Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
whoops. that was me. Techdirt likes to forget i told it to keep me signed in sometimes. randomly. for no apparant reason. (probably something to do with browser settings and cookies or something)
i've never understood the hate for Wikipedia.
it's no more inacurate than any other encyclopeida, and tends to stay up to date.
and, like any other encyclopedia, should be a starting point for getting a general overview and finding more specific issues/sources to look into, not the entirity of one's research for anything serious. (in fact, i'd go so far as to say it's Better than other encyclopeidas for this... the references are right there on the article, and the articles are often a Lot larger due to lack of page limitations. and i don't care how well indexed and cross referenced your hardcopy book is, hyperlinks are better.)
ya know, i'm pretty sure we had an article about something to this effect not long ago. the net effect was citizens prefering to take their chances with the criminals rather than be anywhere near the cops.
to be honest, it would take a LOT to get me to go to the USA. and by a lot i'm talking millions, an incredibly good reason, and bodyguards
humm. you make an interesting, and somewhat valid, if downright weird, point there.
lotta effort for not much to do that though.
also, i think you'd probably have to have person A make the thing, person B transform person A's work, and person C to transform person B's work resulting in a clone of person A's work before that plan has any chance to... err.. work.
see, i get that this is clever, and would take a lot of doing. i can see the merit in it as a work of skill and so on...
but this whole 'making a statement' thing has always baffled me. there's no words, it doesn't say anything, it doesn't represent anything in a way concrete enough that someone else could understand without further explaination from the artist about what, exactly, they were going for...
what, exactly, is the 'statement'. are you 'making a statement' if no one knows what the hell you just said?
mind you, there's a lot of supposedly great art that leaves me baffled as to what it's merits actually Are beyond being vaguely decorative if you put it in the right spot. (which in no way explains how it's better or worse than any other similar thing)
this really has nothing to do with copyright or lawsuits and everything to do with the whole mentality behind art (as dissociated from craft or skill) baffling me.
representative democracy, even the incredably dubious sort present in the USA, takes Decades to break properly... and is almost impossible to fix.
(compare to dictatorship, where problems can show up in a day and be fixed as quickly. faster, depending on what's causing them. maybe a week if you have to assasinate someone first...)
it's not in any way actually about the wants or needs of the people. it's about stability and preventing revolt.
add to that the shear Mass of an Imperial-size state entity's bureaucracy (which the USA clearly has) ...
once something goes wrong it's basically impossible to fix properly, let alone fight the outcome. i suspect to really fix the current system you'd need a full scale revolution, and That's not getting you anywhere against a government with a modern army and tech unless the military decides to be neutral and stay out of it (and with all the different military-bits that aren't actually the national army that the USA has going on, not to mention the 'private security companies' (read 'mercenaries) That's never going to happen properly)
and then there's the fun if the Military fragments. i wouldn't trust high ranking US individuals with control of nuclear weapons in a civil war... forget selling the things, they'd probably Use them.
ok, pet rant all done with:
basically the US system an't likely to get fixed without a massive popular uprising... and is unlikely to Stay fixed if the US remains a single entity.
unfortunate fact: the current entrenched economic theory denies the existance of bubbles. (well, current a couple of years ago, and had been for decades).
there's also an entrenched line of thinking in economics than when reality doesn't match the model, reality is doing it wrong.
these are not helpful.
(go have a look at the book 'Economyths'. it's quite interesting. can't remember the author's name off the top of my head though.)
someone obviously fishing for flames.
a useless shill who seems to have some intelligence but no ability to apply it to anything but being an arse.
a test post.
a joke which has been done so often it's less joke and more standing meme.
this thread's off to a spectacular start, i must say.
either way, i found it interesting.
also, i'd suggest that people take a look at 'The Economy of Cities' by Jane Jacobs if they've not already. nicely explains the processes behind why the whole 'creative destruction' bit works... and why supposedly 'efficiant' cities are a great way to run the place into the ground in short order. among other things. doesn't even have anything to do with IP law, but if you accept that patents etc stifle inovation artificailly, and then read that book it becomes apparant just how much of a disaster that can be in the mid to long term.
well, given the rabid partisanship and rampant stupidity involved in american politics at the 'average voter' level, i'm betting on 'a depressingly large number of the people who voted for him'
you'd be surprised how much can be done by people who's official qualifications are very low who have, none the less, actually been properly taught how to do the job for which they were hired.
