second during the trench run. Here's a number of times he's less than clever:
- ANH: Failing to smooth over the situation in the cell block control room ("We're fine, we're all fine, here, now, thank you...") - ANH: Having no idea how to get out of the cellblock (Leia solves this one) - ANH: Shooting at the door and nearly killing someone in the trash compactor (after Leia shouts "No!") - ANH: Chasing off after one last stormtrooper, and then running headlong into an entire squad of them, and having to hightail it out of there - ANH: Assuming there's no way the Falcon could be tracked by the Empire (and leading them right to the base on Yavin IV...) - ESB: Failing to fix his hyperdrive on a number of critical occasions - ROTJ: Failing to open the blast door at the bunker on Endor, instead closing ANOTHER blast door over it
Han's sarcastic and fun but he's not nearly as clever as people tend to think, not from what's evidenced in the movies anyway. He sure does make a lot of dumb mistakes in ANH, though (it seems) not quite as many in ESB and ROTJ...:)
If it is Greedo's intention to kill Han and collect the bounty on him
That isn't Greedo's intention, not at first. When he confronts Han, his general plan is to take Han back to Jabba to collect the bounty. However, being a scumbag bounty hunter, he offers to let Han go if Han gives him the money Han owes Jabba (although who knows how sincere this offer is; likely, Greedo would take the money and kill Han anyway, thus getting paid twice -- Kaff Tagon would be proud). And Greedo's also willing to kill Han if Han won't come quietly.
When the opportunity presents itself (that is, Han says "Over my dead body"), Greedo, who wants to relish his revenge, does monologue for a moment before shooting Han. Of course, he fails, because he was too stupid to order Han to keep his hands on the table, and Han kills him.
It sure seems like civil forfeiture laws should be unconstitutional, at least in part -- due process is most definitely not being served. Have any of these laws ever gone to the Supreme Court? By now it seems like they should have; so either they did and SCOTUS is okay with them (in which case notch another mark on the it's-time-for-revolution-o-meter), or they somehow haven't yet.
Han's motive is self-defense in both versions. Even in the original, Greedo states flat-out that he is about to kill Han, and, because he's stupid, Han shoots Greedo before Greedo can shoot Han.
Having Greedo get off a shot (and miss at point-blank range) was cinematically retarded, but it didn't change Han's characterization one whit.
Just two.;) One after Douglas Adams, and one after my wife's (late) father. We figure that when he's older, if he decides he doesn't like going by his first name, he's got two others to pick from.
...we named our son after Douglas Adams. Well, one of our son's middle names is Douglas, anyway. About 80% of the people we explain this two have no idea who Douglas Adams is, which I think Adams would have appreciated.
Don't be a fucking twat, you anonymous shitbag -- "government control of the media" is insane and retarded, assuming you mean "government control of the media's content". The government should obviously have no say in what the media says -- and I'm sorry, but buying another company is not even in the same ballpark of "expression" as actually publishing words, pictures, or video.
Regulations about how much of the natural-scarcity media (TV, radio, newspapers) one entity can control are entirely rational. Regulations controlling content are, almost without exception, bad. And I honestly can't believe I still have to explain that to retarded assmonkeys like you.
In order to defend the freedom of expression, which is somehow vaguely threatened by media consolidation
What media consolidation threatens is not freedom of expression, it's variety of expression, and you're going to be hard-pressed to convince anyone that it's good for a democratic society to reduce the number of different viewpoints that are available. Since an unfettered media market will always tend toward consolidation, and media consolidation harms society by reducing the exchange of ideas, it's in society's interest to regulate the market to prevent consolidation.
Yes, it's also good for society when people can do business as they see fit, within reason. Talking about the "freedom of business-owners to sell their businesses to whomever they want to" as if it's as important as freedom of speech is silly; there have been quite a number of precedents establishing that business "freedoms" can be restricted far more thoroughly and easily than personal freedoms. Markets work best when unfettered, but they serve society best when they're regulated by the will of the people. History and studies have shown that different kinds of markets serve us best when regulated in different ways; certain markets can go almost completely unregulated without harming society; others need to be heavily regulated in order to best serve us.
