Agreed... I was initially against net neutrality, but after some thought I went completely to the other side of the issue, agreeing 100% with the concept of net neutrality (which is besides the point in this discussion). From what I understand, however, these regulations go far beyond that into the realm of another power-grab by a U.S. government agency.
Irrelevant. We don't need to make specific predictions to predict that things will be bad.
Not irrelevant, because you can't impose these kinds of burdens (financial and otherwise) on people without the certainty that they'll make things better.
I've always felt I should be able to leave the fruits of my labors to my family. Let's take the case of a moderately successful musician whose wife stayed home with the kids while he was out on tour. He's killed in a tour bus accident. Yes, she should continue to collect royalties. They're not all Elvis or Madonna - most musicians barely scrape by. Yes, there should be some reasonable time limit, though. What that is escapes me... perhaps life of spouse; I wouldn't want to say life of children, but then if there are special needs children that are still being taken care of by the family as an adult then it seems unfair to cut them off because their mom died, too.
But where should it end? I don't know... but we need to stop treating all musicians as if they're part of the tiny, less than 1% fraction that makes millions of dollars from being a performer.
The question is really not if life should be fair (it should be), but what "fair" means. If Pandora negotiates rates with record companies (or just the RIAA), then what's not fair about what they're paying? If the rate's too low, blame the RIAA, or the companies. Ultimately, if the artists signed a contract, is it not "fair" that all parties live up to it? You shouldn't sign an "unfair" contract, after all... and no, nobody held a gun to their heads, figuratively or otherwise.
So you're blaming Pandora for paying negotiated rates? Once again slashdotters let their emotions cloud their judgement and direct their ire at the wrong party.
But there is one flaw: How would you measure if we have "enough" people in music creation? Do numbers count at all? What about quality? How many pop idols would be needed to outweigh a Leonard Bernstein? How many for an Elvis Presley?
Numbers count only because the more noise there is, the harder it is to find the signal. You like to think that the cream rises to the top, but it's sadly not always the case. Leonard Bernstein and Elvis Presley are only "worth more" because they were early pioneers. If they were breaking into the industry today, do you think they'd have that much success? Just musing.
If the artists don't like it, they can pull their music. Why should I care what the royalties are? And if they can't pull their music because their RIAA mafia record company won't let them, then it's the record companies fault. A lot of the shock and outrage I see on slashdot seems heinously misdirected.
I agree... I'd rather have separate streaming devices that cost a fraction of the TV and can be replaced when the technology improves instead of having it built in to the most expensive component. I marvel at the people buying really expensive cars with iPhone connectivity... and then Apple changes the connector on it's newer version.
I like Waze, but already accept being tracked (at least) while I'm driving. I don't have a "smart" TV, though, and don't want one. Is that even an option anymore? I prefer components I can replace instead of built in doo-dads.
And the response from the advertisers, like with the advent of DVRs, is more ads, more annoying, and louder... which only drives more people to avoid them. They don't understand the circular hell they are putting themselves in, or why they are failing.
I think the apologists for the terrorists and Islamic extremists should definitely watch all the burnings, stonings, beheadings, and rapes. Apparently words aren't enough.
Every time a terrorist successfully detonates a bomb people complain the police didn't do enough to prevent it.... EVERY TIME. Maybe not you, but it happens EVERY time.
The airports have that stuff right there; how long are the police supposed to take to decide if something's a "real" threat or not? I know slashdotters hate police and hate the "police state" with cameras and tracking your every move and everything... but what would you be saying if it was a bomb and it went off because they were taking too long to figure out if it was a threat? How close are people supposed to get to it to figure it out? Whatever it was, it wasn't supposed to be there.... the only way you look back at this and whine about overreacting is because it wasn't actually a threat. Like I said - hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to sit here and whine about the police "ruining" some art project now.
And then perhaps in the future terrorists will label their bombs with sharpies, stating that it's a student project. It doesn't work... sadly, in this day and age, you actually need to get permission to do something like that, and probably have the "device" inspected beforehand.
Image of the "device.". Yes, it was an overreaction because it was not a threat, but I don't see a note there... perhaps there's one in the shadow. If you suspect it's a bomb, are you supposed to get close enough to read the note on it?
Hindsight is 20/20... deciding what to do in situations like these is very difficult, but there's no way that, looking at that picture, you can't call it suspicious.
The police end up looking bad in hindsight, but that's only because that's the majority of the public's view of what happened. The camera was embedded in what looked like an empty soda can, and almost completely covered with duct tape. The pin hole was likely facing out over the interstate, making what you saw on the bridge just a cylinder and duct tape, so no, even knowing what a pinhole camera is doesn't make it obvious that this was one of them.
