It's not bricked if you can pop in install media and reinstall the OS. If you truly believe you have a valid argument, I urge you to be careful with hyperbole, it only serves to make a valid argument seem invalid.
Congrats! You're now running Windows 10 Vulnerable Edition!
You chose to install Windows 10 (or buy a machine with it preinstalled). Pick your poison: Microsoft has access to your stuff or hackers have access to your stuff.
Personally, I trust Microsoft (ever so slightly) more than some random hacker. And, the reality of it is, despite having rebooted itself for updates TWICE while I was actively using it (and inside my Active Hours, none the less), Windows 10 has been more stable, faster, and more reliable than any version I've used before it; and that includes everything from 3.1 on. That's even if I choose to count those unwanted reboots as crashes, which, incidentally, I do.
I can't say I've ever gotten Indian support from Amazon, nor have I ever had them ignore an email; and yes, I've taken them to task over my affiliate account in the past. No, they don't ignore valid support complaints. Nice hyperbole, though.
You think every other retailer out there doesn't do the same thing? Here's a hint: you only get so many returns at a given retailer; there are even a number of return tracking networks, comprised of multiple retailers, with many retailers belonging to multiple such networks. At least, that's how it was when I got out of retail nearly a decade ago; I can only imagine it's gotten worse since then.
It's actually tracked as rate of returns, e.g. X returns in Y time, and no, Amazon is nowhere near strict enough for me to worry about it. I've had two returns which, alone, total over $1200, in addition to a number of other returns, cancelled orders, and instances where I needed to return an item and Amazon didn't deem it worth the cost of shipping and simply issued a refund while allowing me to keep the item. If they were going to "black hole" my account, it would have been done by now.
But, then, I place more than 60 orders per month with them, as I tend to split my orders up by project or category, for accounting purposes (such is the reality of running a business, it's more complicated to split a parts and supplies receipt than it is to order the parts separately from the supplies) and I can count on fingers and toes how many problem orders I've had in 18 years.
In short, yes, they do that; but only if you're blatantly abusing their return policy. They didn't even question me when I told them I needed to return $700 RAM and needed an immediate refund so I could re-order it (replacement was not an option, for some reason); they issued the refund with no hassle, before the UPS pickup was even scheduled, let alone the item picked up or actually returned to them. But, then, I have a nearly two decade relationship with them and, in recent years, have been spending $30-50k annually with them.
Maybe that's why they seem willing to bend over backwards for me.
They explicitly offered to (and suggested I let them) cancel the order, actually. The order only remained open because I still needed the cable at that time, but my need was not urgent. The second time around, I actually no longer needed the cable (I replaced the equipment it was for as it ended up failing for an unrelated reason) but was planning to keep the order so I'd have a spare for another piece of equipment which uses the same cable. Since I no longer have a specific need for the cable, I allowed them to cancel it the second time they offered.
You do have to carry out your own due diligence when ordering 3rd-party on Amazon, but it's really not difficult to avoid the scams.
Meanwhile, I ordered $700+ RAM, Prime, and was sent obviously opened (the outer seal stickers had clearly been peeled and re-stuck, and the tape on the inner packaging was cut) RAM. Not only that, but the product ID stickers had been swapped with other, cheaper, similar looking RAM; the speed, capacity, and serial numbers did not match what I ordered, nor did they match the stickers or packaging (which *did* match what I ordered).
Again, that was Prime, fulfilled by Amazon. In fact, it's not the first time I've had that happen; they did the same with a ViewSonic 4k display, of which I had ordered two.
But, and I can't stress this enough, Amazon was also quick to fix the issue. They always are, which is why I really don't care if they fuck up once in a while, or if a 3rd-party seller does try to scam me.
I buy about 2/3 of my non-grocery items (and about 1/3 of my grocery items, for that matter) on Amazon, yet I have >90% of my product- or service-related issues with brick and mortar stores. Amazon (including 3rd-party sales) has a long way to fall before I'll consider the few issues I've had with them over the past 18 year to be a problem worth complaining about.
