Political power is, everywhere and everywhen, about centralization of control. "My gang great! Your gang dirt!" and so forth, from the god-kings of Egypt to the god-king wannabes of our own era.
It tends to be forgotten that the constitution of the United States was intended, in fact, to promote decentralization of political power. (Federalist Papers) The states were to be the centers of power, with the federal government more or less a central coordinating body for issues that affected them all, such as foreign policy and war. Over the years, that idea waned, with the Civil War and the passage of the 17th Amendment being key markers of its destruction.
Given that history, I ask, "Why would you *expect* them to understand?"
And if you have an emergency to report and *can't* stop?
You're fleeing a fire, and it's advancing rapidly. You want to report the fire and its location, but can't. There have been cases in recent history where five minutes delay in reporting a fire cost both lives and massive property destruction.
You're wife has just had a stroke and you're calling the emergency room, since even a few seconds delay in treatment can make all the difference.
You witness a carjacking and the 'jackers come after you.
All of the above are plausible scenarios where the ban is very likely to get someone or someones dead.
I began to sense faintly that secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy . . . censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.
Intermittent surveillance is better than continuous, possibly?
If there's a known, fixed location security camera, miscreants will simply note it and avoid it. However, if the camera is mobile, and looks only at unpredictable intervals, it's harder to adapt to.
But what politician could survive saying "We're relying on the law of averages."?
The category "clueless" may, at times, include all of us, but it's not persistent. I'm still trying to figure out why a VM sandbox I'm trying to build as a testbed isn't working. But -- I am aware I am clueless and am trying to fix it.
Persistently clueless people have the additional burden of being clueless about their cluelessness. La Griggs clearly falls into the latter category. And she appears to have made it so of her own free will.
The criminal secretly wants to get caught, so ran the popular wisdom. Not true, Miles thought; the criminal just wants to get away. It was the sinner who sought to be brought to light, on the long crawl back through confession, to absolution and some sort of grace, however shattered.
Given the "I'm sorry I got caught." attitude...
Given the attitude La Griggs has evinced, I come down on the side of "criminal."
Big budget movies could be sold for higher prices and cheaper romance/comedy/drama type movies could go for cheaper.
Dream on, sir. When a fan's review of a big budget movie Skyline is titled: Skyline: Wait for Redbox, you know the big-budget solves everything business model is dead.
The theaters and the movie studios aren't in the same business. The theaters were originally owned by the studios, which, as Thomas Sowell pointed out, gave the latter a powerful incentive to make the whole movie-going experience a good one. The equation was simple: audience==studio income. However, as a result of "United States v. Paramount Pictures", the studios were forced to divest on antitrust grounds.
So the business became business(es). Studios make films, and theaters show them to the audience. Because the studios have a government-protected monopoly on the films they make, they arm-twist the theaters into giving them essentially the entire revenues of a film early in the run, often for several weeks. Unless a picture is still going strong after the first few weeks, the theaters get zero from the film. How many films lately can you think of that are still doing well after more than about three weeks?
What does that leave the theaters? "popcorn" and candy and soft drinks. And yes, that creates a powerful incentive for theater owners to pack people in and sell them junk food at robbery-with-violence prices. That means they want popular, gosh-wow films which will dazzle the audience with bullshit rather than baffle them with brilliance.
On the post: Copyright Troll Righthaven's Number One Supporter Caught Putting Infringing Material On His Own Blog
I had trouble reading this article and the blog entry
On the post: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy
I reported this several weeks ago.
On the post: If Assange Were In China, US Politicians Would Be Cheering Him On
The Censorship Caucus
On the post: How Political Pundits Get Confused When They Don't Understand That Wikileaks Is Distributed
Of course the political class wouldn't understand
It tends to be forgotten that the constitution of the United States was intended, in fact, to promote decentralization of political power. (Federalist Papers) The states were to be the centers of power, with the federal government more or less a central coordinating body for issues that affected them all, such as foreign policy and war. Over the years, that idea waned, with the Civil War and the passage of the 17th Amendment being key markers of its destruction.
Given that history, I ask, "Why would you *expect* them to understand?"
On the post: Irony: Ebook About Clueless Media Moguls Costs Many Times Brand New Hardcover Version
Barnes and Noble
NookBook: $18.99
On the post: Irony: Ebook About Clueless Media Moguls Costs Many Times Brand New Hardcover Version
Hegel was right
On the post: How ACTA Will Increase Copyright Infringement
Depends on how you define stakeholder
Everybody else: Us.
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
How often *DO* TSA change their gloves?
On the post: San Diego Airport Says Recording TSA Gropings Is An Arrestible Offense?
Re: No charges filed?
On the post: San Diego Airport Says Recording TSA Gropings Is An Arrestible Offense?
Sure it makes sense.
New International Version (©1984)
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Short form: You have no right to know how badly we're screwing up.
On the post: Transportation Secretary Expects To Use Technology To Block All Mobile Phone Usage In Cars [Updated]
And if you have an emergency to report and *can't* stop?
You're wife has just had a stroke and you're calling the emergency room, since even a few seconds delay in treatment can make all the difference.
You witness a carjacking and the 'jackers come after you.
All of the above are plausible scenarios where the ban is very likely to get someone or someones dead.
On the post: The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
We Were Warned
On the post: Police Credit Google Street View For Helping Catch Drug Ring
Intermittent surveillance is better than continuous, possibly?
But what politician could survive saying "We're relying on the law of averages."?
On the post: Cooks Source 'Apology' Really A Rant Blaming The Woman It Copied For Daring To Tell People
Remember this about persistently clueless people.
Persistently clueless people have the additional burden of being clueless about their cluelessness. La Griggs clearly falls into the latter category. And she appears to have made it so of her own free will.
On the post: How Murdoch's Paywalls Meant Some News It Broke Went Unnoticed & Uncredited
Re: bloging
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Gives First Interview; Says She'll Probably Shut Down The Magazine
Criminal? or Sinner?
Given the "I'm sorry I got caught." attitude...
Given the attitude La Griggs has evinced, I come down on the side of "criminal."
On the post: Blaming Popcorn For Hollywood's Troubles
Re: Variable Pricing
On the post: When The RIAA Is The 'Standard' For Evil
If you're going to do stuff like this, include a beverage warning!
On the post: Blaming Popcorn For Hollywood's Troubles
Actually, He Has A Point
So the business became business(es). Studios make films, and theaters show them to the audience. Because the studios have a government-protected monopoly on the films they make, they arm-twist the theaters into giving them essentially the entire revenues of a film early in the run, often for several weeks. Unless a picture is still going strong after the first few weeks, the theaters get zero from the film. How many films lately can you think of that are still doing well after more than about three weeks?
What does that leave the theaters? "popcorn" and candy and soft drinks. And yes, that creates a powerful incentive for theater owners to pack people in and sell them junk food at robbery-with-violence prices. That means they want popular, gosh-wow films which will dazzle the audience with bullshit rather than baffle them with brilliance.
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Finally Responds... Makes Things Worse [Updated]
Re:
No. Sooner or later, it will bite you on the butt.
Hard.
Next >>