Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?
You live in a world so separated from reality that you could probably make millions of dollars selling the technology you use to break the barrier between dimensions.
We aren't talking about people taking something for nothing, we're talking about copyright owners (we're not talking about artists at this point) agreeing to get payed a set amount and then bitching when they get exactly what they agreed upon.
It blows my mind that all these arguments against Spotify are completely counter to what is actually happening.
Google Music is $10 a month and I can listen to whatever I want, whenever I want, and as often as I want. Isn't that exactly how Spotify works?
Last month I got offered a Youtube partnership with a company called Fullscreen. They offered a deal where I could cover over 100,000 songs and still get most of the money from the advertisements. How much money could the artist, or for that matter the studio, possibly get from what's left over?
Why would the studio make these deals of Spotify is such a horrible thing?
One, while you can create a self signed SSL key, in a company with customers, this is not something you want to do. Giant error messages constantly pop up warning you that the certificate is self signed and cannot be trusted.
Two, that is how they were working. If you go back threw the Techdirt history, you'll see the article about Lavabit giving the SSL key in tiny, unreadable 4 point font. The big argument about why being forced to give out the key was a bad thing is that it would give the government complete access to all accounts on Lavabit.
This wasn't the situation described where a subpoena comes in and someone at the company decrypts the data and only that data. This was the government trying to get the ability to decrypt all the data going in and out of the system whenever it wanted without anyone at Lavabit knowing.
I would assume that the FBI are only using the system for high security areas or on people they're already watching. A 5% success rate would just cost far too much if they tried to do this for everybody.
How did I get a 5% success rate, you ask? It's all in how you fiddle with the numbers. Let me walk you threw it.
There are 316,000,000 people living in the United States. 20% falsely identified is 15,800,000. I don't know how many people the FBI are looking for, but let's assume a generous 1,000,000 people. That's 850,000 people correctly identified. 850,000 people out of 15,800,000 flags. That's 5.379%.
This does assume a lot of things. One, I really don't think the FBI is looking for a million people let alone has pictures of all of them clear enough to feed into the software. Two, this assumes that every single person only ever walks past one camera. The success rate drops dramatically as people walk past more cameras.
It would cost far too much money to use a system that in the end probably has a success rate lower then 1%.
If the government could be trusted to sift threw the information and release all the safe stuff to the public, this wouldn't be a question. So they're off the list instantly.
Modern day reporting on politics has turned into what has been accurately described as a flamewar. They will say and do anything and everything to wind up the populous and get those eyeballs glued to the screen. Nobody trusts them, so even if they release true information, nobody would recognize it.
If we only have those two options, and I can't think of a third, I'd go with the lesser of two evils, the journalists. The government will just mark everything as "eyes only" as proven by the debate we're having now. Journalists would probably release too much information, really putting people's lives in danger, but they'd at least release the information. These are the risks we must take for freedom.
Re: Re: Re: OR, THIS is the diversion. -- EIther way, who cares?
I've been making it a point to avoid replying to OoTB recently, no matter how wrong I think he is, but I can't resist this time.
The argument that OoTB makes is a perfect example of why massive government surveillance is a bad thing. Look at all the information that has been given to us and then look at how OoTB has twisted it into one huge centralized conspiracy. Snowden, fake leaks, even fake news reports of damage to a data center.
OoTB is taking bits and peaces of the available information with intent on finding something, anything bad. Everything else that doesn't point to a vary bad thing is thrown away, useless information. There is no stretch of the imagination to see that those who are payed to find conspiracies will find conspiracies even if there aren't any.
This is why anyone who thinks "You have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" should just bitch slap themselves right now. Everyone has something to hide and something to fear even if they don't know it. Everyone, including you OoTB, has things in their history that are completely innocuous yet if taken out of context can make you look like a psychopath.
All one has to do to prove this is look at my search history while I was just typing this comment. I use Google to spell check my words. "innocuous", "conspiracies", "Snowden", "Psychopath" don't look good in a search history when taken out of context.
"He shouldn't have grabbed for the neck in the first place but I doubt very much that he was trying to choke her out."
My first thought when I saw that picture was "He grabbed her in the one place that wouldn't throw him on the sexual offenders list for life." Imagine if he had grabbed her around the waist and then she fell before the picture was taken. Think about where his arms would be and the hell that would have brought down.
