I can't name very many artists that the major guys produce.
I bought some gift cards for eMusic with the sole purpose of investigating music "I didn't know I needed", sorted by category. As a simple example, I stumbed upon "Fields of the Nephilim" as some great background music for work. (Your Opinion May Vary.)
Combinations of good CD packaging and highly encouraged listening stations would be the way to go.
Is it remotely possible that someone can do the wallmart trick for Non-RIAA music? Seamless triple threat of $7 CD's, no encumbrances, industry setting payments to artists, a solid midline player, a music store that banks upon the 'upsell effect' to avoid the need for DRM, and so on?
Last I knew all of this insanity was about protecting the $18 unit price of music from big box stores who feel a need to post a 4% growth gain forever. Last I knew, it was the race of building/land price vs. sales. "Costs are fixed, revenue is fickle".
Okay, it's clear we need some expert advice on this one.
I've observed most of the replies fall into one of the following categories. Sadly, I too am not a lawyer, so I'll have to do the best I can with the sequencing. A large part of this revolves around undefined terms.
Set A: Tax = License Proposed: "Piracy tax" - Extrapolated RIAA meaning: "Additional levy to cover prosecution costs of 'Pirates', defined as people who do not have hard media or a saved store receipt tied to every piece of music' "
Paying a loss recovery fee does not enable you to become a member of the loss-causing group. The original quote is an example of emotional hyperbole, and is not indicating every single person as a member of the criminal class. The 'correct' interpretation of the quote would be "Sufficient numbers of iPods are repositories of music which we define as illegal, to justify us inserting this charge".
This statement itself can be disputed; however, the original assumption is therefore proved incorrect. To summarize: *you* may indeed not have any offending music, for which the RIAA is sorry to impose, and therefore if you send an image report and a spreadsheet tallying your music to its source, you might qualify for a rebate of the piracy fee.
This is what the RIAA presumably means. The second half of the threads hope that a judge *re-interprets* the fee as not existing cost recovery, but as a version of the 'involuntary license' princple that was first discussed in the days that live bands were nervous about Vinyl recordings. The hope here is a sort of de-facto one time fee enabling unlimited usage of all music forever.
B. Extension of Principle with Hyperbole
This series siezes upon the clearly combative figurative language of the quote, combines it with a misinterpretation, then makes an unwarranted statement of presumed shock. "Oh No, the car I bought has a cost recovery charge for stolen vehicles and/or damage caused by people driving illegally". Automotive is a sufficiently mature industry that I don't hear people clamoring for exact breakouts of what goes into 'true cost'. I am fairly certain there are additional levies of various kinds built into the price structure somewhere, but implicitly stated. A cost recovery fee does not mean "I can ignore the speed limit and drive as I like".
Someone with serious knowledge should compare all this with the gun industry. Guns have among the largest "non-permissible use" profiles of any item sold. Certainly relatively few people should "need it for protection"... because then the major legal use would be driven by illegal acts. I know, 'Yea Yea, the hunting crowd...' - this is indeed a legal, but small range of permissible use.
C. Precedent with hyperbole
These are the threads that begin pseudo-guessing the legal extrapolations of this levy being passed. There is a fairly clear tone indicating the poster does not believe in their post; they are meant as 'if this could pass, so ends the world of rationality'. "If this passes, will I have to pay a murder prosecution tax on dinner knives?"
Movies ( ! ) notwithstanding, I rarely hear of rampant abuse of social opinion of judges. At least at the appeal level, the concept of legal precedent is pretty careful; the worst 'extrapolations' will of course not come to pass. Therefore, the posts in this light here are meant for emotional effect, which is a form of logical fallacy in discussion.
When pressed in court, I am sure the RIAA will amend their position if so needed. Inflammatory statements are distinct from actual policy implementation. I think Steve Ballmer has contributed to this theory of business as well. I hope a judge finally taggs the RIAA upon creating 'excessive psychological damage from overarching efforts without sufficient basis in proof'.
So, any IP Lawyers care to remark on these matters?
The quality is a bit thin, but there is one option possible. Emerson has a low end device that can auto-convert any signal into mp3's, which are then stored on its player. It's okay for an emergency backup.
