As with all government programs, the outcome is usually the opposite of intended. So, the claim that "there's no evidence that anti-bullying laws actually do anything at all to prevent or stop bullying" should be linked with the later line "but will be used to go after people that prosecutors don't like."
There you go!
Anti-bullying laws allow prosecutors to become bigger bullies! It doesn't stop bullying in schools, but allows the government agents to bully more people around.
Just like anti-drug laws make it easier for kids in middle schools to get illegal drugs than alcohol.
Just like red light cameras highly increase rear-end collisions at the expense of a slight decrease in t-bone collisions.
Just like social welfare programs create a class of citizens dependent on hand-outs instead of helping them get back on their own feet.
It's like some sort of bizarro Midas-touch, where instead of everything turning to gold, it turns into a Uwe Boll movie.
In Boston, I used to read the Metro ... a FREE daily print newspaper.
In Denver, I read the Denver Daily News ... a FREE daily print newspaper.
If print newspapers can give their content away for free already, why can't they do that on-line? They can ... most of them that have charged to partially cover printing costs are just too stupid to see the forest for the trees.
The news is filled with newspapers that charge to partially cover printing costs that are closing down. Yet, the FREE daily print newspapers all seem to be doing fine. It's that the FREE newspapers have understood for YEARS ... the news is free to read, but advertisers and local businesses pay to get their messages heard by the community that reads the news.
Newspaper companies have traditionally worked by selling their community of readers to advertisers ... not by selling news to consumers.
Make content, put it behind a paywall ... no one can find the content, and no one pays for it.
How about this for your business plan:
Make content, give it away for free, put ads in that aren't generic pay-per-click ads that AdBlockers block, create a community to sell to advertisers, add other items for sale that aren't news and can't be copied by Ctrl-C, add a donate button for those who want to return monetarily the value they perceived that they received from free content ... make money from advertisers & readers while providing a community service by giving people a REASON to pay other than simply because the site is writing about stuff it didn't do.
Honestly, if the newspaper industry can't come up with a usable business plan that doesn't involve complaining about not being given free money ... then how valuable are their insights into the current world, and how valuable is their content when they can't even manage to keep themselves afloat. If they don't understand their own market, how are we to trust what they have to say about anything?
Why is the newspaper industry waiting for someone to come up with their business plan for them. And if we do, how much money is the newspaper industry going to give us for saving them?!?
But now they're giving power back to its users. You can get your data out of Google ... that's power, to the people. They've seen how much power they have gained, and they're relinquishing some of it voluntarily so that you can take your e-mail, calendar events, docs, search history, etc, and go somewhere else if you like. They've unlocked the door so you can take your ball and go home if you don't like where Google is going.
Other service providers will let you leave, but they'll keep your ball, forcing you to start all over with a new service.
So, they're getting scary? Sounds like they're doing a lot to alleviate those fears by removing vendor lock-in. Microsoft has traditionally lived & breathed by vendor lock-in ... and in fact, early & continued Windows & Office successes could be attributed to vendor lock-in, because once you have a library of Windows applications and Office documents, it's tricky to simply move to a new vendor.
Google has said, come & go as you please ... we're just sure you'll WANT to stay, not because you HAVE to.
But what if it's now how the event happens that makes it better? What if the fact that is happening at all is what makes it better? How do you know the exact criteria that Mike is using to qualify the event as "better" in his mind?
The approaches are different, so if you inherently believe that a bottom-up approach is better, then the all2gethernow event is better. The Popkomm event was put forth by the industry, so if you don't believe the industry has any clue on what it's doing, then anything different could be considered better on that fact alone.
Which pizza is better: Dominoes or the mom & pop pizza place? Now, you may know you don't like or want frozen, conveyor belt pizza ... so the mom & pop pizza place that hand-makes every pizza may be considered better on that fact alone. Popkomm is put forth by the industry and industry insiders, all2gethernow is being put forth by music fans & musicians ... you may not like how the industry is handling the current market shifts, so the bottom-up approach would be considered better by that fact alone.
Also realize that terms like "better" are subjective, and are really dependent on tastes and feelings of each individual person. "Better" is not an absolute term, and can apply to any aspect of what is being compared that is important to the person making the claim of "better". So, it is entirely likely that what would make one event "better" to someone doesn't even involve anything that actually happens at the event, but just the planning or approach to the event.
If I get booted off of the Internet for 12 months, not one cent of the $840 I'd save over the year would go towards directly paying for music. And all money that would have gone towards music normally would go elsewhere. Any artists that I would have purchased music from (more than likely smaller artists), I would let know why I am boycotting putting money into their industry at large to hopefully polarize them against the trade/lobby groups.
