Why can't you explain your situation when asked about whatever this is? Either it's true or false. If it's false, no problem. If it's true, it's either still true or it was only true in the past. If it was only true in the past, depending on what it was and how past, no problem. If it's true now... it's either pertinent or not. If it's not pertinent, no problem. But if it IS pertinent, then you're asking other people to hide your dirty laundry. If it IS pertinent, then your prospective employer SHOULD know about it, right?
"You think that is our could possibly be considered a representative sample size ?"
Statistically speaking, yes it could. You don't get a representative sample based on the SIZE of the sample, it's based on the COMPOSITION of the sample. As long as the demographics of that 2000-person sample matched the same distribution as the US poulation, statistics allows us to make inferences from the smaller to the larger. You might want to argue that they had some kind of a bias (if, for example, they had 2000 20-somethings, and no one over the age of 40), but that information isn't apparent from the article.
What the 2000 number tells us is the amount of error to expect; larger samples (assuming everything else is done right) produce more precise results. It's been a while since I last had a stats class, but I think a sample of 2000 gives you a confidence of about plus or minus 1%. So maybe only 53% of likely cord cutters are under 40, for example.
Does it matter? If Rick Sanchez's current account was given to some other CNN employee (or left barren), and Rick registered a new name, it's reasonable to expect that the people who were following him would drop the old name and follow the new one.
No, it would appear he was convicted of "recieving stolen goods." That might sound like "splitting hairs" to you, but I think there's a significant difference, such as the possibility the he didn't know it was stolen when he recieved it, etc.
And no, I don't think anyone is arguing that he needs the computer because he's "just a kid." They're arguing that the punishment doesn't match the crime, or that this is a grossly broad punishment, or that the restrictions miss basic truths about modern computing, or that modern life requires computers for my that just homework or social-networking. You're the only commentor who's even mentioned that he's a kid.
Password != Encryption*. It's an authentication mechanism, it doesn't actually obscure or transcode data.
*Most password systems encrypt/transcode the password itself, either for local storage (so other users can't discover the passwords) or transmission over a network (so it can't be caught in transit).
No, he shouldn't "just submit." He wasn't asking to bypass security entirely, but he refused to be subject to unnecessary and degrading treatment, either by a backscanner or through a pat-down. He had passed through the metal detector the same as 90% or more of everyone else. what's more, *as a pilot* he IS entrusted with more trust. It doesn't matter if he can't get a bomb on the plane if he's *driving it* already. And finally, to "just submit" because that's what's on the checklist is ridiculous; unless these measures actually improve security, they are unnecessary and uncalled for.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
I believe Trademark would fall into a similar hole, as trademarks are meant to protect morons in a hurry from intentional or accidental deception in comerce.
Not just because I did something, but because you enjoyed what I created and you'd like me to make some more.
Given the opportunity, I do. What we're talking about here though is a news company demanding customers pay sight-unseen and why that doesn't work. If I know you do good work, yeah, I'm more incluned (but not guaronteed) to pay you for it, but if I can't even see your work until I've paid you then you're just putting up barriers. I recognize they want to be paid, I'm just explaining why this attempt is a dumb one.
I tip my waiter as a built-in way to express my pleasure or displeasure with their service. If they do a good job I'll give them a good tip, but I'm also unashamed to tip poorly (or not at all) for bad service. And I measure specifically their service -- many things that can go wrong at dinner (probably) aren't their fault.
I donate to charities because I can see the good work they do and want to help perpetuate that. I don't pay sight-unseen.
I do neither of these because of any kind of social contract, I do it because it's a fee-for-service set up and I can accurately guage their value to myself. The waiter's service is more direct, whereas charities fall into an "enlightened self-interest" category.
I think peer pressure has little if anything to do with laws and morals, generally. There are real consequences to shoplifting or committing other crimes (and even those don't stop everyone), and crimes like paedophilia are generally repugnant in their very nature, except to a subset generally considered aberrant.
