And it's sometimes profitable for the composer/artist.
But this exposes not the profit motive of Spotify (and whatever other service is currently 'getting away' with it), but the marketing foundation of the music industry. Some music genres are so focused on marketing the same formula to the same audience that they are no longer creative, but industrial. Apologies to the industrial music genre.
But I still buy (I know, outmoded but I love owning the music I want) electrionica, dance, bass, and classic rock which is another industrial phenomenon. Yard sales yield treasures for pennies, and my library is recovering from the last (2001) devastation.
And no, I do not need vinyl any more than I need Dolby B cassettes or 15ips reels.
Yes. And despite a few *seconds* of immersive 3D action in Avatar, most of it was what you get from a Viewmaster. It's not 1938 any more. We expect better.
If your 'inalienable right to life' includes your right to end your life it you choose, that is similar but not quite identical to your implicit right to self-defense. Both rights recognized by legitimate societies.
But your similar right to free speech is not without limit. and so it is with property. If you can define a use of your property that is necessary for others to use theirs, is the choice then to either silo up everyone and develop a society of interlocking individual property agreements, or is it to devise a system of broad property rights with some essentially granted in a societal framework, and some individually?
Electromagnetic transmissions rights are a good case study in societal benefit, while water rights are an excellent study in the limitations of individual rights - should I be permitted to poison my water to the detriment of my downstream neighbors?
And if broadcasting is harmful, then why would it be permitted, and more importantly, who validates the claim? We are still arguing over whether cell phones emit enough radiation to be harmful, with no preponderance of evidence that they are.
'Enlightened' free market capitalism could tolerate some monopolies. Utilities such as electricity, water, and sewer could be the more efficient means of delivering these goods or services.
Telephone as a monopoly may have been the best means to develop the ubiquitous network and compatible devices that the POTS offered. Today, however, wireless is where growth and focus are, along with VOIP, which needs no dedicated network but can run on wired and wireless, with no real concern for the underlying media and protocols.
It is interesting to me that the telephone monopoly was dismantled when the devices were recognized as an abusive monopoly. Shortly after that came new providers, and then wireless made a mess of that all.
Yes, wireless has monopolies also - though most call them 'standards'. And there is an argument that standards monopolies, because standards are required for interoperability.
And we come close to the cognitive dissonance that is real-world free market capitalism. It may not be the best solution for all problems, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
BTW I rent to people like you. They pay on time and don't cause trouble. Mostly. The troublemakers are surprisingly easy to get rid of, I got people for that. They wear uniforms and everything. Very efficient, and affordable.
"If I wrote "Trump Recession" instead, would that have made me sound more intelligent?"
To 48% of the population, yes.
Most of them watch CNN. The rest can't bear the reality that their worldview isn't the dominant one and rail against all others because they are just damned right, damn it, and most of those just want you to give it a chance, for once.
That small sliver who just want a chance? They know their plans don;t work. They just want power.
8% can't make yup their minds.
And the rest, the 42%? They know better, and are waiting quietly as things get set right.
Apple charges $79 to replace the battery on the 7/7s in the US. third-party shops charge up to $130 to replace an HTC 10 battery. The difference is in construction.
Thin phones pretty much demand either very clever construction or irreparable construction. HTC, LG, and Samsung have gone for irreparable.
Legislating changes to this is why we can't have nice things. Trying to tell manufacturers how to make their products risks giving us products we actually don't desire. Right now this seems like Apple has successfully convince the EU to force their competitors into untenable positions. Sharp Practice, if so.
"Many conservatives point out that even our very poorest often have it better than many in the 3rd world."
But they do not point that out as a goal, but first to set the comparison correctly, IE what is described as being poor in America, with few exceptions*, not nearly as bad as it is proclaimed to be, and second, that despite assistance, the poor persist. That I have no glib answer for.
* - notice many stories of the poor in Appalachia? Not many, for that is true poverty, and none seem very motivated to address it. And, more importantly, they generally know the government has rarely made their lives better.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's sometimes profitable for the composer/artist.
But this exposes not the profit motive of Spotify (and whatever other service is currently 'getting away' with it), but the marketing foundation of the music industry. Some music genres are so focused on marketing the same formula to the same audience that they are no longer creative, but industrial. Apologies to the industrial music genre.
But I still buy (I know, outmoded but I love owning the music I want) electrionica, dance, bass, and classic rock which is another industrial phenomenon. Yard sales yield treasures for pennies, and my library is recovering from the last (2001) devastation.
And no, I do not need vinyl any more than I need Dolby B cassettes or 15ips reels.
