Post from Jun 30th, 2009 @ 5:20pm I don't think it would be particularly difficult to start blocking out WoW access in China.
Post from Jul 1st, 2009 @ 10:40am [T]he Chinese government is likely to block WoW, as that is easier than trying to track down individual farmers.
You can claim otherwise but those two statements are not saying the same thing. In your first post, you did not say the Chinese government is likely to block WoW. You said that it would be easy for the government to do so. If you don't see the difference, I'm not sure what to say. Maybe if you read your posts before you clicked Submit, you'd realize what you've actually written doesn't match what you were thinking.
Personally, I wouldn't put it past the Chinese government to just block out all WoW access to ostensibly combat gold farming, but that's not what they said.
Based on the quote I included, the AC apparently wants to solve the problem regarding some WoW players in China -- "gold farmers" -- by blocking all WoW players in China. This would mean that the AC either thinks that every single person playing WoW in China is a gold farmer or that the article itself was about blocking all WoW access in China. (Neither of which are true.)
I don't think it would be particularly difficult to start blocking out WoW access in China.
The post is about blocking Chinese gold farmers, not Chinese WoW players. What, you think that just because you live in China, you're automatically a gold farmer?
When the hell did music become an absolutely indispensable part of daily life, more important than eating or even breathing?
Hyperbole much?
(This message was typed while listening to the fan in the window, the birds in the trees and the wind outside)
So, you have a problem that people find so much pleasure in life from listening to music and therefore place a high value on it? If only everyone in the world were just like you, it'd a better place, eh?
That said, this is yet another example of the convoluted house of cards that copyright has become.
Mike, about the expression "house of cards"...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
The expression has a quite different meaning than how you've used it in this and past posts. A house of cards is something that can easilly collapse or is built on a shaky foundation. It has nothing do to with being complex or inscrutable.
I certainly wish that the copyright system were a house of cards. If it were, then it would soon collapse under all of the pressures on it and we'd be able to put something more reasonable in its place. The problem is that the current copyright system is built on a very solid, albeit a complex and confusing, foundation. The copyright system is actually the opposite of a house of cards.
If he didn't give the signing right, then he has legal grounds to go after HIS record company / publishing company. But seeing how they did it, I would say that they are confident to be in their rights.
Maybe this is just a translation issue, but based on the word "agency", I don't think there was a record or publishing company even involved. Agency to me implies that it was some kind of organization that was paid to promote this artist, arrange for bookings, or things of that nature. Sure, if you sign with a record company, there's a reasonable expectation that you're signing the rights to your own music away. From that point forward, it's their music and if they want to contract out with a licensing company, it's their business. But there's no expectation that the person trying to get you gigs owns your music.
I agree that this behavior is inappropriate, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the cause has more to do with cluelessness than anything nefarious. Looking at the screenshot of the message, it is clearly labeled as a message from Rogers. Plus, the message apparently pertains to a service to which the user is already subscribing.
Other than its location inside of another web page, I'd liken it to an e-mail that my anti-virus subscription is about to run out or a dialog box that there's a new update available for the program I just started.
The problem with your happy medium theory is that it relies on trusting the ISPs not to hand out private information on individuals at the drop of a hat and the government not to overextend its authority (especially for the wrong reasons). And as we can see from stories like this, neither ISPs nor the government can be trusted in this regard. The price of free speech ranges from dealing with the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory to empty "I'm gonna kill you" type threats.
It's different because "give consumers a reason to buy" is giving them a real reason to buy, whereas give the consumer a "compelling narrative to follow, they will do so--whether it is true or not" is like trying to polish a turd.
The biggest challenges to EHR's is not resistance to the transparency, nor even the cost but rather, to be frank, that the current EHR technology sucks.
Interesting point, but have you considered that the technology sucks for the very reason that Mike is spotlighting? In other words, maybe it sucks because it's not getting the funding and/or acceptance from the overall healthcare industry and this in turn is happening because the overall healthcare industry doesn't want the technology because that would expose their gross inefficiencies. If you're comfortable in an environment where you can sell hammers at a huge profit, why would risk that by paying someone to invent a better nailgun?
It's not a matter of economics; it's human psychology. If every economic decision was based on straight evaluations of economic principles the world wouldn't be in the financial mess it is today. Case in point, preventive care may save an insurance company as a whole money, but if this would the reduce the size of the kingdom over which its leaders preside and, worse yet, cut their salaries, it ain't gonna happen no matter what economics says.
(BTW, when is TD going to fix the bug where every post under a Mike post appears with a blue background? Shouldn't it be only the original Mike post that has this format?)
The longer someone lives, the more the government has to pay out in medicare and social security so they do not have a strong financial incentive to make people live longer.
I don't buy into this at all. Basically, I agree with Mike's statement...
"Focusing on preventative care and actually keeping people healthy would actually provide a massive economic benefit not just to the healthcare industry, but to the economy as a whole."
Your statement is based on the assumption that because you live longer, you're more of a financial burden on the government. But this isn't necesarilly so. If we focused on preventive care, then people would live longer, healthier lives. Sick people are a burden on the economy no matter how old they are. Sure, older people have more of a chance of being sick, but by making everyone healtheir, regardless of age, you can actually gain substantial savings.