Meh... No need to restrict yourself only to Prime, just avoid deals that seem too good to be true. I buy from 3rd-party sellers all the time and I've only had one issue in the past 18 years, for which Amazon quickly facilitated a resolution (I kept the falsely advertised product and Amazon forced a full refund).
The next closest thing I've had to an actual problem was with a power cable I ordered, wherein someone else had ordered what the 3rd-party seller had left in stock at the same time I ordered my single cable. The seller wrote me within an hour of placing the order to let me know they did not have the item (and why) and gave me the option of cancelling the order or waiting until they got more in stock. I opted to wait and, a few days later, heard from them that their supplier was also out of stock. The order has since been cancelled; I was never charged, so no refund was necessary.
It's actually really easy to not get scammed when you buy 3rd-party on Amazon.
Is that the argument I was making? I'm fairly certain (and, as the source of the argument, I'm the sole expert on the subject of what argument I am making) that it is not.
In fact, what I was arguing is that the ISP market is not more competitive than the search engine market, as Pai claims.
Exactly! Regulations really suck, as they do incur some administrative overhead for the companies which have to comply with them. Those overhead costs get added to the price we pay, which raises the floor for the cost of goods and services; however. Of course, without a proper market (including open competition), prices will always rise nearer to the ceiling, the most the market will bear, rather than sinking to the floor. Clearly, without competition, we do need regulation; but competition is better for all parties.
With competition, assuming the same prices the market bears under regulation, companies earn more per customer by way of not having the overhead costs of complying with regulations. Assuming a price reduction equal to the overhead costs that were avoided, companies earn the same amount per customer, but have more customers as more people can afford the lower cost.
That's idealistic, though. In reality, competition will push prices down and each competitor will earn less per customer than they would under regulation. Of course, that is only until you factor in a competitive market for the services and materials used by each competing company, which, in turn, drives their costs down.
In theory, that could make everyone more profitable. Yes, less money is changing hands, and less frequently, but everyone is keeping more of the money they get. The numbers are smaller, but those smaller numbers would stretch farther; wealth, overall, would increase.
But we live in a scoreboard-based society, where the higher number is always better, even if your 1,000,000 points are worth less than my 500,000. In othre words, we'll never see it actually happen.
At one point, I had *ZERO* ISP options. The apartments I lived in provided their own "cable" service and did not offer internet. I petitioned residents to get the management company to allow AT&T to install an on-premises DSLAM so we could at least have ONE broadband option, as there was no way they were going to allow a cable company to run "competing" lines.
This predated the FCC requirement (which aren't enforced anyway) that apartment complexes allow cable companies to install lines; but, I still know someone who lives there and they're still thankful that I petitioned for DSL, as nothing has changed in the past 15 years.
And no, satellite was not an option; we were not allowed to mount a dish on the roof (we could stake one into the ground on our side of the building) and half the units faced the wrong way. Including mine.
I've also lived in areas with a single option; in fact, that's been the case in most places I've lived until I moved to the bay area. I've had 2 or 3 options everywhere I've lived here, save for the one place that had 4. I also recognize that this is not common, having lived elsewhere in the country and seen the reality of the market.
I also recognize that 4, the most choices I've had anywhere is less than 12; apparently unlike the FCC.
I have access to more than a dozen search engines. I have access to 3 ISPs. Seems like there's more 4x as much competition in the search market, at least in my locality.
My understanding is that I'm lucky to have more than one ISP available, and absolutely blessed to have more than two. Everybody has the same access to search engines, though, and I'm pretty sure nobody has access to more than a dozen ISPs.
And I recently decided to get a Spotify premium account, because 99% of the music I listen to is on there anyway, and I like the curated playlists and recommendations.