Copyright laws aren't made about your preferences. They're made to make corporations money. When a fundamental staple of an intellectual empire is allowed to be used by anyone, that empire will be in big trouble.
Corporations are quite pleased that you find their ad annoying. It tells them that you count as an Exposure. If you've been Exposed enough to be annoyed, then someone else is Exposed enough to buy.
If you "already get this sort of thing in general", it's because the ad firm paid heavily for the license rights to the character. If Mr. Mouse becomes fair game, anyone can use him, and Disney gets... nothing.
The kinds of compromises in your middle paragraph are the ones I wanted the Slashdot Crew to weigh in on.
The preview word is prospers, which is what Copyright laws make sure a Corp does.
Unless someone comes up with a hybrid compromise, I think so.
Most companies haven't bothered trying to sell stuff with Tom Swift because the character is so old, it's unuseable. (Except that one has been renewed, but you know.)
We'd like to think public domain materials are only for innocent artists, but public domain = fair game.
Credit Scott Adams & "Dilbert" for blasting open this issue to its core.
Easy Rule #1: Put your strongest player as manager. They arbitrate disputes, you can occasionally dump a nasty problem on them. "Sorry, the client is making a fuss. I have to refer this to the Manager." It's sickening how many times someone won't believe a "junior guy"... and then it gets confirmed, hardball style, by the lead Manager. Client shuts up.
The problem with Rule #1 is when the top dog comes out like Blondie's boss. I'm no expert on the strip, but I never heard anyone say "the old goat is a fraud". They're just terrified of him... because he lacks management skills. (Or has them, from the wrong decade?)
Corrollary: be nice to Administrative Assistants. Yes, if you "felt like it" tyou could do everything that they do. But if you are watching, the good ones are somehow *doing something*, and that something is vaccuming up their entire schedule. Suddenly it's Friday, and they collect a paycheck for doing... whatever it was. They're necessary.
This is not about giving some teenagers mp3's and telling them to propigate them far and wide. The big bucks are in movies, and those take years to organize. Then if a snag occurs, it gets delayed another decade. See for example the new Superman movie. Regardless of your opinion, the one thing the makers could be sure of was the stability of the copyright term while they struggled to make the movie.
Seconded. The toughest work the fingers have to do is not to drop the piece half way through a move.
"I didn't play Qc5 so you could take it. J'Adoube, I adjust. I was *trying* to play Qc8 mate."
Problem is, Despite Silvio Danailov's antics, all these classic board games apparently aren't flashy enough to compete with the subject of all the other posts here.
All of this is of course ten-plus years away itself. After all, we just saw a fresh Zune full of TurboCopyright emerge to great cheer by all... industry professionals. I'm dying to see First Quarter results of sales to non-Christmas people.
Since I know for a fact we'll never see 25 year terms, I won't bother to wish for them. Plus, I am sure there are stories lurking about how it took more than 25 years of negotiations for movie deals to get offered, dropped, stalled, etc.
The big thing the xxAA types are terrified of is horrible commercialization of their former corporate bastions. We all like to trumpet "the honest artist" but there's a real concern that some jerk ad firm will just start pitching cereal to kids with Mickey Mouse. "Why not? It's Public Domain".
IF we somehow magically limited ourselves to "literary uses", I could live with 50 years. From today, that would make it 1958... not quite impressive. But 14 years from now the incalculable cultural wealth of the 1960's would be opened up.
You tagged a feature which I had half-forgotten to look for.
Ever since I first grabbed a cheap iPod some time ago, I decided I was no fan of synchronization software. I then embarked upon a massive investigation of cheaper players to see what uses SynchWare and what dispenses with it. My rule of thumb: I'll trade brute capacity any day for the flexibility to just toss stuff onto the player. If it can't figure out for itself what's on the drive, I don't want it.
I saw all the negative press... and somehow missed the that no mention was made of the transfer software. Therefore, Zune is now officially marked a *complete* disaster.
I'm starting to discovere I prefer a spread of smaller players rather than some monster 30+ gig monstrosity. If anyone else thinks as I do, I'll elaborate.
I briefly glanced at the V1.0x series of Open Office, tried to convince myself for an hour "I should be using this, it's Open Source!",... and turned away.
