And BTW, this may be my last comment on/. since they got rid of the comments text under the summary
Why does my Slashdot look exactly the same as it looked six months ago? I've been reading the outraged comments and I still see comments under the summary as always.
Did someone skip me when Slashdot pushed out the update?
The world would be a much better place if people would stop worrying about what their neighbors were doing and handle their own business.
Unless their neighbor has a fracking operation in their back yard. Or refuses to vaccinate his kids. Or decides that after changing the oil in his '76 Toyota pickup to pour the old oil down the sewer.
Or decides to tool around his yard on his shiny new bulldozer that has an idling noise level in excess of 85db.
See, it's not as easy as you think to be an "everyone do your own thing" hippie.
Instead of safety legislation, lets just hold individuals who misuse drones accountable when they do something stupid.
Or require a simple license (like a fishing license) to fly a drone.
A one-page written test which demonstrates whether or not you know your ass from your elbow and the likelihood that you will use the drone to peek in the window of the lady who lives across the street would also be nice.
You want to fly a drone on your own property? Have at it. You want to fly it in public, then let's see some proof that you're not a goofball.
It is a signifier of respect for the citizens and their capacity to reason what is right/wrong and act thereupon.
Have you had a look at your fellow citizens? Have you seen how they behave? We've got the most violent developed country in the world, and you expect "respect for the citizens and their capacity to reason what is right/wrong and act thereupon"?
Half of Americans believe in ghosts. 38% believe in UFOs and 80% believe the government is covering up evidence of UFOs. Half believe climate change is a conspiracy by liberal scientists. Twenty percent of all Americans are on some kind of psychiatric drug.
OK, that leaves about half the people that can (theoretically) reason. I don't want the other half to be flying drones. Or driving cars or having firearms (but those are arguments for another day).
Reagan was badly upset when he realized that the Russians actually thought that Able Archer 82
By the time Reagan said "the bombing will start in 5 minutes", he was already half-senile and going potty in a diaper.
You give too much credit to figure heads. They've been fucking up the world for centuries. You think because it's "modern times" that all of a sudden they're any less monomaniacal, egotistical, narcissistic or in the case of Reagan, just plain crazy evil?
I think that enough people have done the calculus in their heads about what they would do if called upon to end the world.
So why can't they do "the calculus" when it comes to the threat of climate change?
But I think if the president were to issue such an order without a clear and present threat, it's more likely that it would not come down to the missile jockey; instead, he'd be wrestled to the floor by his senior cabinet
Do you remember any of the people in the Bush Senior cabinet? The Reagan senior cabinet? You're really prepared to trust that all these people and all future cabinet members are always going to be rational?
Strictly speaking, you don't need every politician to be rational, you just need enough that the order for insanity will be refused or serious opposition would go up.
That's not how military chain-of-command works.
First, you have to assume the guy with the power to give the order to launch is rational. Then, you have to assume that someone exists in the chain of command who does not believe a second strike is survivable. Since Reagan, our foreign policy has been that survival is a possibility.
We have had presidents and very high-ranking Air Force brass who believed the world was destined to end in a biblical apocalypse that would herald the return of Jesus Christ to raise all believers to heaven. Now you're down to trusting the rational decision-making of a low-level grunt who's been stuck below-ground in a silo, watching every day for the launch order to come down. You think they train those guys to be skeptical of the orders they're given?
OK. It's funny that people who will otherwise question everything government does also have such unshakable faith in their government when it comes to A) the military and B) the police.
MAD is very much not based on the assumption that the people behind the nukes are rational. In the face of an all out attack on the USA by Russia using nuclear arms, retaliating isn't going to help the USA, and will only help to annihilate humanity. No rational person would retaliate in those circumstances - the only "gain" from doing so is to die knowing that the Ruskies get blown up as well.
So the only way to make MAD work is to make the enemy think you might just be crazy enough to hit that big red button.
Read what you wrote again - slowly - and re-evaluate.