Yes, while Spotify is still around, that's great. I use them, and I fill gaps in their collection with Napster (the streaming service, not the defunct filesharing service). I also buy a few CDs every year so I don't lose the songs I really enjoy when streaming services start going belly up. It's also useful to be able to load tracks onto an iPod Classic and not care about cell coverage when driving cross country; something no streaming service lets you do. Napster comes the closest, allowing you to download tracks to your phone, but it still wants to get online and validate licenses before playing them, which is a no go on a lot of rural roads and highways, regardless of carrier.
For most listening situations, I'll even agree with you regarding quality. I certainly can't tell the difference in my car, or through shitty earbuds. Even in my living room, it's a wash once you take MP3 above 240kbps. However, in my office, which doubles as a studio, where I have a custom designed (and for under $300, at that) amp and speaker system and the room is tuned (it's a studio, after all), there is a very clear difference between a raw CD, FLAC, DSD and any lossy encoding, even at the highest settings. When you know where to buy SACD media, DSD really shines on a proper setup in a proper room. Since it's the room I spend 8+ hours of my day in (on top of doubling as a studio), this matters.
That's not all physical media brings to the table, though; I've also recently started building a collection of vinyl. Not because I think it sounds better; that's debatable until the cows come home, grow old, die, and decompose; but because there's just something about putting that needle down on the platter that really speaks to me. It was also an interesting project, putting together a custom phono setup for under $200 (which included modifying a cheaper turntable) that rivals setups costing several thousand. But, again, vinyl isn't about sound quality for me, as you really lose any benefit that may (or may not) have existed in the first place the first time you look at it wrong; but it does give me a feeling I just can't get from an MP3.
It may be that I have 20/5 vision that let me see individual subpixels on a 534 DPI OLED display at 18" (roughly the distance at which I naturally hold my phone), and ears to match those capabilities auditorily, but I'm one of those guys who can pick out the source material in A/B testing of both audio and video. Incidentally, my nose is hyper-sensitive as well; for example, I can smell a radiator leak from a car driving by, a couple dozen feet away, that a trained mechanic won't pick up on until he's got his nose an inch from the hairline crack that hasn't properly started leaking yet. You can say I'm imagining it, but go ahead and tell that to my ex and her family mechanic.
Well, this grown-ass-man listens to more Pink Floyd; the kids you allude to, however, probably listen to more of the Swedish NES Chiptune "artist". It's a curve that's gonna trend away from Floyd as time goes on.
Also, I'm not saying their argument is correct; I'm merely pointing out the logic by which they believe it to be so.
I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with what I said. I mean, none of it was wrong, per se, but it really had nothing to do with the post you were replying to.
Well, yeah. But different parents have different tolerance levels of danger for their offspring and some kids are more aware and alert to the danger around them.
Yes, and the ones who allow their offspring to climb on total strangers are just oblivious. I would say, the ones who manage to figure out how not to climb on strangers and yell and scream about everything without being told are, in fact, controlled; self controlled, at that, which is arguably the best kind of control. Nobody said it had to be the parent who was in control of the child's reasonable behavior, but if the kids isn't then, yes, the parent needs to be.
Generally if your kids have been allowed to fall off small walls and have gotten some bumps and bruises along the way, they likely aren't the ones to go over the rail and into the ocean.
They also aren't likely to climb on random strangers and probably have enough life experience to understand appropriate behavior. Those aren't the kids we're talking about, here.
You expect me not to get defensive when you bold part of your message and question my comprehension/literacy?
You were defensive before I did that; you replied specifically to defend yourself when you (if your claims are at all accurate*) are not the type of parent we're talking about. But, okay; maybe I was wrong about you being responsible and/or not an asshole. I was certainly right about your comprehension, though, and it seems your logical reasoning abilities are about on par with that; I mean, come on, did you really think I was telling you not to get defensive over something you hadn't gotten defensive over yet? No, I was telling you there was no need to defend yourself if you weren't who I was talking about in the first place... which you've made it clear that you actually are.
Fuck you!