Infinite goods aren't REALLY being discussed here. Some of the conversations sound the same because some of the mechanics are similar, but what we have are many different news sites competing with each other for our attention. The Times' paywall is competing with The Guardian's free articles, and copying doesn't even come into play. What the laws should or are or will do is an entirely different conversation altogether.
I think "responsibility to pay" is far too strong a term to use pretty much ever...
The argument is likely that fees from radio would benefit the labels, which in turn allows them to continue "supporting" the artists. In other words, what's good for the labels is good for the artists.
"people who are creative, who create transcendent works, or even derivative works, should have some way to directly benefit from the creation of those works."
Generally, everyone here agrees with that.
" it is the creator's problem, not societies problem."
And to be honest, I don't see a problem with that. It's not my responsibility to pay you just because you did something. I have to be convinced that it's valuable to me. I don't pay McDonalds because they made a burger, I pay McDonalds because possession of that burger has value to me (and value to others, and so I'm competing in a marketplace against other potential consumers).
If a content creator can demonstrate value and take advantage of a competative market place, they will be paid. If they can't do either, then they'll have to find some other way to provide for themselves. Patronage is one, a day job is another. Being paid directly for your efforts is only one motivation for any activity.
Q: So, if there was no advertising, everything would be cheaper?
A: No, probably not. Advertising lets companies reach larger audiences who might not know about their products. Some of that larger audience will buy the companies' products. Selling larger quantities of products means producing larger quantities, and mass-production has been shown to lower the cost-per-item. If they didn't advertise, the price wouldn't go down because the cost-per-item would be higher.
Re: "why should news be free" or "how can news be free".
Wow, dude. That's a long rant. What I think you're saying is basically:
-There are costs beyond distribution that need to be accounted for.
-"Free" stuff isn't absolutely free -- someone somewhere pays for it.
-News paid for by advertising can't be honest.
-Current professional reporting is superior to any other model.
I'd agree with you on the first two points. The producer of the content does have costs beyond just distribution. But "it cost me a lot to make this" isn't a good reason for why people should pay you, especially if they can find the value they're looking for elsewhere. And that's important to think about -- you can have extrordinarily high quality product, but if that higher-quality doesn't add enough value and entice enough extra business to offset the cost, then you're doing it wrong. Competing with "free" can be done, but it needs to be done in a smart way.
And yeah, "free" usually isn't really free. But that's not really the point. If I buy a car for $30k, it's because I feel that the value of the car is worth $30k -- it really doesn't matter to me if $10k of that is spent on advertising. I don't think you can say I'm being ripped off because I paid a price I felt was fair. If they start spending $20k on advertising and raise the price to $40k then they'll lose my business -- the value of their car to me isn't worth $40k -- but it's only indirectly related to advertising. They could potentially spend just as much on advertising and have it eat their profits, and I'll still buy the car at $30k. what they do with my $30k doesn't generally impact the transaction.
I disagree that news pay for by advertising can't be honest, or "independent" as you like to say. It takes strong character, sure, but it can be done. And should be done, economically speaking, because people VALUE honesty in reporting. No one would watch a BP-funded piece about how the oil is good for fish because that's dishonest, but they'd still watch a truthful piece on the oil spill regardless of whether or not BP is paying for it. Whether BP would pay for an honest piece is another question altogether, but I think a successful, honest news program would find other support even if BP pulled out. They need advertisers, sure, but the DO NOT NEED BP specifically. And a strong audience will entise other advertisers.
Also, what we have today with Fox and CNN and The Times is mostly crap. They sensationalize their stories, they skim over anything that's not shocking or scandalous, and they miss out a lot on critical analysis and real investigative reporting. They don't press the people they interview because they don't want to jeopardize their future access. And if you don't think that there are corporate interests holding their leashes, then you're fooling yourself. Right now, I have the most faith in amateur bloggers than in professional news agencies, because an amateur isn't concerned about who's signing his paycheck.
"Content of course can be put behind a paywall. It just needs to be worth paying for."