I've been really confused by the whole push for "electronic healthcare records" as some sort of big step for improving our healthcare system. It's such a minor part of what's needed that it seems to be looking at curing a cough when someone has terminal cancer.
Based on what I've seen on the news, one of the main goals of implementing electronic healthcare records is the cost savings. So, it's not (just) about improving individual healthcare; it's about saving money. So, to use Mike's cough analogy, it's not like treating the cough of a person who has cancer, it's like spending $4000 dollars on someone who just has a cough.
Sure, I think that electronic healthcare records can also have a huge beneficial impact on individual healthcare, but if anything is going to drive the entire medical healthcare industry to move to electronic records, it's going to be reducing cost, not improving healthcare. I don't think the medical industry wants us sick; they just want to make money. And if avoiding the use of electronic records means they can make more money by hiding the innefficiencies of the system and we're more sick as a result, well then...that's OK to them.
So, if you look at the problem in terms of cost, I don't see why there's any confusion. As Mike pointed out...
The actual costs are nearly totally hidden from most consumers, so they don't make smart choices at all.
Electronic medical records will help expose these hidden costs which will help lower these costs which will "[improve] our healthcare system". What's to be confused about?
As a fan of King Crimson, I wouldn't want to see 21st Century Schizoid Man Deoderant or Elephant Talk Maxipads, but I think this would be preferable to artists having total control over their works. In my mind, it's akin to free speech. If you have free speech, it means that you have to put up with idiots, racists, and nutjobs spouting off a bunch of nonsense. That's just the cost of free speech. And if I would have to endure commercials for Three of a Perfect Pair Online Dating Service so that artists couldn't exert undue control over their works, then that's just the cost.
Well, one way to take care of the problem is to stop paying iPhone, RIM and Palm dataplan bills.
That's like saying the solution to the problem of speeding is to cut off the world gas supply. The "problem" is simply that people are sometimes rude. It's just that technology continuously gives us new ways of being rude. The solution will come, as it always does, when social etiquette catches up with technology.
I was going to say that Sirius XM should include the royalty fees to SoundExchange as a separate line item on the monthly bill so customers would know what the charge is (and who to hold accountable). But if they're really trying to hide a price increase in this fee, I don't suppose this will happen.
"In the end, the overall benefit will be much greater."
How would Mike know that? I don't have to go any further.
It's a good thing you didn't have to go any further, because that was the last line in the post.
Unless he has time traveled into the future to see what is going to happen, there is no way to know.
Since you seem to be unaware of this phenomenon, sometimes people will make a statement of belief and back it up with a supporting argument. This is what Mike has done. In most cases, these statements do not include lengthy disclaimers about the nature of opinion and the philosophical question of whether anything is really knowable. Does that help?
Ah, yet another overly generic attack with no supporting reasoning. If you have a problem with the post, why don't you just come out and explain why? Perhaps you should read your own posts and ask yourself whether it includes anything to back up your accusation.
I think you missed the whole point of Mike's post. Both proprietary and open source software developers are taking the same attitude that what's "fair" is more important that what is most beneficial for the developers and the software itself. In short, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.
On the post: China Tries To Ban Virtual Gold Farmers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Post from Jun 30th, 2009 @ 5:20pm
I don't think it would be particularly difficult to start blocking out WoW access in China.
Post from Jul 1st, 2009 @ 10:40am
[T]he Chinese government is likely to block WoW, as that is easier than trying to track down individual farmers.
You can claim otherwise but those two statements are not saying the same thing. In your first post, you did not say the Chinese government is likely to block WoW. You said that it would be easy for the government to do so. If you don't see the difference, I'm not sure what to say. Maybe if you read your posts before you clicked Submit, you'd realize what you've actually written doesn't match what you were thinking.
Personally, I wouldn't put it past the Chinese government to just block out all WoW access to ostensibly combat gold farming, but that's not what they said.
On the post: China Tries To Ban Virtual Gold Farmers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: China Tries To Ban Virtual Gold Farmers
Re:
The post is about blocking Chinese gold farmers, not Chinese WoW players. What, you think that just because you live in China, you're automatically a gold farmer?
On the post: Microsoft, Yahoo And Real Sued For Failing To Get All Necessary Licenses For Music Stores
Re:
Hyperbole much?
(This message was typed while listening to the fan in the window, the birds in the trees and the wind outside)
So, you have a problem that people find so much pleasure in life from listening to music and therefore place a high value on it? If only everyone in the world were just like you, it'd a better place, eh?
On the post: Microsoft, Yahoo And Real Sued For Failing To Get All Necessary Licenses For Music Stores
House of cards
Mike, about the expression "house of cards"...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
The expression has a quite different meaning than how you've used it in this and past posts. A house of cards is something that can easilly collapse or is built on a shaky foundation. It has nothing do to with being complex or inscrutable.
I certainly wish that the copyright system were a house of cards. If it were, then it would soon collapse under all of the pressures on it and we'd be able to put something more reasonable in its place. The problem is that the current copyright system is built on a very solid, albeit a complex and confusing, foundation. The copyright system is actually the opposite of a house of cards.
