Even pregnant women, despite the complete and total lack of studies with these machines involving pregnancy.
Of course, you can choose to have your breasts and genitals groped instead, which is definitely painful during pregnancy, and probably emotional problematic.
My own TSA grope during pregnancy was horrible, and it was years and years ago. (Being yelled at for having a .75" Swiss Army-type key chain with nail clippers that I had forgotten about was just as bad, honestly.)
After seeing the video of a three-year-old girl sobbing "Stop touching me!" as TSA agent forcibly groped her for 'security purposes' and the mother of a 6-year-old boy yelled at for trying to comfort her son during his groin grope, I think your comparison is much less than harsh.
Aaaand the link is now down due to a copyright violation. Wow.
Anyway, these TSA policies are stupid. Incredibly stupid. If I wanted to take out a bunch of American travelers, you know what I'd do? Detonate the bomb in the screening area, before I ever get molested or irradiated.
I thank God that I have no need to fly in the foreseeable future.
On a different blog, she stated that the TSA's video isn't complete. She says: "The camera angles in such a way that it doesn't show a lot of what happened... There is a section where I was pulled to a second chair that is not included in there. There are a lot more agents and officers just off camera. There's one angle where it only shows one of the two chairs in the section. It cuts to me walking away, but where they show me walking to in the second video is not where I walked to after that first video. It happened further on.".
So in addition to suggesting that she's lying, they're possibly editing the video to make it look worse for her than it actually is.
In addition, I find it incredibly troubling that they ripped up her ticket. Theoretically, she'd need that for a refund. (Don't say 'nonrefundable' because the other passenger references had his 'nonrefundable' ticket refunded after his similar experience.)
Regardless of whether or not this girl wanted her 15 minutes of crazy fame, the fact remains that there would be nothing for her to go crazy about if:
a. the TSA officers were professional.
b. TSA policies didn't call for molestation or involuntary porn shots.
c. the TSA clearly videotaped all interactions.
All of these things are incredibly suspect on the part of our favorite security theater employees.
And you can't say you don't like the Beatles and then list of bunch of "better" bands that were all highly influenced by the Beatles sound.
Yes, yes, you can. Fairly easily, in fact. You know, because descriptive such as the words 'like' and 'better' are all subject to, you know, those pesky things called opinions.
I didn't say that it hurt the band. I don't think anyone said that it hurt the band, except you.
And I wouldn't purchase it from iTunes, anyway. It was the lack of digital availability. I live in a relatively large city and we still didn't have any stores that carried a any Beatles CDs and, of course, this is the first really legal digital download.
I did pay for it, with BlueBeat or whatever that company was with the strange copyright claim. Before that, I simply copied my friend's discs. We all did.
We didn't do it because we were cheap. We did it because it was the only way to get the music.
Sorry, Beatles! You're too late. I already paid someone for your music. Too bad it couldn't be you.
Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
People still file share in China, Iran, and Australia. Even after the huge monetary awards and jail time that's been handed down to file sharers in America, Americans still file share.
So the answer to your question is yes, people will still file share.
Similarly, a level of fear can be inculcated to on the one hand prevent file-sharing (the aim of relevant corporations), and simultaneously on other hand, institute a total police state...
No, they can't and your example doesn't work. In order to fly, you have to physically submit to another person. Even so, it would be fairly easy to get a bomb past the TSA. In order to fileshare, you have to have a computer in the privacy of your own home. Even in a world where the Internet is locked down tight (Which isn't going to happen. See China and Iran for more details.), you can still turn off your Internet, copy that disc, and give it to your neighbor.
It doesn't matter, though, because we're never going to get to a point where the law effectively bars your from sharing files on the Internet. Even the arrest of the Chinese Democracy leaker didn't faze anymore. When we do care, we're either outraged or amused at politicians who get caught up in their own copyright web. (You know, the one that we don't care about.)
"Nice try, though." is your condescension to someone else above, clearly with the aim that you accuse me of...
'Nice try, though.' was me complimenting someone on coming up with a fairly unique argument for DRM. They stated that DRM was going to work this time, not because the tech is so good, but because the government would be able to successfully enforce a ban against it. That's a fairly novel argument, even if I do disagree with it. The only condescension is in your own mind.
...besides on my thread: "Remember, folks... Don't feed the troll!"