We complain they overreact in cases like this, but then when something happens they didn't do enough. Us armchair police chiefs seem to have all the answers.
Hindsight is 20/20; what would you do if you were the police, in charge of keeping the public safe, and some hacked together package was duct-taped to a support on one of the busiest bridges in the city? I work a couple of blocks from there... I'm incredibly lucky to have been working at home yesterday and not have to deal with the ensuing traffic nightmare (it's already bad enough in that particular spot... maybe the police should spend more time ticketing the people causing gridlock).
Now, granted, I don't know if "blow it up first, ask questions later" is necessarily the right approach, but it's only an overreaction when it wasn't a threat... when it is we complain they did too little.
I would mark you up, but wanted to add that carbohydrates, or perhaps some specific high carb foods, are the cause of a whole slew of physical problems that a lot of people have. When I did low carb, not only did I lose weight fast, but allergies went away, I had consistently high energy throughout the day... and at the end of the day my energy level dropped like a rock and I slept solidly through the night whereas, before that, I consistently had trouble sleeping. Even skin problems cleared up - dandruff, eczema went away completely.
I also want to add to what people are saying - you don't absorb every calorie you eat. That's been mentioned in a few posts above, but not enough, I think, although you cannot use that fact as an excuse to overeat. But beyond that, a lot of low-carb naysayers don't get that you can lose more calories than you actually burn when you're in ketosis. The simple (calories in) - (calories out) is just far too simple, and it's just accurate.
No... people get legitimately threatened all the time, whether directly or indirectly. You're threatened with a speeding ticket if you exceed the limit; you're threatened with fines and possible imprisonment for failing to pay taxes; your boss might threaten to fire you if you don't increase your output; parents threaten to take away kid's TV watching privileges if they don't do well in school; your wife might threaten to divorce you if you keep leaving the cap off the toothpaste... it's just part of life.
I don't know if it's gotten to SCOTUS yet, but several state supreme courts and federal judges have ruled that you must give the password to decrypt your device if they have a warrant. What happens if you don't? I don't know.... contempt of court, I guess.
That's what I would have added... curiosity. I think, like a lot engineers, the kind of people who took their parent's phones apart when they were kids to figure out how they worked... always playing the "what if" and "I wonder what would happen" games.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed... I was initially against net neutrality, but after some thought I went completely to the other side of the issue, agreeing 100% with the concept of net neutrality (which is besides the point in this discussion). From what I understand, however, these regulations go far beyond that into the realm of another power-grab by a U.S. government agency.
Irrelevant. We don't need to make specific predictions to predict that things will be bad.
Not irrelevant, because you can't impose these kinds of burdens (financial and otherwise) on people without the certainty that they'll make things better.
I've always felt I should be able to leave the fruits of my labors to my family. Let's take the case of a moderately successful musician whose wife stayed home with the kids while he was out on tour. He's killed in a tour bus accident. Yes, she should continue to collect royalties. They're not all Elvis or Madonna - most musicians barely scrape by. Yes, there should be some reasonable time limit, though. What that is escapes me... perhaps life of spouse; I wouldn't want to say life of children, but then if there are special needs children that are still being taken care of by the family as an adult then it seems unfair to cut them off because their mom died, too.
But where should it end? I don't know... but we need to stop treating all musicians as if they're part of the tiny, less than 1% fraction that makes millions of dollars from being a performer.
The question is really not if life should be fair (it should be), but what "fair" means. If Pandora negotiates rates with record companies (or just the RIAA), then what's not fair about what they're paying? If the rate's too low, blame the RIAA, or the companies. Ultimately, if the artists signed a contract, is it not "fair" that all parties live up to it? You shouldn't sign an "unfair" contract, after all... and no, nobody held a gun to their heads, figuratively or otherwise.
So you're blaming Pandora for paying negotiated rates? Once again slashdotters let their emotions cloud their judgement and direct their ire at the wrong party.
But there is one flaw: How would you measure if we have "enough" people in music creation? Do numbers count at all? What about quality? How many pop idols would be needed to outweigh a Leonard Bernstein? How many for an Elvis Presley?
Numbers count only because the more noise there is, the harder it is to find the signal. You like to think that the cream rises to the top, but it's sadly not always the case. Leonard Bernstein and Elvis Presley are only "worth more" because they were early pioneers. If they were breaking into the industry today, do you think they'd have that much success? Just musing.
If the artists don't like it, they can pull their music. Why should I care what the royalties are? And if they can't pull their music because their RIAA mafia record company won't let them, then it's the record companies fault. A lot of the shock and outrage I see on slashdot seems heinously misdirected.
Is that you, Bawwy Kwipke?
