You can open Grooveshark, just start typing stuff and it starts playing damned near instantly. Plus, it's easy to find related or similar things. That's fucking magic.
Spending $15 on a disc with one decent song is not magical.
Now, there is something to be said for *good* albums - 40+ minutes of 12 songs with a similar theme, or even a complete symphony like Pink Floyd albums. That's something you miss out on by buying $0.99 songs one at a time.
But you know what does albums well (sometimes)? Grooveshark :)
I don't really know what you're getting at here. What problems do "they" (the government) solve on their own? Are they even supposed to?
"Tax breaks" and "stimulus" indeed aren't helpful for innovation, but the costs that government adds to doing business is indeed prohibitive to innovation. It costs a lot of money to hire people. It costs money to certify people. It costs money to research things well enough to pass regulations. In response to these costs, business move their jobs and research to other countries. Our government responds by demonizing these companies for outsourcing and punishes them by raising their taxes and adding new regulations, perpetuating the cycle.
So, I agree that they want you to advocate filtering more money through government stimulus so they can take credit for cutting checks, as that's really the only thing the have the power to do in the first place. However, the real solution is to get the government further out of the way of innovation, but I'm afraid you might decry that as "tax breaks" or "deregulation".
I agree with Mike that patent system is a LARGE part of the problem, and it's probably a problem further outside of Silicon Valley than any of us realize. These issues may even be more of the factor than the things I mentioned.
I know I'm late to the party, but I came to disagree with Mike on this one too.
I agree on that such a group has their freedom of speech and they shouldn't be outright punished, but the judge is well within his power to ban jurors from accepting such information.
It's almost as if the judge is admitting that they want uninformed jurors who don't know their own rights.
Jurors are SUPPOSED to be a little uninformed. If facts are kept out of evidence because they were obtained illegally, then it would violate a defendant's rights to have the jury obtain that information outside the courtroom if they're instructed not to do any independent research. Also, it could be the case that facts are kept out of evidence because they're not facts. What information is on the papers? Citations from news media? If the media got something wrong there may be a REASON the judge chose not to let the jury hear it.
So agreed on the first amendment issue if it really is one, but there are lots of rights involved here.
Even if the pamphlet just "informs jurors of their rights" without adding any facts, that could be a problem. The judge is supposed to provide instructions to the jury, and those instructions are supposed to be correct and legal. If it's discovered that jurors acted on 'instructions' they received outside the courtroom then that could be just as much a factor on appeal as if the judge had given the jury incorrect instructions.
So, yeah, it kinda pisses me off that there's a group out there interfering with sitting jurors. Even though they may mean well, it's inevitable that some murderer is going to get a new trial on appeal because of something like this.
I don't think Mike had advocated that what happens in "public" is 100% public information.
If such a system was possible to record every single action that happened in a "public" space, we still shouldn't be arguing about what websites do with that information when it's out there. We should be arguing about whether such a system should actually be installed, who should be allowed to do so, and under what circumstances they're allowed to use it. However, once a news organization or some other media outlet gets hold of the information and it does become public, then it's out there.
People will deal with it because 95% of the people will just say "meh, that's just the way it is". They'll jokingly gripe about how Apple's a little greedy, but won't bother to seek out alternatives because they assume (a) everyone is like Apple (b) there are no alternatives (c) there might be alternatives but they don't know how or (d) they just don't care.
If the grocery store started selling grills that only cooked their brand of meat, people would say "screw that" and go to another store. But for some reason when the same thing happens with technology, the supply/demand/competition curves get skewed in strange ways.
I came to say pretty much the same thing, only I assumed this is what Google actually did until I read down to about the 8th paragraph where Google really did use the word "cheating"
At least they're not going to get sue-happy or anything.
Walmart may have excellent security, but it doesn't get in the way of customers. Electronic tags don't slow down the checkout process or inhibit your ability to use the product.
Where I am, they don't "randomly check outgoing carts" - they only do so when a beeper goes off, and then it's a geezer with a pen. Not exactly a great deal of "security", especially compared to stores that treat EVERYONE like a criminal by stopping every customer at the door and preventing them from leaving until the receipt is checked. (Sams Club included)
They're not "throwing their arms up in the air", but they are keeping the security out of the way of the paying customer.