Rent Seeking.
That alone recommends against this and its advocates.
Yes. And despite a few *seconds* of immersive 3D action in Avatar, most of it was what you get from a Viewmaster. It's not 1938 any more. We expect better.
If your 'inalienable right to life' includes your right to end your life it you choose, that is similar but not quite identical to your implicit right to self-defense. Both rights recognized by legitimate societies.
But your similar right to free speech is not without limit. and so it is with property. If you can define a use of your property that is necessary for others to use theirs, is the choice then to either silo up everyone and develop a society of interlocking individual property agreements, or is it to devise a system of broad property rights with some essentially granted in a societal framework, and some individually?
Electromagnetic transmissions rights are a good case study in societal benefit, while water rights are an excellent study in the limitations of individual rights - should I be permitted to poison my water to the detriment of my downstream neighbors?
And if broadcasting is harmful, then why would it be permitted, and more importantly, who validates the claim? We are still arguing over whether cell phones emit enough radiation to be harmful, with no preponderance of evidence that they are.
'Enlightened' free market capitalism could tolerate some monopolies. Utilities such as electricity, water, and sewer could be the more efficient means of delivering these goods or services.
Telephone as a monopoly may have been the best means to develop the ubiquitous network and compatible devices that the POTS offered. Today, however, wireless is where growth and focus are, along with VOIP, which needs no dedicated network but can run on wired and wireless, with no real concern for the underlying media and protocols.
It is interesting to me that the telephone monopoly was dismantled when the devices were recognized as an abusive monopoly. Shortly after that came new providers, and then wireless made a mess of that all.
Yes, wireless has monopolies also - though most call them 'standards'. And there is an argument that standards monopolies, because standards are required for interoperability.
And we come close to the cognitive dissonance that is real-world free market capitalism. It may not be the best solution for all problems, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Wrong. General Truth is the first casualty of war and other things...
And you're moving on...
BTW I rent to people like you. They pay on time and don't cause trouble. Mostly. The troublemakers are surprisingly easy to get rid of, I got people for that. They wear uniforms and everything. Very efficient, and affordable.
"If I wrote "Trump Recession" instead, would that have made me sound more intelligent?"
To 48% of the population, yes.
Most of them watch CNN. The rest can't bear the reality that their worldview isn't the dominant one and rail against all others because they are just damned right, damn it, and most of those just want you to give it a chance, for once.
That small sliver who just want a chance? They know their plans don;t work. They just want power.
8% can't make yup their minds.
And the rest, the 42%? They know better, and are waiting quietly as things get set right.
Queue the outrage.
"The Press is part of the checks and balances of the government. "
Not so much any more, and that's the problem.
As in "(fill in the blank) refused to take questions from (insert media outlet here) at his latest press conference"?
That would be interesting. Dates and times for extra credit.
Sorry, the correct quote was 'unrelated to the discussion at hand'...
Because your reply to me seemed to indicate that one of your points was 'unrelated to the argument'.
Your words, not mine. Or have you already forgotten?
Your doing it wrong.
Car rides usually don't end in rape.
FTFY
The lure of free is indeed hard to resist.
It was part of your argument. Now it's an unimportant not?
Perhaps you would like to restate your point? Or just wander off smug in your dismissal of those who prefer rational argument?
I did.
Earth isn't.
"to a planet that is more democratic than not. "
What is this planet you write of? It is unknown to me.
I wasn't concerned with wait time, just the problem of the iPhone being repairable and the HTC not.
Apple charges $79 to replace the battery on the 7/7s in the US. third-party shops charge up to $130 to replace an HTC 10 battery. The difference is in construction.
Thin phones pretty much demand either very clever construction or irreparable construction. HTC, LG, and Samsung have gone for irreparable.
Legislating changes to this is why we can't have nice things. Trying to tell manufacturers how to make their products risks giving us products we actually don't desire. Right now this seems like Apple has successfully convince the EU to force their competitors into untenable positions. Sharp Practice, if so.
*whoosh*
"Many conservatives point out that even our very poorest often have it better than many in the 3rd world."
But they do not point that out as a goal, but first to set the comparison correctly, IE what is described as being poor in America, with few exceptions*, not nearly as bad as it is proclaimed to be, and second, that despite assistance, the poor persist. That I have no glib answer for.
* - notice many stories of the poor in Appalachia? Not many, for that is true poverty, and none seem very motivated to address it. And, more importantly, they generally know the government has rarely made their lives better.
It's not that simple.
Gawd that's stupid.