I like the idea of community service in place of fines for community-related infractions. Running a red light without hurting anyone is by definition a victimless-crime ... it's not even a "crime" at all, but a law infraction. The ultimate victim is the community, because of the threat of said driver is to other community members that proceed on a green light without looking to see that they are actually clear to go.
Since the "victim" is the community, the government should not receive financial compensation, but the community receiving service for the danger the driver posed is far more palpable.
"Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter."
There's always KRS-One for the quintessential "conscious rapper". Mos Def tries to raise awareness over creating a thug persona. And Eminem goes back and forth between moments of inspiration, and slips with Slim Shady.
If $1 was gained from trade-ins that would have not be bought with cash, then the whole conclusion is not flawed.
In relation to the RIAA & other trade industry groups, they are arguing a level of scale, that piracy is causing $X of damages, and as a result needs government intervention. In that regard, the value of $X is very important, because $1 lost in sales vs $1,000,000,000 lost in sales paints a very different picture of piracy. And the lobbyist groups are using inflated numbers to get legislation passed by leveraging emotions tied to their questionable numbers.
Whereas the argument in this story is simply that there is benefit to a secondary (used) market, in which case the amount of increased sales is secondary to the existence of secondary sales. So, whether it is $1 of trade-ins vs $1,000,000,000 is irrelevant, because both are support for the idea that a secondary market helps the primary market.
So, the specific number of 20% is not what is most important, but as long as it is >0%. We can argue whether or not in the absence of a secondary market it would have been unchanged, but to argue the specific number is moot beyond simply being accurate.
But these aren't intangible rights we're speaking of. The People only have the rights to privacy because the Bill of Rights does not grant the federal government power to spy on its citizens.
And what would the second intangible right be? Copyright? That's not a right, that's a legal term.
"This ethereal right to privacy will not be enforceable for much longer."
It is entirely enforceable, because the rights mentioned (and not mentioned) in the Bill of Rights are applicable only to the federal government. So, it is entirely possible through transparency & a proper system of checks and balances (which is so far out of balance right now) to enforce the privacy of the People against the federal government. The People can always forcibly reclaim their rights ... but as the right to bear arms has been chipped away, and the fact that the US is not supposed to have a standing army and now we have in addition to several armed forces, a militarized police force in every major city, that level of checks and balances has been unbalanced, too. So, it is enforceable, but it's going to take the People to wake up and enforce it themselves.
And in your completely unrelated sidetrack rant about automation: I would gladly welcome a world of Roombas and factory automation ... I could use some more down-time. If a robot could take over the menial tasks of my job, so I could focus on higher-level system planning and structuring, I would gladly let it be the code monkey. In fact, half of what I do is write code to automate and do things for me ... and yet I find myself with less and less time, because freeing myself of the simple tasks, means I take on more challenging tasks.
What the hell are you talking about? It's an example of how I'm saying that a minority ethnicity does not equal foreign, because I don't believe the percentage of 80% foreign students ... but I would believe 80% other ethnicities but they are American citizens and don't count as foreign.
I think it's sad that you think mentioning someone being Asian is negative. :P
Except the licensing and regulations aren't instituted for safety reasons. They're usually backed by companies in that industry for the primary reason to raise the cost of entry for competitors.
Licensing & regulations do nothing for safety, because keeping your customers safe & happy to return does more for companies than government regulations. Licensing & regulations are mainly used by companies to prevent new players from entering the market and essentially freeze an industry from disruptive players.
In the end, this means less innovation, less invention, less progress, and higher costs to consumers. Licensing & regulations hinder progress at the expense of padding the pockets of those who were in business before the licensing & regulations were enforced on an industry.
There's no reason a cab needs a special license other than for the already established cab companies to prevent new competition and keep prices artificially inflated. This example proves that:
A new player attempted to disrupt an existing market. The existing players leveraged licensing laws to force the new company out of business. Now, one of the existing companies took the disruptive business model after it was shown to be plausible, but it took someone trying that WASN'T one of the established players to even try. Free cab rides could have been done it years ago, and if this person didn't try and ultimately had his life ruined by the government, then the market never would have evolved on its own. It was stagnant. If that guy played by the rules, there would be no free cab rides for anyone ever.
Yeah, that first guy who had the idea and started doing it then had his life ruined when the government stepped in to enforce arbitrary licensing requirements ... that's not a big deal at all, screw him, everyone else is still getting free cab rides. o_O
The people get free cabs in the end, which is good, but the government ruining more lives, not so good.