Given that you still failed to comprehend my message, I'd say "right back at ya". You were on the winning end of this, before you opened your mouth to reply. I was complimenting you by pointing out that you (by your claims, at least, which I am now heavily doubting) are not one of the asshole parents I was talking about. Yes, I did also point out that you cherry-picked my original message to attack it; but you ignored also ignored the complimentary part of my post, took half of it out of context, and interpreted it as some sort of personal attack. Fuck me, indeed, for believing your comprehension would be any better the second time around.
* In which case you wouldn't have felt the need to shout "not me" in response to my comment. My mistake, overlooking that bit of human psychology, I suppose.
A preference for physical media, which you can continue listening to after the store that sold it to you has closed up shop and the hard drive holding your music collection took a shit or the DRM music player used by your store of choice (admittedly a thing of the past in most cases) needs to refresh licenses, isn't respectable?
Tell that to everyone who bought music through DRM-encumbered stores that later shut down. They're sure all wishing they'd bought physical media. Plus the fact that an uncompressed CD just sounds better; yeah, I'll keep my physical media, thanks.
If you ever can't afford your Netfliix subscription anymore, hit me up. I do enjoy the theater once in a while and appreciate you keeping the kids out of it.
I never said they didn't. The complaint in TFS is that they aren't paying market rate; in fact, about 60% of what you quoted was copied and pasted from TFS. My stipulation was not that YouTube doesn't pay but, rather, if they were forced to pay "market rates" they would simply not allow copyright music any longer and, rather than pay something below market, they'd pay nothing.
I've made a few videos for weddings and funerals, set to music, and that's the case for all of my videos.
It's also the case for something like 90% of my videos, as well. I'm quite familiar with the practice. My point was that, if YouTube were asked to pay more than they're willing to pay, this practice would end.
If someone throws my kid into the ocean or picks them up or touches them, I will quickly eliminate them permanently and then go after my kids. I think that (throwing a kid off the pier) scenario is extremely unlikely less than 1 in 100 million so I don't worry about it.
As though them being thrown in is the only danger I mentioned. Here, allow me to aid your comprehension:
And the parents who let them run around uncontrolled should expect them falling, or getting thrown, into the ocean is par for the course.
To be perfectly honest, I am very paranoid at the pier and anyplace with balconies opening to precipices. So generally there, I keep my kids nearby as they still like holding hands.
Oh, so you're not one of the irresponsible asshole parents we're talking about, then. No need to defend yourself.
The argument wasn't "The youtube viewer would have never paid to listen to your song on youtube." It was:
The youtube viewer would have never paid to listen to your song.
The point being argued was:
Someone watching a youtube video does not equate to a lost "sale" from a streaming service.
Note that I never argued against that. However, now that I'm being asked, by way of your additional argument, to examine it more closely...
Since I do subscribe to streaming services where I would have listened to [hypothetical song], for which the label would have been paid, my listening to [hypothetical song] on YouTube is, in fact, a lost sale.
If I weren't a paying customer, or at least willing to be one, then you would be correct, me taking my business to venues which don't pay the labels would not be a lost sale.
Of course, this does not hold quite as true when you're considering CD sales, it only really works for streaming. If I own the CD and don't stream, the label is not getting any more money from me anyway; in that case, my choice to use a venue where the label does not get paid doesn't represent a lost sale, as the sale has already been made.
Why does it hold true for streaming, then, if that sale has also already been made? Simple: labels collect royalties per stream, rather than per sale. When I subscribe to a streaming service, yet choose to listen elsewhere, the label does not get paid for that, whereas they would get paid if I used the streaming service I'm already paying for.
At the end of the day, though, it really doesn't matter. Piracy could completely disappear and We could all turn over our entire paycheck every week for the right to listen to a single song, one time, and the recording industry would still cry that their profits were down.
Slashdot Mirror
I really wish you hadn't posted AC, as I'd like to read more of your posts.
It's not bricked if you can pop in install media and reinstall the OS. If you truly believe you have a valid argument, I urge you to be careful with hyperbole, it only serves to make a valid argument seem invalid.