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that all markets should be completely (or even equally) unfettered. The electricity market, for example, behaves radically differently than the computer hardware market.
A strong, independent media (meaning: lots of independent sources for news and commentary) is essential to the health of a democracy. (Or even a republic.) Many points of view allows the (cliché inbound!) market of ideas to determine what's best. When there's only a handful of humongous players in that market, they all tend to have an identical set of interests and will likely end up as an oligopoly, much to our detriment.
Slashdot Mirror
By your logic, we should also let muggers keep the money they steal, because after all, if you're dumb or weak enough to let your money get stolen from you, you don't deserve it.
I've got a list of all the reasons Novell sucks now. I'm making a note here: "Huge success".
Well, when you said that "2008 is the year of the Linux desktop!" in 2003, we were all very confused, so... I guess it makes more sense this year.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that -- you won't find me claiming that in my previous post
Yes, and that's a way for them to manage their rights -- by suing people who violate them so as to discourage others.
I'm really not sure how you misunderstood my previous post, so I'll reiterate:
- Watermarking is a type of DRM
- DRM != locked content
Not to nitpick terminology, but watermarking is a form of DRM. I understand that by "DRM" you mean "encrypted content" but the terms are not synonymous -- locking content with encryption is only one form of DRM.
No, you're right, MTV definitely was all good and musical back in the day.
What I took issue with was when you said that "maybe they had a small role in killing music buy [sic] changing it from an artform to a cheap plastic commodity", which is a conclusion based on bad logic:
Premise 1: music was changed from an artform to a cheap plastic commodity
Premise 2: #1 resulted in music being "killed" (whatever that means)
Assertion: MTV did #1 thereby causing #2
None of these things are true. MTV definitely treats music more like a CPC than an artform these days, but its doing so has not altered music overall, nor has it caused music to be "killed"
Good lord, learn a little history. Music was a "cheap plastic commodity" at least as early as the 1950s; the big labels were hitmakers back then just as they are now (well, before the Internet started killing their business model, anyway). There were manufactured pop bands long before you or I were born.
MTV didn't invent this, it's just another in a long line of corporate tools for promoting bands. There's been plenty of good, "artistic" music both before and after MTV was born.
Many people in each generation thinks that, but not everyone does. It'd be neat to see if there's any research into people's perception of the quality of modern music based on when they grew up, and see just how much old-fogeyism there really is. I'm not sure there's any solid data that currently supports any real conclusions at this point.
I have never had a CFL that lasted less than a couple of years. Hell, I actually can't remember ever replacing a CFL in my apartment or house, although I probably have at least once... but we installed about a dozen CFLs around our house when we moved in 10 months ago, and not one has burned out yet. And several of those bulbs came from our apartment where we lived for 5 years before that, and most of THOSE bulbs were a couple years old when we moved out.
So, take that as another data point, I guess, but it's an oddly nice feeling when you can't remember how to remove the cover on a ceiling fixture because it's been so long since you last replaced the bulb on it!
Nothing remarkable about it. If there is a large number of universes with different, randomly determined values, then it stands to reason that in at least one of them, life would arise and end up wondering at how unlikely that is; but then it's just the anthrophic principle. In the universes where life didn't arise, there was no one around to wonder why it wasn't there.
Alternatively, there could be only one universe, but perhaps this set of values is the only set of values that was possible -- or perhaps all sets of values would allow life of some kind to arise. Or perhaps there is only one universe, but it cycles over and over with different values each time, and most of the time the universe has no life, but occasionally it has the right values for life.
And maybe this is all just a bunch of ultimately pointless mental wanking
(Forgive me in advance if you're already aware of everything I'm about to say :) )
While relatively free markets are, in general, a good thing, there are certain markets that do not function efficiently when left to their own devices. Pretty much all markets can end up controlled by a monopoly; no matter what the product or service, there's always the ability for one player to acquire control of the market and abuse it to their own ends, which does nobody any good except for the tiny number of people who control that market.