On the post: Taiwanese Collections Society Tells Singer He Can't Post His Own Music
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe this is just a translation issue, but based on the word "agency", I don't think there was a record or publishing company even involved. Agency to me implies that it was some kind of organization that was paid to promote this artist, arrange for bookings, or things of that nature. Sure, if you sign with a record company, there's a reasonable expectation that you're signing the rights to your own music away. From that point forward, it's their music and if they want to contract out with a licensing company, it's their business. But there's no expectation that the person trying to get you gigs owns your music.
On the post: Rogers Back To Inserting Its Messages Onto Others' Websites
Never attribute to malice...
Other than its location inside of another web page, I'd liken it to an e-mail that my anti-virus subscription is about to run out or a dialog box that there's a new update available for the program I just started.
On the post: ACLU Explains Why It's Fighting To Protect Info On Anonymous Vegas Newspaper Commenters
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Could The RIAA Stop Piracy By Coming Up With A More Compelling Story?
Re: Reasons to Buy
On the post: Why The Healthcare Industry Doesn't Want Electronic Medical Records
Re:
Interesting point, but have you considered that the technology sucks for the very reason that Mike is spotlighting? In other words, maybe it sucks because it's not getting the funding and/or acceptance from the overall healthcare industry and this in turn is happening because the overall healthcare industry doesn't want the technology because that would expose their gross inefficiencies. If you're comfortable in an environment where you can sell hammers at a huge profit, why would risk that by paying someone to invent a better nailgun?
On the post: Why The Healthcare Industry Doesn't Want Electronic Medical Records
Re: Re: Re: This is so far off the mark...
(BTW, when is TD going to fix the bug where every post under a Mike post appears with a blue background? Shouldn't it be only the original Mike post that has this format?)
On the post: Why The Healthcare Industry Doesn't Want Electronic Medical Records
Re: The gvmnt doesn't want you to live longer
I don't buy into this at all. Basically, I agree with Mike's statement...
"Focusing on preventative care and actually keeping people healthy would actually provide a massive economic benefit not just to the healthcare industry, but to the economy as a whole."
Your statement is based on the assumption that because you live longer, you're more of a financial burden on the government. But this isn't necesarilly so. If we focused on preventive care, then people would live longer, healthier lives. Sick people are a burden on the economy no matter how old they are. Sure, older people have more of a chance of being sick, but by making everyone healtheir, regardless of age, you can actually gain substantial savings.
On the post: Why The Healthcare Industry Doesn't Want Electronic Medical Records
Confused? It's the cost, stupid.
Based on what I've seen on the news, one of the main goals of implementing electronic healthcare records is the cost savings. So, it's not (just) about improving individual healthcare; it's about saving money. So, to use Mike's cough analogy, it's not like treating the cough of a person who has cancer, it's like spending $4000 dollars on someone who just has a cough.
Sure, I think that electronic healthcare records can also have a huge beneficial impact on individual healthcare, but if anything is going to drive the entire medical healthcare industry to move to electronic records, it's going to be reducing cost, not improving healthcare. I don't think the medical industry wants us sick; they just want to make money. And if avoiding the use of electronic records means they can make more money by hiding the innefficiencies of the system and we're more sick as a result, well then...that's OK to them.
So, if you look at the problem in terms of cost, I don't see why there's any confusion. As Mike pointed out...
The actual costs are nearly totally hidden from most consumers, so they don't make smart choices at all.
Electronic medical records will help expose these hidden costs which will help lower these costs which will "[improve] our healthcare system". What's to be confused about?
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
Re: music as an asset
On the post: In Defense Of Mobile E-Mail 'Addiction'
Re:
That's like saying the solution to the problem of speeding is to cut off the world gas supply. The "problem" is simply that people are sometimes rude. It's just that technology continuously gives us new ways of being rude. The solution will come, as it always does, when social etiquette catches up with technology.
On the post: Sirius XM Passing Music Royalty Rates On To Subscribers, Raising Lots Of Questions
Separate line item
On the post: Feds Show Their Cards On Online Poker: Freeze Funds
WSoSM
On the post: The Fear Of Freeloaders Overblown In Both Proprietary And Open Arenas
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How would Mike know that? I don't have to go any further.
It's a good thing you didn't have to go any further, because that was the last line in the post.
Unless he has time traveled into the future to see what is going to happen, there is no way to know.
Since you seem to be unaware of this phenomenon, sometimes people will make a statement of belief and back it up with a supporting argument. This is what Mike has done. In most cases, these statements do not include lengthy disclaimers about the nature of opinion and the philosophical question of whether anything is really knowable. Does that help?
On the post: The Fear Of Freeloaders Overblown In Both Proprietary And Open Arenas
Re:
On the post: The Fear Of Freeloaders Overblown In Both Proprietary And Open Arenas
Re:
I think you missed the whole point of Mike's post. Both proprietary and open source software developers are taking the same attitude that what's "fair" is more important that what is most beneficial for the developers and the software itself. In short, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Next >>