Yes. No single person invented rap then have everybody copy him. MANY kids in the urban poor neighborhoods were all in one way or another doing what was the precursors of rap. The music industry just hand picked a few people and promoted it. They could have picked somebody else - from a wide selection of many people. You just don't hear about them because - hey, they weren't picked.
So, you're saying that if those kids were placed in isolation, only ever hearing other completely different genres of music, they would all be able to come up with speaking words rhythmically to a beat? Or do you think there might have been some inspiration from others doing the same thing?
They do.
OK, describe your genre.
Here's another genre: rock and roll. The two people credited for it are Elvis and Chuck Berry. But... they're two different people, born from two different places, different skin color, how could they both have come up with "rock and roll"? And what about the others who came into public view around the same time?
And what about everyone else on the planet? Surely they thought up rock and roll independently as well!
The idea of "rock and roll" was not scarce. Lots of people were doing what would be "rock and roll" around the time of Elvis/Berry. The scarcity is in who is "first" to bring rock and roll to the public, and who made it big first. Elvis/Berry took that.
Again, you're taking a snapshot of the population, declaring that it is the origin of an idea, and claiming that everyone doing it had that idea. It's simply not true. They inspired by a small number of common sources, who had the good ideas.
Just consider the absurdity of your position for a moment. There are many thousands of good ideas that fuel science, invention, and artistry. It would appear that you are claiming that a significant portion of the population could have had these ideas! I work in mathematics, and I see mathematical proofs churned out by geniuses which lesser mortals couldn't hope to achieve, and that's just the people with the necessary education! I've seen first hand how scarce a good mind producing good ideas can be. Oh, and if you talked to these geniuses, I doubt they'd be proficient in creating entirely new genres, inventing new life-enriching gadgets, or discovering scientific phenomena. That's because people don't have all the ideas the progress mankind all in one go.
Is it the sentencing of a person for a crime not yet committed, or is it the investigation into crimes not yet committed? If it's not the latter, then this isn't really precrime, more just a potentially dodgy way of investigation.
Rap/hip hop - the culture originated from the streets (as did many other music genres/cultures). The music industry just commercialized it, they didn't come up with it.
The whole open source software movement
Wait, so the majority of the population could have come up with those ideas? Oh yeah, I'm sure everyone has ideas everyday for new genres of music.
What you are listing there are ideas that have been thought up by a few, and shared with the many. This does not disprove my point, rather it supports it. Ideas are valuable and scarce.
No they are not. good ideas abound, and everyone has them.
That's utter crap. Name one significant scientific breakthrough or artistic achievement that could have been achieved by the majority of the population.
I can't believe I'm still surprised by the irrational nonsense people come up with to justify piracy. How come it's almost never the people who pirate the entertainment who produce it? Surely it's trivial if you're constantly having good ideas, and you have access to computers?
But, ideas are actually scarce. People want good ideas, and not everyone has them on every topic. Having good ideas often require practice, experience, or education, or often all three. That's just having the ideas. Implementing them is much more difficult.
What's not scarce are the implementations once designed. The real problem is that we don't have any way of rewarding ideas without these easily copyable implementations. Nobody so far has come up with a workable solution to this problem. Well, none more workable than copyright.
The sentiment of the quote could be restated, "I won't blind-side you or backstab you. If I decide that you need to be taken down, you will know I'm coming and will have an opportunity to defend yourself."
It could, but to be fair, "You'd better do what I say. Accidents happen every day." could be restated as a fun factoid.
Damn straight I'm right. If you don't take your information through observation, and infer your opinions from these observations, then you're pretty much guaranteeing that your opinions are worth less than the photons that carry them.
Nope. I gave up on that a while ago. I decided that popular ignorance spreads way too easily here on slashdot, and trying to stem the tide is simply not worth it. Slashdot will always remain a politically impotent group, so what does it really matter what its members think?
Well, when you have a rich population whose most unique valuable facet is their bourgeois capacity to obtain higher education qualifications, and to produce creative works without fear of going bankrupt, then it's a natural step to staunchly defend intellectual property. I mean, if people only value tangible goods and labour, then you're screwed.
Luckily for them, people do value intangible goods very highly. They often just don't realise it, or care to admit it.