As an individual, it's in my interest to prevent any one entity (even myself) from controlling a market, and I choose to do that by empowering the government to prevent monopolies from forming (...where appropriate). There's not really any other good way to stop abusive monopolies aside from government intervention, so that's how I choose to do it. (Obviously, when I say I "empower" the government to do this, it's not like I'm unilaterally granting them the right and ability to do it; but I support that function of government and vote for those politicians/measures who support it, which is the most the average person can do in a democracy.)
Some markets, like most physical goods markets, can and should be mostly unrestricted, since they obey the standard supply/demand laws; competition means innovation and that's good for everyone. But there are many markets that are what is called "market failures", that is, they do not obey those laws, and in order to function efficiently, need to be regulated in other ways. Utilities, for example, are market failures because of limited physical space. Imagine if there were a dozen water companies competing for your business in a big city, and they each have their own pipe network running under the city. That'd be physically infeasible to manage; it'd be horrendously expensive if you wanted to change providers, since someone would have to come out and run their own pipes onto your property that connect to their water network -- and first, the old company would have to come out and disconnect their pipes, and remove them. Any new company that wanted to get into the act would have to surmount an impossibly high barrier to entry (laying a huge amount of pipes through a large section of a city is a hugely disruptive and expensive undertaking).
As a result, in such an environment, there'd inevitably end up with one company that owns all the water pipes in the city. And they'd have no competition. And so then they could charge whatever they want, because where else are people going to go to get water? This is a so-called "natural monopoly", meaning that the market is most efficient when there's only one player in it.
And if a private company was left to its own devices to provide water, they'd inevitably end up charging through the nose for clean water. The rich and (maybe) middle-class could afford it, but not the poor, and so the poor would be left without potable water. Well, one way to look at it is like any other market: We wouldn't force companies to provide plasma TVs or nice furniture or free liquor to the poor, so why should we force them to provide water? Well, in this particular case, when people don't have access to clean, potable water, that causes disease epidemics, which also affect the rich and the middle-class, not just by making them sick, but by also increasing crime. Thus it's in the interest of the middle-class and rich to have a water supply system that supplies EVERYONE; if you've ever looked at literature from your water or power companies, they always have lots of programs to provide those utilites to
Well, as I understand it, the windmill turns the wind into bread, and the building simply sways back and forth in an impressive display of capitalism. ...but, um, that's not what you were asking, is it? Nevermind.
Greedo wasn't credible as a bounty hunter in the first place; not ordering Han to keep his hands on the table was a stupid rookie mistake. Missing at point-blank range moved away from "the character is stupid" to "the filmmaker is stupid", though, but Greedo wasn't a credible threat in the first place.
:)
Han was still smart and devious, if slightly less fast, in the Special Edition. At least, he was no less smart or devious in that instance, but Han made plenty of dumb mistakes during the trilogy. I think he gets more credit for cleverness than he deserves for the Greedo thing and for coming back at the last second during the trench run. Here's a number of times he's less than clever:
- ANH: Failing to smooth over the situation in the cell block control room ("We're fine, we're all fine, here, now, thank you...")
- ANH: Having no idea how to get out of the cellblock (Leia solves this one)
- ANH: Shooting at the door and nearly killing someone in the trash compactor (after Leia shouts "No!")
- ANH: Chasing off after one last stormtrooper, and then running headlong into an entire squad of them, and having to hightail it out of there
- ANH: Assuming there's no way the Falcon could be tracked by the Empire (and leading them right to the base on Yavin IV...)
- ESB: Failing to fix his hyperdrive on a number of critical occasions
- ROTJ: Failing to open the blast door at the bunker on Endor, instead closing ANOTHER blast door over it
Han's sarcastic and fun but he's not nearly as clever as people tend to think, not from what's evidenced in the movies anyway. He sure does make a lot of dumb mistakes in ANH, though (it seems) not quite as many in ESB and ROTJ...