Oh, I see. You're commenting here because you're upset that I called you a troll in a lower thread. Wow, man. Wow.
Hey, I'm sorry that I called you a troll. I genuinely believed that you were a troll and, honestly, I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not. (The world would be a better place if you were one, though.)
Evidently you regard it as okay for *you* to call names with the goal of stifling dissent, so my point was: you're a hypocrite.
No, I 'regard it as okay' to point out obvious trolls in order to stifle useless frustration, since trolls don't come here to have a conversation about the post.
So my point is: You're an idiot. Or a troll. Maybe both, I don't know.
You repeat "maximum return" without considering *long-term* and more important goals...
No, I didn't. Maximum return is exactly that. :)
...right now, even if having found music DRM ineffective, the media companies are *going around* your view of economics by getting the gov't to *ensure* the effectiveness of DRM in future.
No, they're not.
Oh, wait! You mean that they're putting laws into place to scare people? And you think that's going to work?
Oh, hon. :P
And they do not necessarily care about maximizing anything except *people control*. -- Once they have that, rest is easy pickings.
Yes, it would be 'easy pickings' if they ever happened to get that. Too bad for them, huh? Historically, they have never had a lock-down on content, and they never will. If if they 1984'd the Internet, Sneakernet would still spread content for free. Of course, this post isn't about free. It's about how to allow people to pay you by ditching DRM.
For those who keep saying the world is changing and companies better adjust, you sure fail to notice that the *major* change of the last many years is gov't action.
No, the major change is people not caring about whether or not their file-sharing is illegal. The government's futile attempts to control information through arbitrary laws are laughable and hardly worthy of consideration in an economical context.
The purpose of gov't is no longer about "letting" people or "free" markets; it's about locking down for corporations.
Yes, too bad that it's never worked. You keep speaking of legal controls. You understand that their controls have never lasted longer than a week, right?
I too am sure he has a *little* understanding of economics, abstract, from an ivory tower, heavily biased against "baristas" and other workers.
Yes, because he doesn't make money as an economist and a business-owner. He's just a wet-behind-the-ears grad with no clue on how the world works. Not like you, Anonymous. You really understand how economics and DRM work together with the law, to finally stop people from sharing content.
/sarcasm
In any case, since Mike doesn't factor in gov't action (obtained through pressure and bribery), his conclusions are irrelevant.
In any case, since government action doesn't and isn't going to work, your conclusions are relevant.
Condescend to object line by line if you wish.
Try to scare off honest discussion by criticizing those who disagree with you, if you wish. :)
Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
Your view of what you call deficiencies is strictly an opinion. The opinions of the company's President is more important, in this case, especially since it concurs with the many, many happy streaming customers.
And, really, we're not fan boys. You're just wannabe-elite.
I am all for easier distribution and consuming of content, from any source.
Good! Me, too. I like consuming entertainment, and I don't mind paying for it.
But...if you had invested millions in your content you may be a little sensitive to how it is distributed.
Sure, of course. You want to make sure that you get the maximum financial return from your investment. As a paying customer, I totally get that.
I understand that DRM has not been a great solution for music and is definitely not the the be all and end all, but calling the industries efforts a huge waste of time! A little much.
I don't know if you've noticed, but music isn't DRM'd anymore. It caused so many problems that paying customers refused to use it. That was a big bummer for the whole 'maximum return' thing, and the music companies had to get rid of it completely, meaning that it was, in fact, a huge waste of time.
Everyone seems big on doing away with all the barriers to file sharing and distribution AND whine how the price is always to expensive for non-free content.
Actually, this post is about doing away with barriers so that people can purchase content. Price isn't mentioned at all.
About price, though, right now, Android users can easily watch pirated content. What they can't do is watch legally obtained content. You know, the kind that people pay money for? Anyway, it's hard to get to the whole 'maximum return' thing when you refuse to let people purchase your product.
I am not sure, but tv and movie content is a lot more expensive to produce then music.
Yes, that's why they should make sure that as many people as possible can purchase it.
I think a little understanding of the economies here might help make the anti-DRM argument a little stronger.
I'm reasonably sure that the writer of the post has a little understanding of economics... Since he is, in fact, an economist. :)
Yeah, box office bombs like Monsters, Inc and Princess and the Frog. Oh, wait.
Personally, we cut the cord with Netflix streaming alone.
