Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What are the Obamacare implications of this database?
I love this sort of scare tactic among Americans, largely because it depends on ignorance of some very important points. One is that single payer in other countries is usually not implemented as "government controls everything". Not only do doctors usually have some (if not complete) autonomy, but private options are not normally ruled out. You might end up in a crappy position if you need some experimental treatment that's not covered by the government system but don't have the money to get said treatment privately, but you certainly don't get told "we won't treat you because we're rationing". Any valid argument I've heard that they do ration is equally applicable to private insurers, and thus moot.
As someone who's lived in 4 countries, 3 of which have single payer or comprehensive public healthcare systems - and have never had a family member suffer unduly at the hands of a healthcare system apart from at the hands of the one in the US - this always sounds like scaremongering crap. Which it probably is.
"Right out of the gate they have proven woefully inept at managing health care"
Apart from the point that they haven't started managing healthcare, you're completely right. Do you really think think that a web site for a federal exchange for private insurance (which didn't affect state exchanges AFAIK, at least in those states that agreed to offer their citizens such a thing) equals healthcare?
Oh, believe me I know. I just want to keep this irony in the open - blue is literally defending LG (whose multi-hundred dollar products spy on their customers without their knowledge) by trying to deflect attention to Google (a company that most users know "spies" (and has admitted it), but accept it as the price of using their useful free products).
There's a fractal of stupidity with each of his posts, but I want to make sure he's aware that he's defending a spying corporation first.
Re: Re: Re: If Itunes takes his music and sells it, is that okay?
"You know you lost this whole pirate war you were waging, right?"
Why do AC morons have to lie to try and score points against fictional representations of who they are addressing? Does reality scare you that much?
Two points. First of all, I've won the "war" I was personally fighting. DRM has been removed from purchases, legal access to digital music is easier than ever before, the market has shown that people are willing to buy music even if piracy exists and innovative and interesting music services are available at reasonable prices to all. It's not a perfect system and there are still problems, but most of what I was demanding a decade ago while assholes like you lied about me have come to pass. I expect it to improve, I'm now trying to get the same treatment from other media industries.
Secondly, in case you're too stupid to notice, this story is about torrents being used to legally market music. You know, the thing you people claimed could never be used for legal purposes while you were insisting that no method of promotion outside pre-approved corporate methods would ever work? Yet again, an artist shows that it's only the idiots in charge of the whole sorry industry that stands between them and their future, and less of them are buying the lies. While you were lying about people who opposed the major labels being pirates, honest people were working on real solutions. Sorry you missed the boat.
Did you have any other fictional realities to construct so that you can attack them? I'll wait.
"I think techdirt should be ignoring the stories that are basically repeating a story that they told once before. Which feels like about a third of the NSA stories."
I disagree. Most of the new stories are based on new revelations, new data, new actions taken by the people involved in the story or new quotes by those people and those related.
True, a lot of the stories cover the same ground, but should they be ignored just because they're happening a lot? This is an ongoing story and as an opinion blog rather than a primary news source, TD can only look at what's available when it's available.
"I don't like all the repeats, alright?"
Fair enough. But, to my memory, this is how the site has always worked. Sometimes it's repeated discussion on DRM, business models, patents, Aaron Swatz, SOPA, NSA - whatever the current subject of most interest is. If you don't like reading them, skip to the next one. I'm sure other stories will take precedent if people aren't clicking on the stories they don't like.
"i always loved his song 'southside' maybe it's time i checked out more of his music"
He's a pretty eclectic artist, having had a career ranging from early hardcore rave stuff in the early 90s to punk rock to ambient to movie soundtracks. I say check out as much as you can, Southside is on the more commercial end of what he did, although you've almost certainly been exposed to more of his music through it being used as the background for marketing for many years. There's more to him than that though.
Re: If Itunes takes his music and sells it, is that okay?
You moronic statements become particularly stupid when your only defence for your beloved major label system becomes to attack the artist. I won't go through the other stupidity here (which is abundant), but just note that you have to personally attack the very people you pretend to care about.
Re: No, Itunes isn't "giving away works for free"...
"got known and popular by being promoted in the old fashioned way"
DJ promotion of a b-side which blew up in clubs, leading to an unexpected chart hit (Go - Woodtick mix) despite some legal concerns over its initially uncleared sampling of the theme to Twin Peaks and another that remains uncredited to this day (from jocelyn brown's Love Is Gonna Get You). Said club promotion typically happening via free promos and bootlegs rather than any corporate marketing. Said successful single leading to
Not what your tiny uninformed mind expected, huh? Oh let's be fair, maybe you're talking about Play, his breakthrough international success, but let's check out some Wikipedia quoes about how the major labels were behind this work:
"According to Moby, he shopped the record to every major label (from Warner Bros. to Sony to RCA) and was rejected every time. After V2 finally picked it up, his publicist sent the record to journalists, and many of them made a huge production of saying they weren't even going to listen to it."