Not if the only things available to download on the limewire or the pirate bay were tumble-weeds. Tumble-weeds and linux distros.
If people actually gave boycotting a try, rather than just go straight for the download, then we have them making a verifiably false claim, and it allows us to publicly oppose them without fear of lawsuit.
As for the story, teaching kids to question things for themselves spells the end of the liberal state.
Damn it!
Well, I'd better go break it to the Liberal Moustache-Twiddlers Association that the serfs have gained independence. What possible need could they have for our education programs, now that they're deciding to watch children's TV?
Multi-Terabyte disks X 24 disk RAID controller. + $1,000 Computer = Entertainment execs. are terrified.
Probably no more so than if you had a rig with a half terabyte hard disk. They don't admit it, but the entertainment execs know that there comes a point where you don't need to buy any entertainment whatsoever, and that point comes pretty quickly. Pretty much anybody nowadays has the capacity to hurt them as much as is possible through piracy. All they need is the will to actually use their power in this way.
Of course, everyone with or without a computer has the power to hurt them even more through boycotting. It does the same financial damage (i.e. you never buy entertainment for them), plus you give them no free advertising, nor do you give them political capital to strengthen copyrights. Just saying...
There were several unsolved murders committed in Montreal last year. I always wondered who commits all these murders, but now I think I have my answer! The world is made so simple with foregone conclusions!
No, I'm pretty sure that the Windows trademark is deserved. Windows was, and still is, a term coined by Microsoft, and used to uniquely identify their product.
No, Bill Gates should pay absolutely nothing, because if Bill Gates had attempted to make his empire while paying a flat tax, he would be now flat broke, and most probably swinging from roof beam by the neck.
I disagree. This thesis tends to spring from the fact that jokes must have a subject, and if the subject is not human, then it is often associated with, created by, maintained by, nurtured by, protected by, or advocated by some human or group of humans. As a counterexample, I once watched Jimeoin poke some good-natured fun at moths!
I also don't like the instant assumption that making fun is derogatory. Like in this case, nobody is disparaging Proffitt as a person. It's really just his name, in relation to his chosen line of work.
The way I see it, a fairly morally conservative group supporting pornography is a step towards ending the cruel treatment of pornographers in uptight theocracies.
You are confusing some of the cogs with the system itself.
Oh? I don't know about the US, but the system here in Australia is defined around laws and syllabi, and makes little to no reference to mandatory labour or combat training. Is it different over there?
There does come a point where the chasm is too great and the pattern of behavior points unmistakably to widespread and incurable corruption.
Certainly. What horrifies me is how sure some people are that we are at or near that point, and how utterly unfounded those conclusions are if you press them on it even a little bit. For example, there are going to be plenty of slashdotters who see this story, who read only the incredibly one-eyed and misleading take on the decision. Consequently, they will never come to understand the decision, and will walk away more confident in their absurd hypothesis that the government is somehow conspiring to strip them of their privacy in some incredibly slow play spanning political parties, term lengths, and many a political in-fight.
The US has plenty of defences against fascism, but precious few against stupid and tunnel-visioned violent fanatics. I know at least one person here (specifically a guy called "nurb") regards John Wilkes Booth as a patriot, but I can't see how he was anything but an enemy to democracy. He attempted to displace an elected leader, presumably in an attempt to replace him with a leader that didn't represent the people, but that better suited Booth's own ideals. How can this behaviour be celebrated in a democracy? Any kind of peace, stability, or prosperity requires cooperation and hard work. We cannot have any one of them, if people start demanding what they want at gunpoint.
As I was saying before, the correct response to a difference of opinion is not violence. It undermines free speech, and destroys the benefits of a free exchange of ideas. Suddenly, arguments are not won by superior evidence, reason, or ideology, but by who has the biggest gun and the smallest brain. Such situations work out to no-one's benefit in the end.
Anyway, that's my rant. Like I said at the beginning, I believe the point you refer to does exist. However, I have seen nothing that indicates it's anywhere on the horizon, nor can I envisage any feasible path from the current state of affairs to that eventuality. All the ways I can see to that eventuality require massive cooperation in the government, which is not, nor has ever been, present in US politics.