Life trudged along, and I happened to spy the late Betas and now public release of V2.0x and I like it. A couple quirks take getting used to, one of which may inspire me to submit a bug report if I can find the time to prove it's (spelled correctly!) not a duplicate.
I've never been an early adopter. I like to scout the workings, then bury myself working on my projects. By the time I emerge three months later, someone has often fixed the worst of the heart-attack inducing bugs.
This version of reincarnation is among the very oldest. Keep in mind that all very old doctrines start mixing metaphorical thinking that cannot be taken literally.
Roughly, you're not supposed to recall your errors. Your new situation is supposed to guide you into subtle adjustments.
But recall that this is mixed heavily in with rhetorical language. I follow one of the modern perspectives that there is no Physical reincarnation... so if you waste time making errors... you... waste time that could have been more interesting making better decisions.
In fact, this is a key principle. We as people have to deal ourselves with the damage caused by others. No dispatching this to Anonymous (Noel) Cowards in the sky.
The perpetrator will presumably become miserable when it catches up to him, but there are no magical fixes.
Buddhism is even more diverse than this. You have your choice of the following:
1. In the earliest classical orthodox variants, if you committed an gross aggressive act against another person, you would wind up reincarnated HERE, but as a less advanced form of life. Thus after descending to being an understudy of a reality show film double, you would come back the second time as the particular molecule of virus that scientists rip apart to make the hollow double used to prevent the spread of virulent AIDS. Thus through your immediate torment and suffering for your action, you would help save another's life, and thus begin your climb back up the chain of karma.
2. In the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism, you experience a subjective emotional hell right here, right now. You know, that blinding screeching rage against the machine, and Bogombo Snuff Boxes. (Ask Kurt Vonnegut about that last one. Sorry, Kurt Vonnegut short stories are not available through P2P.)
3. In fact, you do not go anywhere. All you have succeeded in doing is making a minor conceptual mistake, for which Buddhism is quite lenient. You are hereby sentenced to another lifetime of approximately the qualuity you are experiencing now, to further study the error of your ways. Sound dull? That's the point. None of that artificial excitement of Christianity.
You responded politely, so I will address your query straight up.
Your key premise appears to be: "Why should anyone be rational if the Christian God does not exist? Why are men under any obligation to be rational in a materialistic universe?"
I think you may be underestimating the full depths of logic. Without a deity to assist us, deep survival is the operating principle. Therefore, actions that promote survival get modded +1 Useful.
I think you know the basic level; the Commandments had it down. "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Killing is the highest grade of Anti-Survival. (We'll ignore complex exceptions like War for now.) Therefore, Refraining From Killing is encouraged as a rational act. *In the same class*, but several stages weaker, the social strictures are not as strong, but the morality is the same. "Thou Shalt Not Steal/Harm".
You might be more surprised at performing positive actions that seem to defy level 1 rationality. "Why give someone $200 when you know the guy cannot pay it back anytime soon?" The answer is that you have a Credit for SOME OTHER KIND of repayment. Maybe he can't pay you back. But he knows the owner of the store you shop at every week, and can make damn sure your favorite sandwich is stocked.
Start thinking about translation of benefits, and you will find no external forces are needed. As for JHVH, here is my reply. My post above was worded humorously, but the last 25 years introduced the Information Age. JHVH is not very responsive. And all superior beings should be able to communicate down, to the level of their subjects. Until that can be demonstrated just like any human form of communication, JHVH cannot be relied upon... for a rational decision.
I agree. This is what I feel the 21st century sales model should be for media. "Straight up song: Free. Complete Disc package, with pictures, Bonus clip, Artist interview: Premium"
There's different kinds of choice. Choice of Features, vs. choice of total format. I have a choice between Open Office and MS Office for *the same work*. For the DVD stuff, they are antagonistic, and it sounds like a Phyrric battle. "Yay. I won. My 12 subscribers like me."
Except Open Office is Open as in ______, so it's not going to whack a paycheck/day's sales to upgrade that. Plus, I see no need to maniacally upgrade that to oblivion either. I used the Beta 2 for some two years. I see the Release Version V2.0x is available, so I can park on that for 5 years.