Well, it needs to be worth paying for, and people need to know it's worth paying for. Even if you have the best writing in the world, if no one knows about it it's a waste. The problem is that paywalls keep people from learning about the quality of your writing -- you're asking people to give you money on the promise that your product is worth it. You're making reading your paper a gamble, where readers have to guess if it's worth money to them -- and they could guess wrong.
On the post: EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts
Re:
On the post: Turns Out TV Cord Cutters Are, In Fact, Young, Educated And Employed
Re: From a less than 0.00001 sample size.
Statistically speaking, yes it could. You don't get a representative sample based on the SIZE of the sample, it's based on the COMPOSITION of the sample. As long as the demographics of that 2000-person sample matched the same distribution as the US poulation, statistics allows us to make inferences from the smaller to the larger. You might want to argue that they had some kind of a bias (if, for example, they had 2000 20-somethings, and no one over the age of 40), but that information isn't apparent from the article.
What the 2000 number tells us is the amount of error to expect; larger samples (assuming everything else is done right) produce more precise results. It's been a while since I last had a stats class, but I think a sample of 2000 gives you a confidence of about plus or minus 1%. So maybe only 53% of likely cord cutters are under 40, for example.
On the post: Who 'Owns' A Twitter Account: Employer Or Employee?
On the post: Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs
Re: Unlocked doors
On the post: Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs
Re: Re: Re: encryption
On the post: Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs
Re: well...
No, it would appear he was convicted of "recieving stolen goods." That might sound like "splitting hairs" to you, but I think there's a significant difference, such as the possibility the he didn't know it was stolen when he recieved it, etc.
And no, I don't think anyone is arguing that he needs the computer because he's "just a kid." They're arguing that the punishment doesn't match the crime, or that this is a grossly broad punishment, or that the restrictions miss basic truths about modern computing, or that modern life requires computers for my that just homework or social-networking. You're the only commentor who's even mentioned that he's a kid.
On the post: Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs
Re: encryption
*Most password systems encrypt/transcode the password itself, either for local storage (so other users can't discover the passwords) or transmission over a network (so it can't be caught in transit).
On the post: Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs
Re:
On the post: When A Humor Site Understands The Implications Of Abundance Better Than The 'Experts'...
Re: Long time Cracked reader here.
Agreed.
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Re: Really
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
On the post: FBI Claims Wikipedia Can't Display Its Logo
Re:
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Re: Rational or Rationalize
None taken, though I don't know what you mean.
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Re: Re: Re: Do you tip your waiter?
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Re: Do you tip your waiter?
Not just because I did something, but because you enjoyed what I created and you'd like me to make some more.
Given the opportunity, I do. What we're talking about here though is a news company demanding customers pay sight-unseen and why that doesn't work. If I know you do good work, yeah, I'm more incluned (but not guaronteed) to pay you for it, but if I can't even see your work until I've paid you then you're just putting up barriers. I recognize they want to be paid, I'm just explaining why this attempt is a dumb one.
I tip my waiter as a built-in way to express my pleasure or displeasure with their service. If they do a good job I'll give them a good tip, but I'm also unashamed to tip poorly (or not at all) for bad service. And I measure specifically their service -- many things that can go wrong at dinner (probably) aren't their fault.
I donate to charities because I can see the good work they do and want to help perpetuate that. I don't pay sight-unseen.
I do neither of these because of any kind of social contract, I do it because it's a fee-for-service set up and I can accurately guage their value to myself. The waiter's service is more direct, whereas charities fall into an "enlightened self-interest" category.
I think peer pressure has little if anything to do with laws and morals, generally. There are real consequences to shoplifting or committing other crimes (and even those don't stop everyone), and crimes like paedophilia are generally repugnant in their very nature, except to a subset generally considered aberrant.
Infinite goods aren't REALLY being discussed here. Some of the conversations sound the same because some of the mechanics are similar, but what we have are many different news sites competing with each other for our attention. The Times' paywall is competing with The Guardian's free articles, and copying doesn't even come into play. What the laws should or are or will do is an entirely different conversation altogether.