Just goes to show in the upteenth billionth example that government licensing and regulations are used to stifle competition for the already established companies. Government is little more than a tool for people who seek power and control over others.
No, over the years, the government has figured out more ways it can control and make money off of its citizens.
Not a single one of those "services" do I want the government providing me. And if I could chose an alternative I would. But, unfortunately, for the "services" I can choose an alternative for, I still have to pay for the government's sub-standard "service".
On the post: Anti-bullying Laws Don't Work Offline; Why Do Politicians Think They'll Work Online?
There you go!
Anti-bullying laws allow prosecutors to become bigger bullies! It doesn't stop bullying in schools, but allows the government agents to bully more people around.
Just like anti-drug laws make it easier for kids in middle schools to get illegal drugs than alcohol.
Just like red light cameras highly increase rear-end collisions at the expense of a slight decrease in t-bone collisions.
Just like social welfare programs create a class of citizens dependent on hand-outs instead of helping them get back on their own feet.
It's like some sort of bizarro Midas-touch, where instead of everything turning to gold, it turns into a Uwe Boll movie.
On the post: Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes... Blames Craigslist
On the post: Newspaper Publisher: Search Engines Break Into Our Homes
Re:
In Denver, I read the Denver Daily News ... a FREE daily print newspaper.
If print newspapers can give their content away for free already, why can't they do that on-line? They can ... most of them that have charged to partially cover printing costs are just too stupid to see the forest for the trees.
The news is filled with newspapers that charge to partially cover printing costs that are closing down. Yet, the FREE daily print newspapers all seem to be doing fine. It's that the FREE newspapers have understood for YEARS ... the news is free to read, but advertisers and local businesses pay to get their messages heard by the community that reads the news.
Newspaper companies have traditionally worked by selling their community of readers to advertisers ... not by selling news to consumers.
On the post: Newspaper Publisher: Search Engines Break Into Our Homes
Re:
Make content, put it behind a paywall ... no one can find the content, and no one pays for it.
How about this for your business plan:
Make content, give it away for free, put ads in that aren't generic pay-per-click ads that AdBlockers block, create a community to sell to advertisers, add other items for sale that aren't news and can't be copied by Ctrl-C, add a donate button for those who want to return monetarily the value they perceived that they received from free content ... make money from advertisers & readers while providing a community service by giving people a REASON to pay other than simply because the site is writing about stuff it didn't do.
Honestly, if the newspaper industry can't come up with a usable business plan that doesn't involve complaining about not being given free money ... then how valuable are their insights into the current world, and how valuable is their content when they can't even manage to keep themselves afloat. If they don't understand their own market, how are we to trust what they have to say about anything?
Why is the newspaper industry waiting for someone to come up with their business plan for them. And if we do, how much money is the newspaper industry going to give us for saving them?!?
On the post: Google Helps People Get Their Data Out Of Google
Re:
Other service providers will let you leave, but they'll keep your ball, forcing you to start all over with a new service.
So, they're getting scary? Sounds like they're doing a lot to alleviate those fears by removing vendor lock-in. Microsoft has traditionally lived & breathed by vendor lock-in ... and in fact, early & continued Windows & Office successes could be attributed to vendor lock-in, because once you have a library of Windows applications and Office documents, it's tricky to simply move to a new vendor.
Google has said, come & go as you please ... we're just sure you'll WANT to stay, not because you HAVE to.
On the post: Old Music Conference Shuts Down, Blames 'Piracy'; New, Better Event Shows Up Instead
Re: Hold up a sec...
On the post: Old Music Conference Shuts Down, Blames 'Piracy'; New, Better Event Shows Up Instead
Re:
Which pizza is better: Dominoes or the mom & pop pizza place? Now, you may know you don't like or want frozen, conveyor belt pizza ... so the mom & pop pizza place that hand-makes every pizza may be considered better on that fact alone. Popkomm is put forth by the industry and industry insiders, all2gethernow is being put forth by music fans & musicians ... you may not like how the industry is handling the current market shifts, so the bottom-up approach would be considered better by that fact alone.
Also realize that terms like "better" are subjective, and are really dependent on tastes and feelings of each individual person. "Better" is not an absolute term, and can apply to any aspect of what is being compared that is important to the person making the claim of "better". So, it is entirely likely that what would make one event "better" to someone doesn't even involve anything that actually happens at the event, but just the planning or approach to the event.
On the post: Recording Industry Insiders Complain About Musicians Who Argue Against Kicking People Off The Internet
On the post: Red Light Camera Vendor Not Doing So Well With Public Opposition Driving Down Its Revenue
Re: Re: Re: Re: They might work
Since the "victim" is the community, the government should not receive financial compensation, but the community receiving service for the danger the driver posed is far more palpable.
"Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter."
On the post: 50 Cent: Piracy Is A Part Of The Marketing
Re: Hmmm. Interesting Guy
On the post: Elderly Classic Rock Musicians Don't Like Music Video Games
Re: Re: In defense of 'games'
On the post: Elderly Classic Rock Musicians Don't Like Music Video Games
Re: Re: Re: In defense of 'games'
<$200
On the post: Elderly Classic Rock Musicians Don't Like Music Video Games
Re: Re: In defense of 'games'
Also, if you don't go to Target, and you go to an actual music store, you can get a guitar & amp for
On the post: More Evidence: Used Sales Benefit The Primary Market
Re: proof?
In relation to the RIAA & other trade industry groups, they are arguing a level of scale, that piracy is causing $X of damages, and as a result needs government intervention. In that regard, the value of $X is very important, because $1 lost in sales vs $1,000,000,000 lost in sales paints a very different picture of piracy. And the lobbyist groups are using inflated numbers to get legislation passed by leveraging emotions tied to their questionable numbers.
Whereas the argument in this story is simply that there is benefit to a secondary (used) market, in which case the amount of increased sales is secondary to the existence of secondary sales. So, whether it is $1 of trade-ins vs $1,000,000,000 is irrelevant, because both are support for the idea that a secondary market helps the primary market.
So, the specific number of 20% is not what is most important, but as long as it is >0%. We can argue whether or not in the absence of a secondary market it would have been unchanged, but to argue the specific number is moot beyond simply being accurate.
On the post: Is Copyright Law Compatible With Privacy Rights?
Re:
And what would the second intangible right be? Copyright? That's not a right, that's a legal term.
"This ethereal right to privacy will not be enforceable for much longer."
It is entirely enforceable, because the rights mentioned (and not mentioned) in the Bill of Rights are applicable only to the federal government. So, it is entirely possible through transparency & a proper system of checks and balances (which is so far out of balance right now) to enforce the privacy of the People against the federal government. The People can always forcibly reclaim their rights ... but as the right to bear arms has been chipped away, and the fact that the US is not supposed to have a standing army and now we have in addition to several armed forces, a militarized police force in every major city, that level of checks and balances has been unbalanced, too. So, it is enforceable, but it's going to take the People to wake up and enforce it themselves.
And in your completely unrelated sidetrack rant about automation: I would gladly welcome a world of Roombas and factory automation ... I could use some more down-time. If a robot could take over the menial tasks of my job, so I could focus on higher-level system planning and structuring, I would gladly let it be the code monkey. In fact, half of what I do is write code to automate and do things for me ... and yet I find myself with less and less time, because freeing myself of the simple tasks, means I take on more challenging tasks.
On the post: Fewer Foreigners Coming To US Grad Schools: This Is A Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's sad that you think mentioning someone being Asian is negative. :P
On the post: Taxi Owner Copies Innovative Business Model Of Free Shuttles He Just Forced To Shut Down
Re:
Licensing & regulations do nothing for safety, because keeping your customers safe & happy to return does more for companies than government regulations. Licensing & regulations are mainly used by companies to prevent new players from entering the market and essentially freeze an industry from disruptive players.
In the end, this means less innovation, less invention, less progress, and higher costs to consumers. Licensing & regulations hinder progress at the expense of padding the pockets of those who were in business before the licensing & regulations were enforced on an industry.
There's no reason a cab needs a special license other than for the already established cab companies to prevent new competition and keep prices artificially inflated. This example proves that:
A new player attempted to disrupt an existing market. The existing players leveraged licensing laws to force the new company out of business. Now, one of the existing companies took the disruptive business model after it was shown to be plausible, but it took someone trying that WASN'T one of the established players to even try. Free cab rides could have been done it years ago, and if this person didn't try and ultimately had his life ruined by the government, then the market never would have evolved on its own. It was stagnant. If that guy played by the rules, there would be no free cab rides for anyone ever.
On the post: Taxi Owner Copies Innovative Business Model Of Free Shuttles He Just Forced To Shut Down
Re: you know...
The people get free cabs in the end, which is good, but the government ruining more lives, not so good.
On the post: Taxi Owner Copies Innovative Business Model Of Free Shuttles He Just Forced To Shut Down
On the post: Fewer Foreigners Coming To US Grad Schools: This Is A Problem
Re: Re: Re: How about a swap
Not a single one of those "services" do I want the government providing me. And if I could chose an alternative I would. But, unfortunately, for the "services" I can choose an alternative for, I still have to pay for the government's sub-standard "service".
Next >>