Since they aren't spending hundreds of millions, but are in fact losing hundreds of millions, your point is meaningless
You're going to have to define "shrinkage" in the context of digital, infinitely reproducible media. Shrinkage in the scarce good, retail sense means loss of inventory.
Please note that I didn't say loss of profit. If nothing is lost, broken, or stolen at Walmart during a single year, but profits drop, that's not "shrinkage". That's just a drop in profit.
Where's the RIAA's loss of inventory? You're going to have to define "shrinkage" in this context. There's lots of money being made, and lots of content being produced. Are you sure the RIAA's loss of profit isn't just that?
I wouldn't know any detail, but it's all basic Sam Walton. The whole "satisfaction guaranteed" mantra was his from the beginning. The place hasn't been the same without him.
Another of his quotes that's on point is "Take their money, and they will return." It sounds like a silly quote, but when you're standing around in a stupid store (walmart included) with long lines, most registers closed, and no one available to take your money, you can see what he meant.
If the **AA isn't willing to take your money, i.e. give you something worth paying for and take your money conveniently, you'll go elsewhere and be an "underserved customer".
One of the major credits to Walmart's success, especially in the past, is its customer service. Walmart plasters "Satisfaction Guaranteed" on its stores. Walmart does employ some security to stop shoplifters, but for a lot of minor occurances, the security is pretty lax. Even though it's relatively easy to steal from Walmart, they find that they do better business by leaving content fairly unprotected.
Walmart's return policies are also quite lax, and their employees are instructed to be lax on returns and satisfy customers. It's trivially easy to return something to Walmart without a receipt, even if that thing wasn't even purchased at Walmart. Walmart loses a lot of money by taking returns in any condition, with and without proof of purchase, often handing out cash, even in cases where it's pretty clear that the "customers" are defrauding the company.
But they choose this because it's good for business. You garner confidence and good will with your customers when you don't treat them like criminals. It's easier to purchase something if you know you can return it. It's easier to shell out money when you're not being treated like a criminal. Other stores will deny returns from legitimate customers because of restrictive policies. Rather, lack of "content protection" is a huge part of how they grew a base of repeat, faithful customers.
I could tell personal stories from a few different angles. One I'll tell as a customer is that I received an item as a gift. I returned it to Walmart with no receipt and got money for it. I later found out that the giver bought the item somewhere else entirely for less money. I'm not proud of that. I'm happy to go back to that store and keep spending money, and I'm sure they're happy to have it, even though they lost a good deal of money on me that day.
So, even though the comparison of copying to stealing is faulty, the point still stands that increased "content protection" hurts both the legitimate customers and the bottom line more than it hurts the "freeloaders and thieves".
The 3D thing is probably a pretty valid concern. Watching a 3D movie now and then is probably ok, but engaging in a 3D game, especially on a handheld closer to your face (at a shorter focal length) for a longer time sounds possibly painful.
I think this just good incentive to make better 3d tech that doesn't have that issue.
Mike, I'm confused... You're praising Ellsburg for a great quote, when Ellsburg was just quoting you. Either way, it's a good quote, and it's great that he recognized you for it, but are you quoting him quoting you?
Ok, so the tv monopoly is beaten by the Internet, but that just shifts the debate from TV service to Internet service, which still suffers from the same issues. Not much is changing here.
1. People have trouble with nuance.
2. It's more about veiled threats than direct government involvement.
Assange has already been painted as a terrorist and a sex offender. It doesn't matter than the principle of Wikileaks is a separate issue of Assange's personal character or motivations - people have trouble with nuance.
A story about a single private company in a foreign company with some bad employees is WAY more nuanced than attacking the press organization that is republishing information it got from some terrorist website.
Also, with people like Sen. Lieberman making veiled threats against the New York Times for republishing information it goes from those dirty terrorist supporters, I think the press is just avoiding the headache of government interference. I think it's more that they're afraid of DHS dropping the hammer for "national security" reasons. I find that more likely than direct collusion with the government.