Normal people: "I don't understand why he made that decision I don't like. I should really research it further until I do." Slashdotters: "I don't understand why he made that decision I don't like. Therefore, he's clearly a corrupt fascist, and should be shot."
Actually, to be fair, "Normal people" are not really normal at all.
When they lobotomise themselves enough to think that violence is the correct response to a difference of opinion.
Or, I suppose, when they think that a difference of opinion implies some sort of corruption. In fact, they seem to be coming along nicely on that one...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Mind blown.
That's the meaning I was intending.
I never claimed that people parroting ideas was scarce, only new ideas themselves. Not everyone can come up with them in every field.
So, you're saying that if those kids were placed in isolation, only ever hearing other completely different genres of music, they would all be able to come up with speaking words rhythmically to a beat? Or do you think there might have been some inspiration from others doing the same thing?
OK, describe your genre.
And what about everyone else on the planet? Surely they thought up rock and roll independently as well!
Again, you're taking a snapshot of the population, declaring that it is the origin of an idea, and claiming that everyone doing it had that idea. It's simply not true. They inspired by a small number of common sources, who had the good ideas.
Just consider the absurdity of your position for a moment. There are many thousands of good ideas that fuel science, invention, and artistry. It would appear that you are claiming that a significant portion of the population could have had these ideas! I work in mathematics, and I see mathematical proofs churned out by geniuses which lesser mortals couldn't hope to achieve, and that's just the people with the necessary education! I've seen first hand how scarce a good mind producing good ideas can be. Oh, and if you talked to these geniuses, I doubt they'd be proficient in creating entirely new genres, inventing new life-enriching gadgets, or discovering scientific phenomena. That's because people don't have all the ideas the progress mankind all in one go.
Is it the sentencing of a person for a crime not yet committed, or is it the investigation into crimes not yet committed? If it's not the latter, then this isn't really precrime, more just a potentially dodgy way of investigation.
Wait, so the majority of the population could have come up with those ideas? Oh yeah, I'm sure everyone has ideas everyday for new genres of music.
What you are listing there are ideas that have been thought up by a few, and shared with the many. This does not disprove my point, rather it supports it. Ideas are valuable and scarce.
That's utter crap. Name one significant scientific breakthrough or artistic achievement that could have been achieved by the majority of the population.
I can't believe I'm still surprised by the irrational nonsense people come up with to justify piracy. How come it's almost never the people who pirate the entertainment who produce it? Surely it's trivial if you're constantly having good ideas, and you have access to computers?
Adapting is certainly a possibility. There's a whole host of other jobs they can try for, or there's always welfare.
Wait, what was it you said about using money wisely?
But, ideas are actually scarce. People want good ideas, and not everyone has them on every topic. Having good ideas often require practice, experience, or education, or often all three. That's just having the ideas. Implementing them is much more difficult.
What's not scarce are the implementations once designed. The real problem is that we don't have any way of rewarding ideas without these easily copyable implementations. Nobody so far has come up with a workable solution to this problem. Well, none more workable than copyright.
It could, but to be fair, "You'd better do what I say. Accidents happen every day." could be restated as a fun factoid.
What's your point? That's also what anyone who ever intentionally advanced the human race in any way said.
Damn straight I'm right. If you don't take your information through observation, and infer your opinions from these observations, then you're pretty much guaranteeing that your opinions are worth less than the photons that carry them.
Nope. I gave up on that a while ago. I decided that popular ignorance spreads way too easily here on slashdot, and trying to stem the tide is simply not worth it. Slashdot will always remain a politically impotent group, so what does it really matter what its members think?
Well, when you have a rich population whose most unique valuable facet is their bourgeois capacity to obtain higher education qualifications, and to produce creative works without fear of going bankrupt, then it's a natural step to staunchly defend intellectual property. I mean, if people only value tangible goods and labour, then you're screwed.
Luckily for them, people do value intangible goods very highly. They often just don't realise it, or care to admit it.
I am happy because every time I test this hypothesis, it is consistent with what I'm told.
Or perhaps I'm too authoritarian to accept without critical thought the largely unfounded contradictions of random people on the internet?
Not if the only things available to download on the limewire or the pirate bay were tumble-weeds. Tumble-weeds and linux distros.