Yeah, let's just depend on that industry to promote successful artists! It's obviously foolproof!
If you're going to spout crap about record labels, it's best not to pick up on those that rely on free promotion and non-corporate play. Definitely not those that rely on flukes despite the industry, not because of it.
"Several totally inorganic groups... Off top of head: Monkees"
So, your answer to the record industry's problems is to manufacture fake groups to cash in on the success of other more talented musicians (yes, I know the group changed over time, but they were a product to answer to The Beatles when first formed)? In other words, your idea of innovation is to continue doing what the major labels have been doing for decades. Brilliant.
I'd prefer full disclosure to either of those. As you rightly point out, if they're getting you to opt in, they'll say something like "access these neat features if you watch ads!". Opt in or out, I'd prefer they have to disclose the "...but to get the ads you have to agree to everything you do with the TV being collected by us and 3rd parties".
Opt in is certainly better, but it's meaningless unless you know everything you're opting in to.
"I read the article that I linked to (obviously) and rather assumed the commenters would as well."
I read the link. It was an opinion piece from a political blog that contained no real extra information. The linked back to thelocal.se, which admitted both that there were flammable materials in the building and that the hotel isn't particularly bothered about following the rules:
"Karlsson at the hotel isn't concerned about the new changes, and admitted that it was just a matter of adaptation."
If the hotel isn't bothered about the changes required, then why is anyone else? It's true that the risk is minimal, but it's also non-zero. So why the fuss over something that even your original link notes would come across far more stringent building restrictions if it was in the US?
Just curious - what specific NSA stories do you think that Techdirt should be ignoring, and which other stories do you think they should have been talking about instead? This particular story is a little silly, but it's not related to the NSA either so what else is there to be discussing that you think is being missed?
Re: Yes, "probably" is "resounding affirmation" for the brain-damaged.
"Never mind such alarming trends as:"
You do realise that the "game" being talked about there has nothing to do with video games, right? You also realise that it's nothing new and has parallels to things that predate the existence of video games, making your attack particularly stupid even by your standards?
Who am I kidding? You're neither intelligent nor honest enough to realise this.
"But "studies" by academic weenies won't find a link between war and violence unless that's the desired result."
Ignoring your childish namecalling of anyone who actually wants to study these things scientifically (I know you just "know" there's a link, who needs facts, right?), here's a few studies that show just that. Being honest, objective studies, however, you'll probably find a way to ignore them and attack the people who conducted the studies. A shame, since if anyone displays a need for help from such people, it's definitely you.
Erm, yeah this isn't really that stupid. As noted, things in the hotel can catch fire even if the usual installations will not. A strong fire could potentially be even more dangerous than normal (fires in normal buildings wouldn't cause the floors and walls to quickly melt, for example) and so people might have less time to react before things become hazardous or structural integrity becomes compromised. Plus, the walls not being directly flammable doesn't mean that smoke inhalation and other hazards are suddenly removed from the equation, as others have noted above.
It might sounds silly, and you could argue that the fire is far less likely to spread than in a standard construction, but it makes sense if public safety is your main concern.
"If you live in a democracy and can vote, perhaps you should put in place a government that represents the interests of the majority of its citizens."
Sorry, that crap doesn't fly. I get to discuss and voice my opinions all the time, and I also have the right to contact my elected representative, make them consider all opinions or even get them thrown out if they have done something particularly egregious. A democracy doesn't involve people only being allowed to speak once every election. It involves constant communication between the people and their elected representatives, and sometimes they even listen - especially if the debates around the subjects in question have altered a number of peoples' views between elections.
Perhaps if tools like yourself were capable of debating the issues instead of trying to tell people what they should think, you'd understand this.
"Or perhaps it already does."
It most likely does. But on which issue? No perfect candidate exists, so people either vote on a single issue or loyalty to one party. People who vote on issues can disagree completely with their candidate on some issues, but at the moment of voting consider other issues to be more important. But, they are still free to make sure their representatives understand differing opinions on those other issues. That's how democracy works.
Also, in many democracies, you have limited options. If all candidates support sucking up to the US but one candidate offers a reform to the housing sector at the same time, that doesn't mean that by voting for the housing guy you support everything else or you lose your voice until the next one.
Shutting out all dissenting opinion might be convenient, but it's not how a free society works - especially when all the negative policies being introduced are being done so at the behest of a foreign power.
Assuming you meant "$100 million", what is it about anonymous arrogant fools on this site and their obsession with that figure? Realistically, all it means is that you don't give 2 shits about independent artists and people who actually innovate, you're just pushing for protection of corporate profits. Take a moment to ponder why that doesn't fly, especially when the changes pushed actually prevent new and more flexible alternatives from being made possible, especially by those without large corporate portfolios and lawyers.