Congrats! You're now running Windows 10 Vulnerable Edition!
You chose to install Windows 10 (or buy a machine with it preinstalled). Pick your poison: Microsoft has access to your stuff or hackers have access to your stuff.
Personally, I trust Microsoft (ever so slightly) more than some random hacker. And, the reality of it is, despite having rebooted itself for updates TWICE while I was actively using it (and inside my Active Hours, none the less), Windows 10 has been more stable, faster, and more reliable than any version I've used before it; and that includes everything from 3.1 on. That's even if I choose to count those unwanted reboots as crashes, which, incidentally, I do.
Wait a minute... I thought Goku was Super Saiyan...
I can't say I've ever gotten Indian support from Amazon, nor have I ever had them ignore an email; and yes, I've taken them to task over my affiliate account in the past. No, they don't ignore valid support complaints. Nice hyperbole, though.
You think every other retailer out there doesn't do the same thing? Here's a hint: you only get so many returns at a given retailer; there are even a number of return tracking networks, comprised of multiple retailers, with many retailers belonging to multiple such networks. At least, that's how it was when I got out of retail nearly a decade ago; I can only imagine it's gotten worse since then.
It's actually tracked as rate of returns, e.g. X returns in Y time, and no, Amazon is nowhere near strict enough for me to worry about it. I've had two returns which, alone, total over $1200, in addition to a number of other returns, cancelled orders, and instances where I needed to return an item and Amazon didn't deem it worth the cost of shipping and simply issued a refund while allowing me to keep the item. If they were going to "black hole" my account, it would have been done by now.
But, then, I place more than 60 orders per month with them, as I tend to split my orders up by project or category, for accounting purposes (such is the reality of running a business, it's more complicated to split a parts and supplies receipt than it is to order the parts separately from the supplies) and I can count on fingers and toes how many problem orders I've had in 18 years.
In short, yes, they do that; but only if you're blatantly abusing their return policy. They didn't even question me when I told them I needed to return $700 RAM and needed an immediate refund so I could re-order it (replacement was not an option, for some reason); they issued the refund with no hassle, before the UPS pickup was even scheduled, let alone the item picked up or actually returned to them. But, then, I have a nearly two decade relationship with them and, in recent years, have been spending $30-50k annually with them.
Maybe that's why they seem willing to bend over backwards for me.
They explicitly offered to (and suggested I let them) cancel the order, actually. The order only remained open because I still needed the cable at that time, but my need was not urgent. The second time around, I actually no longer needed the cable (I replaced the equipment it was for as it ended up failing for an unrelated reason) but was planning to keep the order so I'd have a spare for another piece of equipment which uses the same cable. Since I no longer have a specific need for the cable, I allowed them to cancel it the second time they offered.
You do have to carry out your own due diligence when ordering 3rd-party on Amazon, but it's really not difficult to avoid the scams.
Meanwhile, I ordered $700+ RAM, Prime, and was sent obviously opened (the outer seal stickers had clearly been peeled and re-stuck, and the tape on the inner packaging was cut) RAM. Not only that, but the product ID stickers had been swapped with other, cheaper, similar looking RAM; the speed, capacity, and serial numbers did not match what I ordered, nor did they match the stickers or packaging (which *did* match what I ordered).
Again, that was Prime, fulfilled by Amazon. In fact, it's not the first time I've had that happen; they did the same with a ViewSonic 4k display, of which I had ordered two.
But, and I can't stress this enough, Amazon was also quick to fix the issue. They always are, which is why I really don't care if they fuck up once in a while, or if a 3rd-party seller does try to scam me.
I buy about 2/3 of my non-grocery items (and about 1/3 of my grocery items, for that matter) on Amazon, yet I have >90% of my product- or service-related issues with brick and mortar stores. Amazon (including 3rd-party sales) has a long way to fall before I'll consider the few issues I've had with them over the past 18 year to be a problem worth complaining about.