If people actually gave boycotting a try, rather than just go straight for the download, then we have them making a verifiably false claim, and it allows us to publicly oppose them without fear of lawsuit.
Damn it!
Well, I'd better go break it to the Liberal Moustache-Twiddlers Association that the serfs have gained independence. What possible need could they have for our education programs, now that they're deciding to watch children's TV?
Probably no more so than if you had a rig with a half terabyte hard disk. They don't admit it, but the entertainment execs know that there comes a point where you don't need to buy any entertainment whatsoever, and that point comes pretty quickly. Pretty much anybody nowadays has the capacity to hurt them as much as is possible through piracy. All they need is the will to actually use their power in this way.
Of course, everyone with or without a computer has the power to hurt them even more through boycotting. It does the same financial damage (i.e. you never buy entertainment for them), plus you give them no free advertising, nor do you give them political capital to strengthen copyrights. Just saying...
There were several unsolved murders committed in Montreal last year. I always wondered who commits all these murders, but now I think I have my answer! The world is made so simple with foregone conclusions!
No, I'm pretty sure that the Windows trademark is deserved. Windows was, and still is, a term coined by Microsoft, and used to uniquely identify their product.
No, Bill Gates should pay absolutely nothing, because if Bill Gates had attempted to make his empire while paying a flat tax, he would be now flat broke, and most probably swinging from roof beam by the neck.
I disagree. This thesis tends to spring from the fact that jokes must have a subject, and if the subject is not human, then it is often associated with, created by, maintained by, nurtured by, protected by, or advocated by some human or group of humans. As a counterexample, I once watched Jimeoin poke some good-natured fun at moths!
I also don't like the instant assumption that making fun is derogatory. Like in this case, nobody is disparaging Proffitt as a person. It's really just his name, in relation to his chosen line of work.
The way I see it, a fairly morally conservative group supporting pornography is a step towards ending the cruel treatment of pornographers in uptight theocracies.
Oh? I don't know about the US, but the system here in Australia is defined around laws and syllabi, and makes little to no reference to mandatory labour or combat training. Is it different over there?
Certainly. What horrifies me is how sure some people are that we are at or near that point, and how utterly unfounded those conclusions are if you press them on it even a little bit. For example, there are going to be plenty of slashdotters who see this story, who read only the incredibly one-eyed and misleading take on the decision. Consequently, they will never come to understand the decision, and will walk away more confident in their absurd hypothesis that the government is somehow conspiring to strip them of their privacy in some incredibly slow play spanning political parties, term lengths, and many a political in-fight.
The US has plenty of defences against fascism, but precious few against stupid and tunnel-visioned violent fanatics. I know at least one person here (specifically a guy called "nurb") regards John Wilkes Booth as a patriot, but I can't see how he was anything but an enemy to democracy. He attempted to displace an elected leader, presumably in an attempt to replace him with a leader that didn't represent the people, but that better suited Booth's own ideals. How can this behaviour be celebrated in a democracy? Any kind of peace, stability, or prosperity requires cooperation and hard work. We cannot have any one of them, if people start demanding what they want at gunpoint.
As I was saying before, the correct response to a difference of opinion is not violence. It undermines free speech, and destroys the benefits of a free exchange of ideas. Suddenly, arguments are not won by superior evidence, reason, or ideology, but by who has the biggest gun and the smallest brain. Such situations work out to no-one's benefit in the end.
Anyway, that's my rant. Like I said at the beginning, I believe the point you refer to does exist. However, I have seen nothing that indicates it's anywhere on the horizon, nor can I envisage any feasible path from the current state of affairs to that eventuality. All the ways I can see to that eventuality require massive cooperation in the government, which is not, nor has ever been, present in US politics.
Normal people: "I don't understand why he made that decision I don't like. I should really research it further until I do."
Slashdotters: "I don't understand why he made that decision I don't like. Therefore, he's clearly a corrupt fascist, and should be shot."
Actually, to be fair, "Normal people" are not really normal at all.
When they lobotomise themselves enough to think that violence is the correct response to a difference of opinion.
Or, I suppose, when they think that a difference of opinion implies some sort of corruption. In fact, they seem to be coming along nicely on that one...