However, just like any product or service, it's not for everyone. That doesn't mean that it's not for anyone. Quit whining about Netflix and go buy DVDs.
On the post: Beatles & Apple Finally Going To Let You Pay Money For The Beatles Songs You've Been Pirating For Years
Re: Re: Re: Damn the expense!
/arrogance
No, really. Thanks. :)
On the post: If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You
Re:
Of course, you can choose to have your breasts and genitals groped instead, which is definitely painful during pregnancy, and probably emotional problematic.
My own TSA grope during pregnancy was horrible, and it was years and years ago. (Being yelled at for having a .75" Swiss Army-type key chain with nail clippers that I had forgotten about was just as bad, honestly.)
On the post: If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You
Re: Accusing the victim...
Aaaand the link is now down due to a copyright violation. Wow.
Anyway, these TSA policies are stupid. Incredibly stupid. If I wanted to take out a bunch of American travelers, you know what I'd do? Detonate the bomb in the screening area, before I ever get molested or irradiated.
I thank God that I have no need to fly in the foreseeable future.
On the post: If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You
Security Theater...
So in addition to suggesting that she's lying, they're possibly editing the video to make it look worse for her than it actually is.
In addition, I find it incredibly troubling that they ripped up her ticket. Theoretically, she'd need that for a refund. (Don't say 'nonrefundable' because the other passenger references had his 'nonrefundable' ticket refunded after his similar experience.)
Regardless of whether or not this girl wanted her 15 minutes of crazy fame, the fact remains that there would be nothing for her to go crazy about if:
a. the TSA officers were professional.
b. TSA policies didn't call for molestation or involuntary porn shots.
c. the TSA clearly videotaped all interactions.
All of these things are incredibly suspect on the part of our favorite security theater employees.
On the post: Beatles & Apple Finally Going To Let You Pay Money For The Beatles Songs You've Been Pirating For Years
Re: Damn the expense!
Yes, yes, you can. Fairly easily, in fact. You know, because descriptive such as the words 'like' and 'better' are all subject to, you know, those pesky things called opinions.
On the post: Beatles & Apple Finally Going To Let You Pay Money For The Beatles Songs You've Been Pirating For Years
Re:
On the post: Beatles & Apple Finally Going To Let You Pay Money For The Beatles Songs You've Been Pirating For Years
Re: Beatles
And I wouldn't purchase it from iTunes, anyway. It was the lack of digital availability. I live in a relatively large city and we still didn't have any stores that carried a any Beatles CDs and, of course, this is the first really legal digital download.
So my statement stands. :)
On the post: Beatles & Apple Finally Going To Let You Pay Money For The Beatles Songs You've Been Pirating For Years
Re: Re: Re: Re: Now that is funny right there
On the post: Beatles & Apple Finally Going To Let You Pay Money For The Beatles Songs You've Been Pirating For Years
Sorry, Beatles!
We didn't do it because we were cheap. We did it because it was the only way to get the music.
Sorry, Beatles! You're too late. I already paid someone for your music. Too bad it couldn't be you.
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
So the answer to your question is yes, people will still file share.
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
No, they can't and your example doesn't work. In order to fly, you have to physically submit to another person. Even so, it would be fairly easy to get a bomb past the TSA. In order to fileshare, you have to have a computer in the privacy of your own home. Even in a world where the Internet is locked down tight (Which isn't going to happen. See China and Iran for more details.), you can still turn off your Internet, copy that disc, and give it to your neighbor.
It doesn't matter, though, because we're never going to get to a point where the law effectively bars your from sharing files on the Internet. Even the arrest of the Chinese Democracy leaker didn't faze anymore. When we do care, we're either outraged or amused at politicians who get caught up in their own copyright web. (You know, the one that we don't care about.)
"Nice try, though." is your condescension to someone else above, clearly with the aim that you accuse me of...
'Nice try, though.' was me complimenting someone on coming up with a fairly unique argument for DRM. They stated that DRM was going to work this time, not because the tech is so good, but because the government would be able to successfully enforce a ban against it. That's a fairly novel argument, even if I do disagree with it. The only condescension is in your own mind.
...besides on my thread: "Remember, folks... Don't feed the troll!"
Oh, I see. You're commenting here because you're upset that I called you a troll in a lower thread. Wow, man. Wow.