I think "responsibility to pay" is far too strong a term to use pretty much ever...
On the post: RIAA Defends Lawsuit Spending... But Reminds Everyone How It Helps Screw Over Musicians
Re: Re: The argument...
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Re: Who doesn't love a funny TV ad?
Generally, everyone here agrees with that.
" it is the creator's problem, not societies problem."
And to be honest, I don't see a problem with that. It's not my responsibility to pay you just because you did something. I have to be convinced that it's valuable to me. I don't pay McDonalds because they made a burger, I pay McDonalds because possession of that burger has value to me (and value to others, and so I'm competing in a marketplace against other potential consumers).
If a content creator can demonstrate value and take advantage of a competative market place, they will be paid. If they can't do either, then they'll have to find some other way to provide for themselves. Patronage is one, a day job is another. Being paid directly for your efforts is only one motivation for any activity.
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Re: Q & A
A: No, probably not. Advertising lets companies reach larger audiences who might not know about their products. Some of that larger audience will buy the companies' products. Selling larger quantities of products means producing larger quantities, and mass-production has been shown to lower the cost-per-item. If they didn't advertise, the price wouldn't go down because the cost-per-item would be higher.
Q: Well shit.
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Re: "why should news be free" or "how can news be free".
-There are costs beyond distribution that need to be accounted for.
-"Free" stuff isn't absolutely free -- someone somewhere pays for it.
-News paid for by advertising can't be honest.
-Current professional reporting is superior to any other model.
I'd agree with you on the first two points. The producer of the content does have costs beyond just distribution. But "it cost me a lot to make this" isn't a good reason for why people should pay you, especially if they can find the value they're looking for elsewhere. And that's important to think about -- you can have extrordinarily high quality product, but if that higher-quality doesn't add enough value and entice enough extra business to offset the cost, then you're doing it wrong. Competing with "free" can be done, but it needs to be done in a smart way.
And yeah, "free" usually isn't really free. But that's not really the point. If I buy a car for $30k, it's because I feel that the value of the car is worth $30k -- it really doesn't matter to me if $10k of that is spent on advertising. I don't think you can say I'm being ripped off because I paid a price I felt was fair. If they start spending $20k on advertising and raise the price to $40k then they'll lose my business -- the value of their car to me isn't worth $40k -- but it's only indirectly related to advertising. They could potentially spend just as much on advertising and have it eat their profits, and I'll still buy the car at $30k. what they do with my $30k doesn't generally impact the transaction.
I disagree that news pay for by advertising can't be honest, or "independent" as you like to say. It takes strong character, sure, but it can be done. And should be done, economically speaking, because people VALUE honesty in reporting. No one would watch a BP-funded piece about how the oil is good for fish because that's dishonest, but they'd still watch a truthful piece on the oil spill regardless of whether or not BP is paying for it. Whether BP would pay for an honest piece is another question altogether, but I think a successful, honest news program would find other support even if BP pulled out. They need advertisers, sure, but the DO NOT NEED BP specifically. And a strong audience will entise other advertisers.
Also, what we have today with Fox and CNN and The Times is mostly crap. They sensationalize their stories, they skim over anything that's not shocking or scandalous, and they miss out a lot on critical analysis and real investigative reporting. They don't press the people they interview because they don't want to jeopardize their future access. And if you don't think that there are corporate interests holding their leashes, then you're fooling yourself. Right now, I have the most faith in amateur bloggers than in professional news agencies, because an amateur isn't concerned about who's signing his paycheck.
On the post: Well That Should Fix Things: Goldman Sachs Implements Email Filter To Ban Swear Words
Re:
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Re: Poor assertion
Well, it needs to be worth paying for, and people need to know it's worth paying for. Even if you have the best writing in the world, if no one knows about it it's a waste. The problem is that paywalls keep people from learning about the quality of your writing -- you're asking people to give you money on the promise that your product is worth it. You're making reading your paper a gamble, where readers have to guess if it's worth money to them -- and they could guess wrong.
Next >>