I am aware that training can partially alter/accelerate the onset of the strong REM periods, but it's certainly not a switch. My rough experiments let me drop the time required from 8 hours to 5, but ever since my teens I knew going below 5 hours is trouble, and only for horrible emergencies. "Hmm. Turn in that term paper. Nothing afterwards matters".
Parent Post is right on the money that you can increase *production*, where you draw upon previously built/integrated faculties, but over a long term, new deep learning or creativity will take a hit. The problem is that production is over-rewarded in today's society. I have worked hard to promote sustainability at work. I feel some of these options encourage the impulses of less disciplined managers to engage in pseudo-exciting last minute heroics.
It's a Power engine of the highest order. Its proponents begin by asking you to suspend logic and assume an anti-entropic premise. From there, the orthodox doctrine is One of Many interpretations. It gets worse. For the newbie, they can either listen to glorious affirmations, or face the grinding universe. It's like a mathematical proof with a division by zero in it. It's an "illegal operation" for a reason. If that step is allowed, quite literally anything can be pseudo-proved. The fun part is the computer era has contributed a whole new slew of reasons to show it all up.
"God hasn't answered my prayers." "He is Busy." "No he's not, he's God." "Oh. Well, then you're too puny to understand Him." "Hmm. Then can I talk to the cool souls of dead people? Like Edward Gibbon?" "No. The Other World is removed from this one." "That's no fun. Can I send an email?" "No." "What?? God has no IT staff?? Where did all the Slashdotters go?"
I wish to complain about backward incompatible format changes. I had one of our junior associates send me an.xlsx (Office 2007 Excel) file as an experiment. My machine with Office 2003 couldn't read it even after I downloaded the compatibility pack.
I think we need a little more of "Good Enough" in the world so we can "just get some work done". I'm looking forward to the non-sales atmosphere of Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't name very many artists that the major guys produce.
I bought some gift cards for eMusic with the sole purpose of investigating music "I didn't know I needed", sorted by category. As a simple example, I stumbed upon "Fields of the Nephilim" as some great background music for work. (Your Opinion May Vary.)
Combinations of good CD packaging and highly encouraged listening stations would be the way to go.
Is it remotely possible that someone can do the wallmart trick for Non-RIAA music? Seamless triple threat of $7 CD's, no encumbrances, industry setting payments to artists, a solid midline player, a music store that banks upon the 'upsell effect' to avoid the need for DRM, and so on?
Last I knew all of this insanity was about protecting the $18 unit price of music from big box stores who feel a need to post a 4% growth gain forever. Last I knew, it was the race of building/land price vs. sales. "Costs are fixed, revenue is fickle".
For example, I'd like to see an eMusic store.
Okay, it's clear we need some expert advice on this one.
... because then the major legal use would be driven by illegal acts. I know, 'Yea Yea, the hunting crowd...' - this is indeed a legal, but small range of permissible use.
I've observed most of the replies fall into one of the following categories. Sadly, I too am not a lawyer, so I'll have to do the best I can with the sequencing. A large part of this revolves around undefined terms.
Set A: Tax = License
Proposed: "Piracy tax" - Extrapolated RIAA meaning: "Additional levy to cover prosecution costs of 'Pirates', defined as people who do not have hard media or a saved store receipt tied to every piece of music' "
Paying a loss recovery fee does not enable you to become a member of the loss-causing group. The original quote is an example of emotional hyperbole, and is not indicating every single person as a member of the criminal class. The 'correct' interpretation of the quote would be "Sufficient numbers of iPods are repositories of music which we define as illegal, to justify us inserting this charge".
This statement itself can be disputed; however, the original assumption is therefore proved incorrect. To summarize: *you* may indeed not have any offending music, for which the RIAA is sorry to impose, and therefore if you send an image report and a spreadsheet tallying your music to its source, you might qualify for a rebate of the piracy fee.
This is what the RIAA presumably means. The second half of the threads hope that a judge *re-interprets* the fee as not existing cost recovery, but as a version of the 'involuntary license' princple that was first discussed in the days that live bands were nervous about Vinyl recordings. The hope here is a sort of de-facto one time fee enabling unlimited usage of all music forever.