So the only way to make MAD work is to make the enemy think you might just be crazy enough to hit that big red button.
OK, if you haven't seen the fallacies and logical errors in this view yet, let me take a different approach:
ABMs, MIRVs and the Strategic Defense Initiative have made MAD utterly useless. We already have politicians and policy-makers who believe a second strike is survivable. Thus, the assurance has been removed.
The first question regarding what to do if a giant meteorite is heading for collision with Earth should be, "Is humanity worth saving?"
Let's start by making a list of reasons why it's important to save humanity. And I'm sorry, "Because it's us!" is not persuasive. Who wants to go first?
The nuclear-armed nations have not gone to war with each other, and they won't because nuclear weapons (along with ICBM's) ensure that politicians can't simply send poor boys off to die for their lustful ambition on wealth and power without also impulsively risking their own safety.
Mutual Assured Destruction is based on an assumption that all politicians are rational.
You willing to bet your life on the proposition that every politician is rational?
...and that's why most musicians can't make a living doing it.
No, that's not why. Most musicians can't make a living doing it because most musicians simply aren't that good.
Most artists can't make a living at it. Most actors, novelists, poets and dancers can't make a living at it.
A lot of fun, don't get me wrong, but it's a tough way to make a living.
It should be tough. Not that many people are special. But if you're good, you can definitely make a living as a musician without signing your life away to a major label. The options have never been better, but you have to be a little bit creative. And as an artist, "creative" is what you're supposed to be.
The only way that this will change, is when musicians follow the path of software developers. Release your work for free on the Internet and good work will get noticed. Good artists will build a profile then can then start charging for their work.
There's no reason why Artists can't deal with the likes of Spotify or Apple Music directly, but unlike developers who tend to be smarter than average, artists tend to be at the stupid end of the spectrum, and hence will continue to be taken advantage of.
I think the change has already taken place. Except for a very tiny slice of working artists, the old corporate label model has been dead for some time. Because innovators gonna innovate.
They have pretty much the same catalogue, 25 million plus in Tidal's case.
Pretty much, but not as extensive. Tidal does not have as large a catalog as Spotify.
But even Spotify has holes in its catalog. Songs by artist (some long dead) that are just not available. Fortunately, Spotify allows me to add my own tracks from my own collection and they integrate seamlessly into playlists.
I've looked Tidal over and it just hasn't convinced me yet.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an interesting theory. Why has it never worked?
Why does my Slashdot look exactly the same as it looked six months ago? I've been reading the outraged comments and I still see comments under the summary as always.
Did someone skip me when Slashdot pushed out the update?
Unless their neighbor has a fracking operation in their back yard. Or refuses to vaccinate his kids. Or decides that after changing the oil in his '76 Toyota pickup to pour the old oil down the sewer.
Or decides to tool around his yard on his shiny new bulldozer that has an idling noise level in excess of 85db.
See, it's not as easy as you think to be an "everyone do your own thing" hippie.
I can "curate" my own social media, thank you. I don't need some marketing department making decisions on what is important to me.
Weren't we already past the point where we need network gatekeepers telling us the news? What is this, the 1970s revisited?
"Within the boundaries of the law" is exactly what this discussion is about.
There is a difference between "no one should own a bulldozer" and "anyone should own a bulldozer".
I don't want my neighbor owning a bulldozer. He can't even park his Audi without rolling over my amaryllis.
https://youtu.be/j2zlPNGuPbw
Or require a simple license (like a fishing license) to fly a drone.
A one-page written test which demonstrates whether or not you know your ass from your elbow and the likelihood that you will use the drone to peek in the window of the lady who lives across the street would also be nice.
You want to fly a drone on your own property? Have at it. You want to fly it in public, then let's see some proof that you're not a goofball.
Have you had a look at your fellow citizens? Have you seen how they behave? We've got the most violent developed country in the world, and you expect "respect for the citizens and their capacity to reason what is right/wrong and act thereupon"?