Meh... No need to restrict yourself only to Prime, just avoid deals that seem too good to be true. I buy from 3rd-party sellers all the time and I've only had one issue in the past 18 years, for which Amazon quickly facilitated a resolution (I kept the falsely advertised product and Amazon forced a full refund).
The next closest thing I've had to an actual problem was with a power cable I ordered, wherein someone else had ordered what the 3rd-party seller had left in stock at the same time I ordered my single cable. The seller wrote me within an hour of placing the order to let me know they did not have the item (and why) and gave me the option of cancelling the order or waiting until they got more in stock. I opted to wait and, a few days later, heard from them that their supplier was also out of stock. The order has since been cancelled; I was never charged, so no refund was necessary.
It's actually really easy to not get scammed when you buy 3rd-party on Amazon.
Like... REALLY easy.
Stocking the machines is far from an automated process, combined with the fact that the owners of those machines pay considerable rent to place them.
TFA is about claims made and actions taken by Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC, which is located... where? Right.
Is that the argument I was making? I'm fairly certain (and, as the source of the argument, I'm the sole expert on the subject of what argument I am making) that it is not.
In fact, what I was arguing is that the ISP market is not more competitive than the search engine market, as Pai claims.
Exactly! Regulations really suck, as they do incur some administrative overhead for the companies which have to comply with them. Those overhead costs get added to the price we pay, which raises the floor for the cost of goods and services; however. Of course, without a proper market (including open competition), prices will always rise nearer to the ceiling, the most the market will bear, rather than sinking to the floor. Clearly, without competition, we do need regulation; but competition is better for all parties.
With competition, assuming the same prices the market bears under regulation, companies earn more per customer by way of not having the overhead costs of complying with regulations. Assuming a price reduction equal to the overhead costs that were avoided, companies earn the same amount per customer, but have more customers as more people can afford the lower cost.
That's idealistic, though. In reality, competition will push prices down and each competitor will earn less per customer than they would under regulation. Of course, that is only until you factor in a competitive market for the services and materials used by each competing company, which, in turn, drives their costs down.
In theory, that could make everyone more profitable. Yes, less money is changing hands, and less frequently, but everyone is keeping more of the money they get. The numbers are smaller, but those smaller numbers would stretch farther; wealth, overall, would increase.
But we live in a scoreboard-based society, where the higher number is always better, even if your 1,000,000 points are worth less than my 500,000. In othre words, we'll never see it actually happen.
At one point, I had *ZERO* ISP options. The apartments I lived in provided their own "cable" service and did not offer internet. I petitioned residents to get the management company to allow AT&T to install an on-premises DSLAM so we could at least have ONE broadband option, as there was no way they were going to allow a cable company to run "competing" lines.
This predated the FCC requirement (which aren't enforced anyway) that apartment complexes allow cable companies to install lines; but, I still know someone who lives there and they're still thankful that I petitioned for DSL, as nothing has changed in the past 15 years.
And no, satellite was not an option; we were not allowed to mount a dish on the roof (we could stake one into the ground on our side of the building) and half the units faced the wrong way. Including mine.
I've also lived in areas with a single option; in fact, that's been the case in most places I've lived until I moved to the bay area. I've had 2 or 3 options everywhere I've lived here, save for the one place that had 4. I also recognize that this is not common, having lived elsewhere in the country and seen the reality of the market.
I also recognize that 4, the most choices I've had anywhere is less than 12; apparently unlike the FCC.
I have access to more than a dozen search engines. I have access to 3 ISPs. Seems like there's more 4x as much competition in the search market, at least in my locality.
My understanding is that I'm lucky to have more than one ISP available, and absolutely blessed to have more than two. Everybody has the same access to search engines, though, and I'm pretty sure nobody has access to more than a dozen ISPs.
Well, I'm down to one 4k display now. The other one shorted out when I spit out the water I was drinking as I read this...
Thanks.