On the post: Bon Jovi Thinks Steve Jobs Killed Music; More Old Rockers Shooing Those Darn Kids Off Their Lawn
You can open Grooveshark, just start typing stuff and it starts playing damned near instantly. Plus, it's easy to find related or similar things. That's fucking magic.
Spending $15 on a disc with one decent song is not magical.
Now, there is something to be said for *good* albums - 40+ minutes of 12 songs with a similar theme, or even a complete symphony like Pink Floyd albums. That's something you miss out on by buying $0.99 songs one at a time.
But you know what does albums well (sometimes)? Grooveshark :)
On the post: The NFL Or SkyNET: There Can Be Only One
Hi Tim
Good job.
On the post: The White House Wants Advice On What's Blocking American Innovation
Re: What They Want You To Say
"Tax breaks" and "stimulus" indeed aren't helpful for innovation, but the costs that government adds to doing business is indeed prohibitive to innovation. It costs a lot of money to hire people. It costs money to certify people. It costs money to research things well enough to pass regulations. In response to these costs, business move their jobs and research to other countries. Our government responds by demonizing these companies for outsourcing and punishes them by raising their taxes and adding new regulations, perpetuating the cycle.
So, I agree that they want you to advocate filtering more money through government stimulus so they can take credit for cutting checks, as that's really the only thing the have the power to do in the first place. However, the real solution is to get the government further out of the way of innovation, but I'm afraid you might decry that as "tax breaks" or "deregulation".
I agree with Mike that patent system is a LARGE part of the problem, and it's probably a problem further outside of Silicon Valley than any of us realize. These issues may even be more of the factor than the things I mentioned.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
I agree on that such a group has their freedom of speech and they shouldn't be outright punished, but the judge is well within his power to ban jurors from accepting such information.
Jurors are SUPPOSED to be a little uninformed. If facts are kept out of evidence because they were obtained illegally, then it would violate a defendant's rights to have the jury obtain that information outside the courtroom if they're instructed not to do any independent research. Also, it could be the case that facts are kept out of evidence because they're not facts. What information is on the papers? Citations from news media? If the media got something wrong there may be a REASON the judge chose not to let the jury hear it.
So agreed on the first amendment issue if it really is one, but there are lots of rights involved here.
Even if the pamphlet just "informs jurors of their rights" without adding any facts, that could be a problem. The judge is supposed to provide instructions to the jury, and those instructions are supposed to be correct and legal. If it's discovered that jurors acted on 'instructions' they received outside the courtroom then that could be just as much a factor on appeal as if the judge had given the jury incorrect instructions.
So, yeah, it kinda pisses me off that there's a group out there interfering with sitting jurors. Even though they may mean well, it's inevitable that some murderer is going to get a new trial on appeal because of something like this.
On the post: Europeans Continue To Push For 'Right To Be Forgotten'; Claim Americans 'Fetishize' Free Speech
Re: privacy can still be a factor in "public"
If such a system was possible to record every single action that happened in a "public" space, we still shouldn't be arguing about what websites do with that information when it's out there. We should be arguing about whether such a system should actually be installed, who should be allowed to do so, and under what circumstances they're allowed to use it. However, once a news organization or some other media outlet gets hold of the information and it does become public, then it's out there.
On the post: An Open iPhone App Market That Doesn't Require Jailbreaking... And Which Apple Can't Stop
ennui strikes again
If the grocery store started selling grills that only cooked their brand of meat, people would say "screw that" and go to another store. But for some reason when the same thing happens with technology, the supply/demand/competition curves get skewed in strange ways.
On the post: Google's Childish Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance
Re: I'll Just Repost My Own Thoughts On This
At least they're not going to get sue-happy or anything.
On the post: Massachussetts Legislature Bans Twitter From Office Computers
Re:
On the post: Massachussetts Legislature Bans Twitter From Office Computers
Re: Edjewkayshun
On the post: Lee Harvey Oswald's Brother Sues Funeral Home For Selling Oswald's Old Coffin
On the post: When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where I am, they don't "randomly check outgoing carts" - they only do so when a beeper goes off, and then it's a geezer with a pen. Not exactly a great deal of "security", especially compared to stores that treat EVERYONE like a criminal by stopping every customer at the door and preventing them from leaving until the receipt is checked. (Sams Club included)
They're not "throwing their arms up in the air", but they are keeping the security out of the way of the paying customer.