Half of Americans believe in ghosts. 38% believe in UFOs and 80% believe the government is covering up evidence of UFOs. Half believe climate change is a conspiracy by liberal scientists. Twenty percent of all Americans are on some kind of psychiatric drug.
OK, that leaves about half the people that can (theoretically) reason. I don't want the other half to be flying drones. Or driving cars or having firearms (but those are arguments for another day).
By the time Reagan said "the bombing will start in 5 minutes", he was already half-senile and going potty in a diaper.
You give too much credit to figure heads. They've been fucking up the world for centuries. You think because it's "modern times" that all of a sudden they're any less monomaniacal, egotistical, narcissistic or in the case of Reagan, just plain crazy evil?
So why can't they do "the calculus" when it comes to the threat of climate change?
Slashdot functionality is like a guy who goes to a massage parlor.
It comes and goes.
What are you talking about? I just searched for carbuncles and didn't get anything like that.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Is that class before or after the required fundamentalist Christian dominionist prayer meeting?
http://www.truth-out.org/opini...
Do you remember any of the people in the Bush Senior cabinet? The Reagan senior cabinet? You're really prepared to trust that all these people and all future cabinet members are always going to be rational?
The secret died with Stanley Kubrick.
http://realitysandwich.com/232...
Me too. I figured it was a site streaming video from a tiny fiber optic camera stuck up some guy's slindle.
That's not how military chain-of-command works.
First, you have to assume the guy with the power to give the order to launch is rational. Then, you have to assume that someone exists in the chain of command who does not believe a second strike is survivable. Since Reagan, our foreign policy has been that survival is a possibility.
We have had presidents and very high-ranking Air Force brass who believed the world was destined to end in a biblical apocalypse that would herald the return of Jesus Christ to raise all believers to heaven. Now you're down to trusting the rational decision-making of a low-level grunt who's been stuck below-ground in a silo, watching every day for the launch order to come down. You think they train those guys to be skeptical of the orders they're given?
OK. It's funny that people who will otherwise question everything government does also have such unshakable faith in their government when it comes to A) the military and B) the police.
Read what you wrote again - slowly - and re-evaluate.
OK, if you haven't seen the fallacies and logical errors in this view yet, let me take a different approach:
ABMs, MIRVs and the Strategic Defense Initiative have made MAD utterly useless. We already have politicians and policy-makers who believe a second strike is survivable. Thus, the assurance has been removed.
The first question regarding what to do if a giant meteorite is heading for collision with Earth should be, "Is humanity worth saving?"
Let's start by making a list of reasons why it's important to save humanity. And I'm sorry, "Because it's us!" is not persuasive. Who wants to go first?
And now all those pieces are radioactive to boot.
I've read some cockamamie arguments from people who are desperate to make sure we keep our nuclear weapons, but this one is a real hoot.
Mutual Assured Destruction is based on an assumption that all politicians are rational.
You willing to bet your life on the proposition that every politician is rational?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, that's not why. Most musicians can't make a living doing it because most musicians simply aren't that good.
Most artists can't make a living at it. Most actors, novelists, poets and dancers can't make a living at it.
It should be tough. Not that many people are special. But if you're good, you can definitely make a living as a musician without signing your life away to a major label. The options have never been better, but you have to be a little bit creative. And as an artist, "creative" is what you're supposed to be.
I think there's medicine for that now.
https://soundcloud.com/
https://bandcamp.com/
I think the change has already taken place. Except for a very tiny slice of working artists, the old corporate label model has been dead for some time. Because innovators gonna innovate.
I was paraphrasing a popular song from some years back.
Pretty much, but not as extensive. Tidal does not have as large a catalog as Spotify.
But even Spotify has holes in its catalog. Songs by artist (some long dead) that are just not available. Fortunately, Spotify allows me to add my own tracks from my own collection and they integrate seamlessly into playlists.
I've looked Tidal over and it just hasn't convinced me yet.