most qualifications mean very little beyond that you were well suited to the environment required to gain them.
no where on that page is anything about Sprint visible. (this may, of course, be regional or something for all i know)
Anyway, on a more on-topic note, the Professor X article was quite an interesting read. not that i can really do anything with that information, but it's interesting to see the thinking.
ahh, yes, the joys of NZ party politics. more diverse and in many ways less silly than US party politics seem to be... but you get fun situations like this where the individual votes differently from their opinion due to the party line.
the reason for this is basically that they only really get once chance to vote differently from the party.
if they got in on the list, one vote wrong and odds are pretty darn good they'll just be shunted down and replaced with someone else (not sure if they can do this whenever or only at election time, but it'll still happen)
if they got in as a representative for an electorate, then odds are high that they'll either lose party support and not get to run in that electorate again, leave the party and become an independant (lucky if they get elected for even one more term) or leave the party and form their own new party (if they've been well entrenched in their electorate in their own right for years, odds are good they'll get back in and take some of their buddies with them for a term or two, at least, this way.) this last is about the only way we actually get new parties that actually get elected to parliament rather than ignored, because the media frankly doesn't Cover parties who don't have members in parliament... and even then try to pretend we still have a two party system unless the smaller ones deliberately make a big noise about something that's likely to be contraversial enough to raise a stink.
so, yeah, they have to pick their battles Reeeeeeally carefully when it comes to crossing the floor, or they simply do not get back in. stupid 'strategic' voting and sheep like behaviour means that a lack of party backing is death to one's ability to get elected, and thus to make any sort of difference at all. (and switching to another established party is... basically unheard of. defecting when a new one is created, sure, but after the fact? no. the parties usually have a lot in common but the differences can be Major points of contention.)
... i still reckon my electorate should have elected the 'Legalise Cannabis Party' guy. *laughs* the party couldn't have been worse than what we currently have (note: legalising Cannabis would still put it in one of the more restricted catagories, if i remember rightly. just could actually be perscribed as a medicine in certain contexts. makes it a lot easier to track, tax, and who knows what else.)... not that i really agree with the main platform of the party *shrugs* but he was the only candidate who gave straight answers to questions at 'meet the candidates' events, actually thought about his answers, had a sense of humour, (i found the best bit to be how he managed to somehow claim, mostly jokingly (technically what he said would be true, but everyone knew it was negligable, and he knew they knew), that legalising cannabis would lower energy demands in response to some question on that subject. the major party candidates danced around the question, one of them never did actually answer questions, prefering to continue the same prepaired speech every time she got speaking time)
anyway... basically, this electorate is a 'labour stronghold'. it doesn't matter how stupid the candidate, if they're part of the labour party they'll get elected as MP. doesn't matter how much better any of the other candidates are. too many people buy into the 'wasted vote' myth and the 'two ticks is good' propaganda.
basically the ONLY wasted votes possible in this system is to vote 'strategically' for a party that doesn't actually represent you properly, to vote for a party and then for the electoral candidate who belongs to that party when there is a better candidate available and the party has enough widespread support to have good odds of getting in anyway... or the utter IDIOCY that is the 5% threshold. (there are 120 seats. that makes each seat worth less than 1% of the vote. by what logic does requireing over Five percent, or an electorate MP, to get your party in make Any Sense? people keep sighting 'undue influence' by smaller parties... honestly i'd be more worried by how badly it distorts the results. not to mention people complain about the 'tail wagging the dog' already... all of which is due to the nonsense of party politics Anyway, given that our parliament is not Supposed to divide into a 'government' and 'opposition'. the entire thing is supposed to be the government. *sigh* pet rant that i shall not repeat in it's entirity again. just wish we could get a governer who actually did their job properly for a change.)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
On the post: National Archives Hires 'Wikipedian In Residence'
it's no more inacurate than any other encyclopeida, and tends to stay up to date.
and, like any other encyclopedia, should be a starting point for getting a general overview and finding more specific issues/sources to look into, not the entirity of one's research for anything serious. (in fact, i'd go so far as to say it's Better than other encyclopeidas for this... the references are right there on the article, and the articles are often a Lot larger due to lack of page limitations. and i don't care how well indexed and cross referenced your hardcopy book is, hyperlinks are better.)