B. Extension of Principle with Hyperbole
This series siezes upon the clearly combative figurative language of the quote, combines it with a misinterpretation, then makes an unwarranted statement of presumed shock. "Oh No, the car I bought has a cost recovery charge for stolen vehicles and/or damage caused by people driving illegally". Automotive is a sufficiently mature industry that I don't hear people clamoring for exact breakouts of what goes into 'true cost'. I am fairly certain there are additional levies of various kinds built into the price structure somewhere, but implicitly stated. A cost recovery fee does not mean "I can ignore the speed limit and drive as I like".
Someone with serious knowledge should compare all this with the gun industry. Guns have among the largest "non-permissible use" profiles of any item sold. Certainly relatively few people should "need it for protection"
C. Precedent with hyperbole
These are the threads that begin pseudo-guessing the legal extrapolations of this levy being passed. There is a fairly clear tone indicating the poster does not believe in their post; they are meant as 'if this could pass, so ends the world of rationality'. "If this passes, will I have to pay a murder prosecution tax on dinner knives?"
Movies ( ! ) notwithstanding, I rarely hear of rampant abuse of social opinion of judges. At least at the appeal level, the concept of legal precedent is pretty careful; the worst 'extrapolations' will of course not come to pass. Therefore, the posts in this light here are meant for emotional effect, which is a form of logical fallacy in discussion.
When pressed in court, I am sure the RIAA will amend their position if so needed. Inflammatory statements are distinct from actual policy implementation. I think Steve Ballmer has contributed to this theory of business as well. I hope a judge finally taggs the RIAA upon creating 'excessive psychological damage from overarching efforts without sufficient basis in proof'.
So, any IP Lawyers care to remark on these matters?
The quality is a bit thin, but there is one option possible. Emerson has a low end device that can auto-convert any signal into mp3's, which are then stored on its player. It's okay for an emergency backup.
Jettison? I saw that cartoon once. PHB? Isn't that a programming language?
And what's the going price on renting your sig? Is that a YRO story?
Copyright laws aren't made about your preferences. They're made to make corporations money. When a fundamental staple of an intellectual empire is allowed to be used by anyone, that empire will be in big trouble.
Corporations are quite pleased that you find their ad annoying. It tells them that you count as an Exposure. If you've been Exposed enough to be annoyed, then someone else is Exposed enough to buy.
If you "already get this sort of thing in general", it's because the ad firm paid heavily for the license rights to the character. If Mr. Mouse becomes fair game, anyone can use him, and Disney gets... nothing.
The kinds of compromises in your middle paragraph are the ones I wanted the Slashdot Crew to weigh in on.
The preview word is prospers, which is what Copyright laws make sure a Corp does.
Unless someone comes up with a hybrid compromise, I think so.
Most companies haven't bothered trying to sell stuff with Tom Swift because the character is so old, it's unuseable. (Except that one has been renewed, but you know.)
We'd like to think public domain materials are only for innocent artists, but public domain = fair game.
Believe it or not, there is an art.
... and then it gets confirmed, hardball style, by the lead Manager. Client shuts up.
... because he lacks management skills. (Or has them, from the wrong decade?)
... whatever it was. They're necessary.
Credit Scott Adams & "Dilbert" for blasting open this issue to its core.
Easy Rule #1: Put your strongest player as manager. They arbitrate disputes, you can occasionally dump a nasty problem on them. "Sorry, the client is making a fuss. I have to refer this to the Manager." It's sickening how many times someone won't believe a "junior guy"
The problem with Rule #1 is when the top dog comes out like Blondie's boss. I'm no expert on the strip, but I never heard anyone say "the old goat is a fraud". They're just terrified of him
Corrollary: be nice to Administrative Assistants. Yes, if you "felt like it" tyou could do everything that they do. But if you are watching, the good ones are somehow *doing something*, and that something is vaccuming up their entire schedule. Suddenly it's Friday, and they collect a paycheck for doing
All these kinds of things need a balanced medium.
I am completely against "3 year terms" etc.
This is not about giving some teenagers mp3's and telling them to propigate them far and wide. The big bucks are in movies, and those take years to organize. Then if a snag occurs, it gets delayed another decade. See for example the new Superman movie. Regardless of your opinion, the one thing the makers could be sure of was the stability of the copyright term while they struggled to make the movie.
Seconded. The toughest work the fingers have to do is not to drop the piece half way through a move.