I may be out of date with this, but the last time something tried to attach to my account, Twitter popped up and said "This software wants to connect to your twitter account. It will be authorized to post tweets as you. Allow or Deny." Is this not a thing any more?
If you have the willpower to ignore the words, then yes. But how many children have the willpower to ignore the words? And how many less know to use that willpower to ignore the words?
If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have been bullied. I wouldn't have listened to the idiot adults telling me "just ignore the bullies, they'll get bored and go away". I would have done exactly what Gwiz did and started joking with them. But children are inexperienced and teenagers are hard wired to be stupid (not kidding, it's actually biological).
You may have been able to get away from the years of verbal abuse before it started, but not all of us were so lucky.
To loop back in on the topic at hand, while I would go back and change a few things that I did, I would not want to be a bullied kid today. With all these idiot adults trying to stop bullying and failing miserably, they're just making it worse. Your physical response and Gwiz's joking response would put both of you under the boot.
"Yes, those cameras certainly helped identify and locate the suspects: but that is cold consolation to those who lost life and limb, because they didn't actually prevent the attack."
I would point out (before it's pointed out much more rudely) that the odds of anyone preventing the attack was slim no matter what we did. Yet those cameras helped catch those who did it. So as it stands our options are be attacked then find those who did it, or be attacked and not find those who did it.
Now, as a counter to my own point, the Boston Bombing was a fluke. Cameras are shit for identifying who did what, they mostly just show that something happened and when. I'd much rather have the US as a free country and risk attacks like this then have it as a police state and still risk attacks like this.
"Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've never really considered verbal insults or whatnot as bullying."
And you would be right, to an extent. A few words here and there are nothing, but if it happens every single day for years, it can be more damaging then a broken bone. Bones heal, but the sense of self that one builds when growing up lasts a lifetime.
"That's the technique of quibbling about verbal approximations as if disproves the overall point."
No, that doesn't disprove the overall point, nor was it meant to. The independent studies quoted after that is what disproves the overall point, the "quibbling" is just pointing out the personalities of those who make those claims.
You go to Europe for two weeks and insist on the faster data plan for the entire time?
I guess to each his own. If I went to Europe for two weeks, I'd want to see Europe not the Internet I can see at home. Go round, see the sites, and still be able to use the GPS without paying an extra cent? Now I want to go to Europe.
It's a thinly-disguised tool that works both ways. Who would want to be known as voting against the USA Freedom act? It's a good time for it too, those in power are still pretending that they want the US to be free.
I always wanted to put solar panels and/or wind turbines on my house. However, there are quite a few problems preventing me from doing that. The least of which is that it's illegal where I live. Stupid law, but it's still there. Then there's the fact that wind power just wouldn't work here. We don't get enough wind this close to the ground (solar is another problem entirely). The biggest problem is the price. The solar panels alone cost way to much for me, let alone the battery and transformer (or is that inverter?) system required.
I'm all for solar and wind power, but I'm more then willing to leave that to those who know what they're doing and can spread the cost of the system across several thousand customers.
"They stress the importance of not waving your gun around in any CCW class."
I can openly carry a gun, but I would have to file paperwork and get a license to hide a gun, so I would assume that they just stress not waving it around as apposed to saying it's illegal. On a side note, I don't think there are CCW classes in PA.
Ether way, I'd be afraid to call the police. What if the guy overheard me? Texting would be far less noticeable, is there a number to text the police?
I don't live in NY, is there even cell signal in the subway?
Any way you slice it, I think we've collectively shown that the DA's an idiot.
Let me ask you this, if you were in an enclosed tin can underground with a mass of other people and someone pulled out a gun, what would you do?
I can tell you exactly what I would do, I would freeze up. I wouldn't scream, I wouldn't commit suicide trying to attack the man, I'd just look away in an attempt to not draw attention. Then, when/if I saw him put it away, I would think less of it since it's perfectly legal to own an carry a gun in the United States.
Same kind of thing did happen to me a few years ago. I was sitting in the parking lot of a 7/11 waiting for a friend to come out. A guy pulled up beside me, stepped out of his car, reached back in and pulled out a gun. He put it in his belt, pulled his coat over it, and walked into the store. Guess what happened. Nothing. If I had panicked and called the cops, it would have just been a waist of everyone's time. All over something that's perfectly legal.