And I recently decided to get a Spotify premium account, because 99% of the music I listen to is on there anyway, and I like the curated playlists and recommendations.
Yes, while Spotify is still around, that's great. I use them, and I fill gaps in their collection with Napster (the streaming service, not the defunct filesharing service). I also buy a few CDs every year so I don't lose the songs I really enjoy when streaming services start going belly up. It's also useful to be able to load tracks onto an iPod Classic and not care about cell coverage when driving cross country; something no streaming service lets you do. Napster comes the closest, allowing you to download tracks to your phone, but it still wants to get online and validate licenses before playing them, which is a no go on a lot of rural roads and highways, regardless of carrier.
For most listening situations, I'll even agree with you regarding quality. I certainly can't tell the difference in my car, or through shitty earbuds. Even in my living room, it's a wash once you take MP3 above 240kbps. However, in my office, which doubles as a studio, where I have a custom designed (and for under $300, at that) amp and speaker system and the room is tuned (it's a studio, after all), there is a very clear difference between a raw CD, FLAC, DSD and any lossy encoding, even at the highest settings. When you know where to buy SACD media, DSD really shines on a proper setup in a proper room. Since it's the room I spend 8+ hours of my day in (on top of doubling as a studio), this matters.
That's not all physical media brings to the table, though; I've also recently started building a collection of vinyl. Not because I think it sounds better; that's debatable until the cows come home, grow old, die, and decompose; but because there's just something about putting that needle down on the platter that really speaks to me. It was also an interesting project, putting together a custom phono setup for under $200 (which included modifying a cheaper turntable) that rivals setups costing several thousand. But, again, vinyl isn't about sound quality for me, as you really lose any benefit that may (or may not) have existed in the first place the first time you look at it wrong; but it does give me a feeling I just can't get from an MP3.
It may be that I have 20/5 vision that let me see individual subpixels on a 534 DPI OLED display at 18" (roughly the distance at which I naturally hold my phone), and ears to match those capabilities auditorily, but I'm one of those guys who can pick out the source material in A/B testing of both audio and video. Incidentally, my nose is hyper-sensitive as well; for example, I can smell a radiator leak from a car driving by, a couple dozen feet away, that a trained mechanic won't pick up on until he's got his nose an inch from the hairline crack that hasn't properly started leaking yet. You can say I'm imagining it, but go ahead and tell that to my ex and her family mechanic.
Well, this grown-ass-man listens to more Pink Floyd; the kids you allude to, however, probably listen to more of the Swedish NES Chiptune "artist". It's a curve that's gonna trend away from Floyd as time goes on.
Also, I'm not saying their argument is correct; I'm merely pointing out the logic by which they believe it to be so.
I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with what I said. I mean, none of it was wrong, per se, but it really had nothing to do with the post you were replying to.
Well, yeah. But different parents have different tolerance levels of danger for their offspring and some kids are more aware and alert to the danger around them.
Yes, and the ones who allow their offspring to climb on total strangers are just oblivious. I would say, the ones who manage to figure out how not to climb on strangers and yell and scream about everything without being told are, in fact, controlled; self controlled, at that, which is arguably the best kind of control. Nobody said it had to be the parent who was in control of the child's reasonable behavior, but if the kids isn't then, yes, the parent needs to be.
Generally if your kids have been allowed to fall off small walls and have gotten some bumps and bruises along the way, they likely aren't the ones to go over the rail and into the ocean.
They also aren't likely to climb on random strangers and probably have enough life experience to understand appropriate behavior. Those aren't the kids we're talking about, here.
You expect me not to get defensive when you bold part of your message and question my comprehension/literacy?
You were defensive before I did that; you replied specifically to defend yourself when you (if your claims are at all accurate*) are not the type of parent we're talking about. But, okay; maybe I was wrong about you being responsible and/or not an asshole. I was certainly right about your comprehension, though, and it seems your logical reasoning abilities are about on par with that; I mean, come on, did you really think I was telling you not to get defensive over something you hadn't gotten defensive over yet? No, I was telling you there was no need to defend yourself if you weren't who I was talking about in the first place... which you've made it clear that you actually are.