"I didn't play Qc5 so you could take it. J'Adoube, I adjust. I was *trying* to play Qc8 mate."
Problem is, Despite Silvio Danailov's antics, all these classic board games apparently aren't flashy enough to compete with the subject of all the other posts here.
All of this is of course ten-plus years away itself. After all, we just saw a fresh Zune full of TurboCopyright emerge to great cheer by all ... industry professionals. I'm dying to see First Quarter results of sales to non-Christmas people.
... not quite impressive. But 14 years from now the incalculable cultural wealth of the 1960's would be opened up.
Since I know for a fact we'll never see 25 year terms, I won't bother to wish for them. Plus, I am sure there are stories lurking about how it took more than 25 years of negotiations for movie deals to get offered, dropped, stalled, etc.
The big thing the xxAA types are terrified of is horrible commercialization of their former corporate bastions. We all like to trumpet "the honest artist" but there's a real concern that some jerk ad firm will just start pitching cereal to kids with Mickey Mouse. "Why not? It's Public Domain".
IF we somehow magically limited ourselves to "literary uses", I could live with 50 years. From today, that would make it 1958
The preview word for this post is Conserve.
Thank you, Mr. Jones.
You tagged a feature which I had half-forgotten to look for.
Ever since I first grabbed a cheap iPod some time ago, I decided I was no fan of synchronization software. I then embarked upon a massive investigation of cheaper players to see what uses SynchWare and what dispenses with it. My rule of thumb: I'll trade brute capacity any day for the flexibility to just toss stuff onto the player. If it can't figure out for itself what's on the drive, I don't want it.
I saw all the negative press... and somehow missed the that no mention was made of the transfer software. Therefore, Zune is now officially marked a *complete* disaster.
I'm starting to discovere I prefer a spread of smaller players rather than some monster 30+ gig monstrosity. If anyone else thinks as I do, I'll elaborate.
I briefly glanced at the V1.0x series of Open Office, tried to convince myself for an hour "I should be using this, it's Open Source!", ... and turned away.
Life trudged along, and I happened to spy the late Betas and now public release of V2.0x and I like it. A couple quirks take getting used to, one of which may inspire me to submit a bug report if I can find the time to prove it's (spelled correctly!) not a duplicate.
I've never been an early adopter. I like to scout the workings, then bury myself working on my projects. By the time I emerge three months later, someone has often fixed the worst of the heart-attack inducing bugs.
It's an attempt to at least respond to an "long term problem". You yourself are supposed to be kind to everyone, therefore your karma goes up.
If some random official makes a cruel policy, he presumably gets his due.
This version of reincarnation is among the very oldest. Keep in mind that all very old doctrines start mixing metaphorical thinking that cannot be taken literally.
... waste time that could have been more interesting making better decisions.
Roughly, you're not supposed to recall your errors. Your new situation is supposed to guide you into subtle adjustments.
But recall that this is mixed heavily in with rhetorical language. I follow one of the modern perspectives that there is no Physical reincarnation... so if you waste time making errors... you
In fact, this is a key principle. We as people have to deal ourselves with the damage caused by others. No dispatching this to Anonymous (Noel) Cowards in the sky.
The perpetrator will presumably become miserable when it catches up to him, but there are no magical fixes.
Maybe they are docs for MS Dos and Win 3.11
the preview word is Tiresome
Buddhism is even more diverse than this. You have your choice of the following:
1. In the earliest classical orthodox variants, if you committed an gross aggressive act against another person, you would wind up reincarnated HERE, but as a less advanced form of life. Thus after descending to being an understudy of a reality show film double, you would come back the second time as the particular molecule of virus that scientists rip apart to make the hollow double used to prevent the spread of virulent AIDS. Thus through your immediate torment and suffering for your action, you would help save another's life, and thus begin your climb back up the chain of karma.
2. In the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism, you experience a subjective emotional hell right here, right now. You know, that blinding screeching rage against the machine, and Bogombo Snuff Boxes. (Ask Kurt Vonnegut about that last one. Sorry, Kurt Vonnegut short stories are not available through P2P.)