I agree... I'd rather have separate streaming devices that cost a fraction of the TV and can be replaced when the technology improves instead of having it built in to the most expensive component. I marvel at the people buying really expensive cars with iPhone connectivity... and then Apple changes the connector on it's newer version.
Give me generic, or give me death!
I like Waze, but already accept being tracked (at least) while I'm driving. I don't have a "smart" TV, though, and don't want one. Is that even an option anymore? I prefer components I can replace instead of built in doo-dads.
And the response from the advertisers, like with the advent of DVRs, is more ads, more annoying, and louder... which only drives more people to avoid them. They don't understand the circular hell they are putting themselves in, or why they are failing.
I think the apologists for the terrorists and Islamic extremists should definitely watch all the burnings, stonings, beheadings, and rapes. Apparently words aren't enough.
So because it's a hobby means you're "allowed" to do it?
Every time a terrorist successfully detonates a bomb people complain the police didn't do enough to prevent it.... EVERY TIME. Maybe not you, but it happens EVERY time.
Where does it say anything about "Terroristic Threats?"
You say "absolutely sure," followed by "Almost ALL..." I do not think you know the meaning of "absolutely sure."
The airports have that stuff right there; how long are the police supposed to take to decide if something's a "real" threat or not? I know slashdotters hate police and hate the "police state" with cameras and tracking your every move and everything... but what would you be saying if it was a bomb and it went off because they were taking too long to figure out if it was a threat? How close are people supposed to get to it to figure it out? Whatever it was, it wasn't supposed to be there.... the only way you look back at this and whine about overreacting is because it wasn't actually a threat. Like I said - hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to sit here and whine about the police "ruining" some art project now.
It was 14th Street, which is one bridge over.
And then perhaps in the future terrorists will label their bombs with sharpies, stating that it's a student project. It doesn't work... sadly, in this day and age, you actually need to get permission to do something like that, and probably have the "device" inspected beforehand.
Image of the "device.". Yes, it was an overreaction because it was not a threat, but I don't see a note there... perhaps there's one in the shadow. If you suspect it's a bomb, are you supposed to get close enough to read the note on it?
Hindsight is 20/20... deciding what to do in situations like these is very difficult, but there's no way that, looking at that picture, you can't call it suspicious.
The police end up looking bad in hindsight, but that's only because that's the majority of the public's view of what happened. The camera was embedded in what looked like an empty soda can, and almost completely covered with duct tape. The pin hole was likely facing out over the interstate, making what you saw on the bridge just a cylinder and duct tape, so no, even knowing what a pinhole camera is doesn't make it obvious that this was one of them.
We complain they overreact in cases like this, but then when something happens they didn't do enough. Us armchair police chiefs seem to have all the answers.
Hindsight is 20/20; what would you do if you were the police, in charge of keeping the public safe, and some hacked together package was duct-taped to a support on one of the busiest bridges in the city? I work a couple of blocks from there... I'm incredibly lucky to have been working at home yesterday and not have to deal with the ensuing traffic nightmare (it's already bad enough in that particular spot... maybe the police should spend more time ticketing the people causing gridlock).
Now, granted, I don't know if "blow it up first, ask questions later" is necessarily the right approach, but it's only an overreaction when it wasn't a threat... when it is we complain they did too little.
I would mark you up, but wanted to add that carbohydrates, or perhaps some specific high carb foods, are the cause of a whole slew of physical problems that a lot of people have. When I did low carb, not only did I lose weight fast, but allergies went away, I had consistently high energy throughout the day ... and at the end of the day my energy level dropped like a rock and I slept solidly through the night whereas, before that, I consistently had trouble sleeping. Even skin problems cleared up - dandruff, eczema went away completely.
I also want to add to what people are saying - you don't absorb every calorie you eat. That's been mentioned in a few posts above, but not enough, I think, although you cannot use that fact as an excuse to overeat. But beyond that, a lot of low-carb naysayers don't get that you can lose more calories than you actually burn when you're in ketosis. The simple (calories in) - (calories out) is just far too simple, and it's just accurate.
No... people get legitimately threatened all the time, whether directly or indirectly. You're threatened with a speeding ticket if you exceed the limit; you're threatened with fines and possible imprisonment for failing to pay taxes; your boss might threaten to fire you if you don't increase your output; parents threaten to take away kid's TV watching privileges if they don't do well in school; your wife might threaten to divorce you if you keep leaving the cap off the toothpaste... it's just part of life.
I don't know if it's gotten to SCOTUS yet, but several state supreme courts and federal judges have ruled that you must give the password to decrypt your device if they have a warrant. What happens if you don't? I don't know.... contempt of court, I guess.
That's what I would have added... curiosity. I think, like a lot engineers, the kind of people who took their parent's phones apart when they were kids to figure out how they worked... always playing the "what if" and "I wonder what would happen" games.