Hey, I'm sorry that I called you a troll. I genuinely believed that you were a troll and, honestly, I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not. (The world would be a better place if you were one, though.)
Evidently you regard it as okay for *you* to call names with the goal of stifling dissent, so my point was: you're a hypocrite.
No, I 'regard it as okay' to point out obvious trolls in order to stifle useless frustration, since trolls don't come here to have a conversation about the post.
So my point is: You're an idiot. Or a troll. Maybe both, I don't know.
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Re: Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
/sadface
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it!
No, I didn't. Maximum return is exactly that. :)
...right now, even if having found music DRM ineffective, the media companies are *going around* your view of economics by getting the gov't to *ensure* the effectiveness of DRM in future.
No, they're not.
Oh, wait! You mean that they're putting laws into place to scare people? And you think that's going to work?
Oh, hon. :P
And they do not necessarily care about maximizing anything except *people control*. -- Once they have that, rest is easy pickings.
Yes, it would be 'easy pickings' if they ever happened to get that. Too bad for them, huh? Historically, they have never had a lock-down on content, and they never will. If if they 1984'd the Internet, Sneakernet would still spread content for free. Of course, this post isn't about free. It's about how to allow people to pay you by ditching DRM.
For those who keep saying the world is changing and companies better adjust, you sure fail to notice that the *major* change of the last many years is gov't action.
No, the major change is people not caring about whether or not their file-sharing is illegal. The government's futile attempts to control information through arbitrary laws are laughable and hardly worthy of consideration in an economical context.
The purpose of gov't is no longer about "letting" people or "free" markets; it's about locking down for corporations.
Yes, too bad that it's never worked. You keep speaking of legal controls. You understand that their controls have never lasted longer than a week, right?
I too am sure he has a *little* understanding of economics, abstract, from an ivory tower, heavily biased against "baristas" and other workers.
Yes, because he doesn't make money as an economist and a business-owner. He's just a wet-behind-the-ears grad with no clue on how the world works. Not like you, Anonymous. You really understand how economics and DRM work together with the law, to finally stop people from sharing content.
/sarcasm
In any case, since Mike doesn't factor in gov't action (obtained through pressure and bribery), his conclusions are irrelevant.
In any case, since government action doesn't and isn't going to work, your conclusions are relevant.
Condescend to object line by line if you wish.
Try to scare off honest discussion by criticizing those who disagree with you, if you wish. :)
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
And, really, we're not fan boys. You're just wannabe-elite.
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: DRM doesn't work -- UNLESS you control the hardware.
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: I don't get it!
Good! Me, too. I like consuming entertainment, and I don't mind paying for it.
But...if you had invested millions in your content you may be a little sensitive to how it is distributed.
Sure, of course. You want to make sure that you get the maximum financial return from your investment. As a paying customer, I totally get that.
I understand that DRM has not been a great solution for music and is definitely not the the be all and end all, but calling the industries efforts a huge waste of time! A little much.
I don't know if you've noticed, but music isn't DRM'd anymore. It caused so many problems that paying customers refused to use it. That was a big bummer for the whole 'maximum return' thing, and the music companies had to get rid of it completely, meaning that it was, in fact, a huge waste of time.
Everyone seems big on doing away with all the barriers to file sharing and distribution AND whine how the price is always to expensive for non-free content.
Actually, this post is about doing away with barriers so that people can purchase content. Price isn't mentioned at all.
About price, though, right now, Android users can easily watch pirated content. What they can't do is watch legally obtained content. You know, the kind that people pay money for? Anyway, it's hard to get to the whole 'maximum return' thing when you refuse to let people purchase your product.
I am not sure, but tv and movie content is a lot more expensive to produce then music.
Yes, that's why they should make sure that as many people as possible can purchase it.
I think a little understanding of the economies here might help make the anti-DRM argument a little stronger.
I'm reasonably sure that the writer of the post has a little understanding of economics... Since he is, in fact, an economist. :)
Nice try, though.
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
Poor sad pandas.
On the post: Netflix Avoided Android Because It Didn't Have Enough DRM
Re: Neftlix is not what it is cracked up to be
Personally, we cut the cord with Netflix streaming alone.
However, just like any product or service, it's not for everyone. That doesn't mean that it's not for anyone. Quit whining about Netflix and go buy DVDs.
Next >>