That isn't Greedo's intention, not at first. When he confronts Han, his general plan is to take Han back to Jabba to collect the bounty. However, being a scumbag bounty hunter, he offers to let Han go if Han gives him the money Han owes Jabba (although who knows how sincere this offer is; likely, Greedo would take the money and kill Han anyway, thus getting paid twice -- Kaff Tagon would be proud). And Greedo's also willing to kill Han if Han won't come quietly.
When the opportunity presents itself (that is, Han says "Over my dead body"), Greedo, who wants to relish his revenge, does monologue for a moment before shooting Han. Of course, he fails, because he was too stupid to order Han to keep his hands on the table, and Han kills him.
It sure seems like civil forfeiture laws should be unconstitutional, at least in part -- due process is most definitely not being served. Have any of these laws ever gone to the Supreme Court? By now it seems like they should have; so either they did and SCOTUS is okay with them (in which case notch another mark on the it's-time-for-revolution-o-meter), or they somehow haven't yet.
Anyone know?
Han's motive is self-defense in both versions. Even in the original, Greedo states flat-out that he is about to kill Han, and, because he's stupid, Han shoots Greedo before Greedo can shoot Han.
Having Greedo get off a shot (and miss at point-blank range) was cinematically retarded, but it didn't change Han's characterization one whit.
Carl's Jr.: Fuck you, I'm eating!
Just two. ;) One after Douglas Adams, and one after my wife's (late) father. We figure that when he's older, if he decides he doesn't like going by his first name, he's got two others to pick from.
...we named our son after Douglas Adams. Well, one of our son's middle names is Douglas, anyway. About 80% of the people we explain this two have no idea who Douglas Adams is, which I think Adams would have appreciated.
Don't tase me, robo!
Pfft. Everyone knows that the quality of a game's levels depend entirely on how long you have to go before you see a crate.
Gosh, I think this just about sums up your grasp of logic right here.
Don't be a fucking twat, you anonymous shitbag -- "government control of the media" is insane and retarded, assuming you mean "government control of the media's content". The government should obviously have no say in what the media says -- and I'm sorry, but buying another company is not even in the same ballpark of "expression" as actually publishing words, pictures, or video.
Regulations about how much of the natural-scarcity media (TV, radio, newspapers) one entity can control are entirely rational. Regulations controlling content are, almost without exception, bad. And I honestly can't believe I still have to explain that to retarded assmonkeys like you.
What media consolidation threatens is not freedom of expression, it's variety of expression, and you're going to be hard-pressed to convince anyone that it's good for a democratic society to reduce the number of different viewpoints that are available. Since an unfettered media market will always tend toward consolidation, and media consolidation harms society by reducing the exchange of ideas, it's in society's interest to regulate the market to prevent consolidation.
Yes, it's also good for society when people can do business as they see fit, within reason. Talking about the "freedom of business-owners to sell their businesses to whomever they want to" as if it's as important as freedom of speech is silly; there have been quite a number of precedents establishing that business "freedoms" can be restricted far more thoroughly and easily than personal freedoms. Markets work best when unfettered, but they serve society best when they're regulated by the will of the people. History and studies have shown that different kinds of markets serve us best when regulated in different ways; certain markets can go almost completely unregulated without harming society; others need to be heavily regulated in order to best serve us.
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that all markets should be completely (or even equally) unfettered. The electricity market, for example, behaves radically differently than the computer hardware market.
A strong, independent media (meaning: lots of independent sources for news and commentary) is essential to the health of a democracy. (Or even a republic.) Many points of view allows the (cliché inbound!) market of ideas to determine what's best. When there's only a handful of humongous players in that market, they all tend to have an identical set of interests and will likely end up as an oligopoly, much to our detriment.
Media consolidation is, overall, a Bad Thing.