Fuck you!
Given that you still failed to comprehend my message, I'd say "right back at ya". You were on the winning end of this, before you opened your mouth to reply. I was complimenting you by pointing out that you (by your claims, at least, which I am now heavily doubting) are not one of the asshole parents I was talking about. Yes, I did also point out that you cherry-picked my original message to attack it; but you ignored also ignored the complimentary part of my post, took half of it out of context, and interpreted it as some sort of personal attack. Fuck me, indeed, for believing your comprehension would be any better the second time around.
* In which case you wouldn't have felt the need to shout "not me" in response to my comment. My mistake, overlooking that bit of human psychology, I suppose.
A preference for physical media, which you can continue listening to after the store that sold it to you has closed up shop and the hard drive holding your music collection took a shit or the DRM music player used by your store of choice (admittedly a thing of the past in most cases) needs to refresh licenses, isn't respectable?
Tell that to everyone who bought music through DRM-encumbered stores that later shut down. They're sure all wishing they'd bought physical media. Plus the fact that an uncompressed CD just sounds better; yeah, I'll keep my physical media, thanks.
If they can't hear the screaming baby without me having to mention it, what make you think they'll hear me when I tell them about it?
If you ever can't afford your Netfliix subscription anymore, hit me up. I do enjoy the theater once in a while and appreciate you keeping the kids out of it.
But YouTube actually does pay the industry.
I never said they didn't. The complaint in TFS is that they aren't paying market rate; in fact, about 60% of what you quoted was copied and pasted from TFS. My stipulation was not that YouTube doesn't pay but, rather, if they were forced to pay "market rates" they would simply not allow copyright music any longer and, rather than pay something below market, they'd pay nothing.
I've made a few videos for weddings and funerals, set to music, and that's the case for all of my videos.
It's also the case for something like 90% of my videos, as well. I'm quite familiar with the practice. My point was that, if YouTube were asked to pay more than they're willing to pay, this practice would end.
If someone throws my kid into the ocean or picks them up or touches them, I will quickly eliminate them permanently and then go after my kids. I think that (throwing a kid off the pier) scenario is extremely unlikely less than 1 in 100 million so I don't worry about it.
As though them being thrown in is the only danger I mentioned. Here, allow me to aid your comprehension:
And the parents who let them run around uncontrolled should expect them falling, or getting thrown, into the ocean is par for the course.
To be perfectly honest, I am very paranoid at the pier and anyplace with balconies opening to precipices. So generally there, I keep my kids nearby as they still like holding hands.
Oh, so you're not one of the irresponsible asshole parents we're talking about, then. No need to defend yourself.
The point being argued was:
Someone watching a youtube video does not equate to a lost "sale" from a streaming service.
Note that I never argued against that. However, now that I'm being asked, by way of your additional argument, to examine it more closely...
Since I do subscribe to streaming services where I would have listened to [hypothetical song], for which the label would have been paid, my listening to [hypothetical song] on YouTube is, in fact, a lost sale.
If I weren't a paying customer, or at least willing to be one, then you would be correct, me taking my business to venues which don't pay the labels would not be a lost sale.
Of course, this does not hold quite as true when you're considering CD sales, it only really works for streaming. If I own the CD and don't stream, the label is not getting any more money from me anyway; in that case, my choice to use a venue where the label does not get paid doesn't represent a lost sale, as the sale has already been made.
Why does it hold true for streaming, then, if that sale has also already been made? Simple: labels collect royalties per stream, rather than per sale. When I subscribe to a streaming service, yet choose to listen elsewhere, the label does not get paid for that, whereas they would get paid if I used the streaming service I'm already paying for.
At the end of the day, though, it really doesn't matter. Piracy could completely disappear and We could all turn over our entire paycheck every week for the right to listen to a single song, one time, and the recording industry would still cry that their profits were down.