On the post: Ideas Do Matter, But That Has Nothing To Do With 'Intellectual Property'
Re:
On the post: Chicago Media Declares War On Flash Mobs, Mayor/Police Not So Much
Re: Finally... a sensible article.
then i read the second half and it leaves me wanting a 'troll' button ...
but then i'm wondering wheither it's meant to be a joke...
so confused.
On the post: Chicago Media Declares War On Flash Mobs, Mayor/Police Not So Much
Re: flash mobs
to be honest, it would take a LOT to get me to go to the USA. and by a lot i'm talking millions, an incredibly good reason, and bodyguards
On the post: Another Appropriation Artist Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Are We Nearing The End Of Appropriation Art?
Re:
lotta effort for not much to do that though.
also, i think you'd probably have to have person A make the thing, person B transform person A's work, and person C to transform person B's work resulting in a clone of person A's work before that plan has any chance to... err.. work.
On the post: Another Appropriation Artist Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Are We Nearing The End Of Appropriation Art?
Re:
but this whole 'making a statement' thing has always baffled me. there's no words, it doesn't say anything, it doesn't represent anything in a way concrete enough that someone else could understand without further explaination from the artist about what, exactly, they were going for...
what, exactly, is the 'statement'. are you 'making a statement' if no one knows what the hell you just said?
mind you, there's a lot of supposedly great art that leaves me baffled as to what it's merits actually Are beyond being vaguely decorative if you put it in the right spot. (which in no way explains how it's better or worse than any other similar thing)
this really has nothing to do with copyright or lawsuits and everything to do with the whole mentality behind art (as dissociated from craft or skill) baffling me.
On the post: Why Propping Up Old Business Models Is Bad For The Economy And Bad For Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake Agrees To Plea Bargain Deal
Re: Re:
On the post: NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake Agrees To Plea Bargain Deal
Re:
(compare to dictatorship, where problems can show up in a day and be fixed as quickly. faster, depending on what's causing them. maybe a week if you have to assasinate someone first...)
it's not in any way actually about the wants or needs of the people. it's about stability and preventing revolt.
add to that the shear Mass of an Imperial-size state entity's bureaucracy (which the USA clearly has) ...
once something goes wrong it's basically impossible to fix properly, let alone fight the outcome. i suspect to really fix the current system you'd need a full scale revolution, and That's not getting you anywhere against a government with a modern army and tech unless the military decides to be neutral and stay out of it (and with all the different military-bits that aren't actually the national army that the USA has going on, not to mention the 'private security companies' (read 'mercenaries) That's never going to happen properly)
and then there's the fun if the Military fragments. i wouldn't trust high ranking US individuals with control of nuclear weapons in a civil war... forget selling the things, they'd probably Use them.
ok, pet rant all done with:
basically the US system an't likely to get fixed without a massive popular uprising... and is unlikely to Stay fixed if the US remains a single entity.
On the post: NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake Agrees To Plea Bargain Deal
Re:
On the post: Why Propping Up Old Business Models Is Bad For The Economy And Bad For Innovation
Re: Propping Up Old Business Models
there's also an entrenched line of thinking in economics than when reality doesn't match the model, reality is doing it wrong.
these are not helpful.
(go have a look at the book 'Economyths'. it's quite interesting. can't remember the author's name off the top of my head though.)
On the post: Why Propping Up Old Business Models Is Bad For The Economy And Bad For Innovation
five posts and we have:
someone obviously fishing for flames.
a useless shill who seems to have some intelligence but no ability to apply it to anything but being an arse.
a test post.
a joke which has been done so often it's less joke and more standing meme.
this thread's off to a spectacular start, i must say.
either way, i found it interesting.
also, i'd suggest that people take a look at 'The Economy of Cities' by Jane Jacobs if they've not already. nicely explains the processes behind why the whole 'creative destruction' bit works... and why supposedly 'efficiant' cities are a great way to run the place into the ground in short order. among other things. doesn't even have anything to do with IP law, but if you accept that patents etc stifle inovation artificailly, and then read that book it becomes apparant just how much of a disaster that can be in the mid to long term.