You're going to have to define "shrinkage" in the context of digital, infinitely reproducible media. Shrinkage in the scarce good, retail sense means loss of inventory.
Please note that I didn't say loss of profit. If nothing is lost, broken, or stolen at Walmart during a single year, but profits drop, that's not "shrinkage". That's just a drop in profit.
Where's the RIAA's loss of inventory? You're going to have to define "shrinkage" in this context. There's lots of money being made, and lots of content being produced. Are you sure the RIAA's loss of profit isn't just that?
On the post: When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
Another of his quotes that's on point is "Take their money, and they will return." It sounds like a silly quote, but when you're standing around in a stupid store (walmart included) with long lines, most registers closed, and no one available to take your money, you can see what he meant.
If the **AA isn't willing to take your money, i.e. give you something worth paying for and take your money conveniently, you'll go elsewhere and be an "underserved customer".
On the post: When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
Re:
Walmart's return policies are also quite lax, and their employees are instructed to be lax on returns and satisfy customers. It's trivially easy to return something to Walmart without a receipt, even if that thing wasn't even purchased at Walmart. Walmart loses a lot of money by taking returns in any condition, with and without proof of purchase, often handing out cash, even in cases where it's pretty clear that the "customers" are defrauding the company.
But they choose this because it's good for business. You garner confidence and good will with your customers when you don't treat them like criminals. It's easier to purchase something if you know you can return it. It's easier to shell out money when you're not being treated like a criminal. Other stores will deny returns from legitimate customers because of restrictive policies. Rather, lack of "content protection" is a huge part of how they grew a base of repeat, faithful customers.
I could tell personal stories from a few different angles. One I'll tell as a customer is that I received an item as a gift. I returned it to Walmart with no receipt and got money for it. I later found out that the giver bought the item somewhere else entirely for less money. I'm not proud of that. I'm happy to go back to that store and keep spending money, and I'm sure they're happy to have it, even though they lost a good deal of money on me that day.
So, even though the comparison of copying to stealing is faulty, the point still stands that increased "content protection" hurts both the legitimate customers and the bottom line more than it hurts the "freeloaders and thieves".
On the post: DailyDirt: Gaming Can Hurt For Real
I think this just good incentive to make better 3d tech that doesn't have that issue.
On the post: If Wikileaks Is About Cyberwar, Was The Pentagon Papers About A Wood Pulp War? [Updated]
Maybe he'll tweet this.
On the post: Despite Promises That Franchise Reform Would Lower TV Rates, The Opposite Has Happened
On the post: 'Spinning' Trademarked; Gyms Being Threatened For Holding Spinning Classes Sans License
On the post: Why Are US Publications Downplaying The Significance Of Some Of Wikileaks' Leaks?
Re: Answer...
1. People have trouble with nuance.
2. It's more about veiled threats than direct government involvement.
Assange has already been painted as a terrorist and a sex offender. It doesn't matter than the principle of Wikileaks is a separate issue of Assange's personal character or motivations - people have trouble with nuance.
A story about a single private company in a foreign company with some bad employees is WAY more nuanced than attacking the press organization that is republishing information it got from some terrorist website.
Also, with people like Sen. Lieberman making veiled threats against the New York Times for republishing information it goes from those dirty terrorist supporters, I think the press is just avoiding the headache of government interference. I think it's more that they're afraid of DHS dropping the hammer for "national security" reasons. I find that more likely than direct collusion with the government.
On the post: Another Reminder That You Don't Own Your eBooks: Amazon Removing More eBooks You 'Bought' From Archives
Re: "just like a book"
Amazon deleting books from your Kindle is not the same thing is removing things from their archive for re-download.
I don't really see what the fuss is here.
On the post: How Political Pundits Get Confused When They Don't Understand That Wikileaks Is Distributed
Re: Re:
Next >>