3. In fact, you do not go anywhere. All you have succeeded in doing is making a minor conceptual mistake, for which Buddhism is quite lenient. You are hereby sentenced to another lifetime of approximately the qualuity you are experiencing now, to further study the error of your ways. Sound dull? That's the point. None of that artificial excitement of Christianity.
I, for one, WELCOME our new NgeMimbwa Overlords.
In Soviet Russia, the Language Manag'hwhabwa's YOU!
You responded politely, so I will address your query straight up.
... for a rational decision.
Your key premise appears to be:
"Why should anyone be rational if the Christian God does not exist? Why are men under any obligation to be rational in a materialistic universe?"
I think you may be underestimating the full depths of logic. Without a deity to assist us, deep survival is the operating principle. Therefore, actions that promote survival get modded +1 Useful.
I think you know the basic level; the Commandments had it down. "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Killing is the highest grade of Anti-Survival. (We'll ignore complex exceptions like War for now.) Therefore, Refraining From Killing is encouraged as a rational act. *In the same class*, but several stages weaker, the social strictures are not as strong, but the morality is the same. "Thou Shalt Not Steal/Harm".
You might be more surprised at performing positive actions that seem to defy level 1 rationality. "Why give someone $200 when you know the guy cannot pay it back anytime soon?" The answer is that you have a Credit for SOME OTHER KIND of repayment. Maybe he can't pay you back. But he knows the owner of the store you shop at every week, and can make damn sure your favorite sandwich is stocked.
Start thinking about translation of benefits, and you will find no external forces are needed. As for JHVH, here is my reply. My post above was worded humorously, but the last 25 years introduced the Information Age. JHVH is not very responsive. And all superior beings should be able to communicate down, to the level of their subjects. Until that can be demonstrated just like any human form of communication, JHVH cannot be relied upon
Regards,
TaoPhoenix
I agree. This is what I feel the 21st century sales model should be for media.
"Straight up song: Free. Complete Disc package, with pictures, Bonus clip, Artist interview: Premium"
There's different kinds of choice. Choice of Features, vs. choice of total format. I have a choice between Open Office and MS Office for *the same work*. For the DVD stuff, they are antagonistic, and it sounds like a Phyrric battle. "Yay. I won. My 12 subscribers like me."
Except Open Office is Open as in ______, so it's not going to whack a paycheck/day's sales to upgrade that. Plus, I see no need to maniacally upgrade that to oblivion either. I used the Beta 2 for some two years. I see the Release Version V2.0x is available, so I can park on that for 5 years.
I am aware that training can partially alter/accelerate the onset of the strong REM periods, but it's certainly not a switch. My rough experiments let me drop the time required from 8 hours to 5, but ever since my teens I knew going below 5 hours is trouble, and only for horrible emergencies. "Hmm. Turn in that term paper. Nothing afterwards matters".
Parent Post is right on the money that you can increase *production*, where you draw upon previously built/integrated faculties, but over a long term, new deep learning or creativity will take a hit. The problem is that production is over-rewarded in today's society. I have worked hard to promote sustainability at work. I feel some of these options encourage the impulses of less disciplined managers to engage in pseudo-exciting last minute heroics.
It's a Power engine of the highest order. Its proponents begin by asking you to suspend logic and assume an anti-entropic premise. From there, the orthodox doctrine is One of Many interpretations. It gets worse. For the newbie, they can either listen to glorious affirmations, or face the grinding universe. It's like a mathematical proof with a division by zero in it. It's an "illegal operation" for a reason. If that step is allowed, quite literally anything can be pseudo-proved. The fun part is the computer era has contributed a whole new slew of reasons to show it all up.
"God hasn't answered my prayers."
"He is Busy."
"No he's not, he's God."
"Oh. Well, then you're too puny to understand Him."
"Hmm. Then can I talk to the cool souls of dead people? Like Edward Gibbon?"
"No. The Other World is removed from this one."
"That's no fun. Can I send an email?"
"No."
"What?? God has no IT staff?? Where did all the Slashdotters go?"
I wish to complain about backward incompatible format changes. I had one of our junior associates send me an .xlsx (Office 2007 Excel) file as an experiment. My machine with Office 2003 couldn't read it even after I downloaded the compatibility pack.
I think we need a little more of "Good Enough" in the world so we can "just get some work done". I'm looking forward to the non-sales atmosphere of Linux.