On the post: White House Ramps Up Efforts To Criminalize Wikileaks, As Witnesses Refuse To 'Cooperate'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: White House Ramps Up Efforts To Criminalize Wikileaks, As Witnesses Refuse To 'Cooperate'
Re:
On the post: Status Quo
/turian council member.
i'm probably doing this wrong.
On the post: DailyDirt: Hey Teacher, Leave Those Kids Alone!
Re:
most qualifications mean very little beyond that you were well suited to the environment required to gain them.
On the post: DailyDirt: Hey Teacher, Leave Those Kids Alone!
no where on that page is anything about Sprint visible. (this may, of course, be regional or something for all i know)
Anyway, on a more on-topic note, the Professor X article was quite an interesting read. not that i can really do anything with that information, but it's interesting to see the thinking.
On the post: Miami Beach Police Tried To Destroy Video From Bystanders, Holding Them At Gunpoint
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It isn't polite to point!
On the post: New Zealand Politicians Who Supported Three Strikes Law Two Months Ago Now Worried It Violates Civil Rights
the reason for this is basically that they only really get once chance to vote differently from the party.
if they got in on the list, one vote wrong and odds are pretty darn good they'll just be shunted down and replaced with someone else (not sure if they can do this whenever or only at election time, but it'll still happen)
if they got in as a representative for an electorate, then odds are high that they'll either lose party support and not get to run in that electorate again, leave the party and become an independant (lucky if they get elected for even one more term) or leave the party and form their own new party (if they've been well entrenched in their electorate in their own right for years, odds are good they'll get back in and take some of their buddies with them for a term or two, at least, this way.) this last is about the only way we actually get new parties that actually get elected to parliament rather than ignored, because the media frankly doesn't Cover parties who don't have members in parliament... and even then try to pretend we still have a two party system unless the smaller ones deliberately make a big noise about something that's likely to be contraversial enough to raise a stink.
so, yeah, they have to pick their battles Reeeeeeally carefully when it comes to crossing the floor, or they simply do not get back in. stupid 'strategic' voting and sheep like behaviour means that a lack of party backing is death to one's ability to get elected, and thus to make any sort of difference at all. (and switching to another established party is... basically unheard of. defecting when a new one is created, sure, but after the fact? no. the parties usually have a lot in common but the differences can be Major points of contention.)
... i still reckon my electorate should have elected the 'Legalise Cannabis Party' guy. *laughs* the party couldn't have been worse than what we currently have (note: legalising Cannabis would still put it in one of the more restricted catagories, if i remember rightly. just could actually be perscribed as a medicine in certain contexts. makes it a lot easier to track, tax, and who knows what else.)... not that i really agree with the main platform of the party *shrugs* but he was the only candidate who gave straight answers to questions at 'meet the candidates' events, actually thought about his answers, had a sense of humour, (i found the best bit to be how he managed to somehow claim, mostly jokingly (technically what he said would be true, but everyone knew it was negligable, and he knew they knew), that legalising cannabis would lower energy demands in response to some question on that subject. the major party candidates danced around the question, one of them never did actually answer questions, prefering to continue the same prepaired speech every time she got speaking time)
anyway... basically, this electorate is a 'labour stronghold'. it doesn't matter how stupid the candidate, if they're part of the labour party they'll get elected as MP. doesn't matter how much better any of the other candidates are. too many people buy into the 'wasted vote' myth and the 'two ticks is good' propaganda.
basically the ONLY wasted votes possible in this system is to vote 'strategically' for a party that doesn't actually represent you properly, to vote for a party and then for the electoral candidate who belongs to that party when there is a better candidate available and the party has enough widespread support to have good odds of getting in anyway... or the utter IDIOCY that is the 5% threshold. (there are 120 seats. that makes each seat worth less than 1% of the vote. by what logic does requireing over Five percent, or an electorate MP, to get your party in make Any Sense? people keep sighting 'undue influence' by smaller parties... honestly i'd be more worried by how badly it distorts the results. not to mention people complain about the 'tail wagging the dog' already... all of which is due to the nonsense of party politics Anyway, given that our parliament is not Supposed to divide into a 'government' and 'opposition'. the entire thing is supposed to be the government. *sigh* pet rant that i shall not repeat in it's entirity again. just wish we could get a governer who actually did their job properly for a change.)
Next >>