It means it is not a big deal that the public is in danger. Because that danger is the erosion of civil liberties under the false-veil of security.
If Clapper really wanted to make America safe, he'd get control of the corporations whom are exploiting countries around the world, using US soldiers and diplomats as their proxy. Of course it's all in the name of profits. Profits for military equipment, profits for security companies, profits for natural resource companies (oil, metals, etc..), agricultural via food services (McD's harvests cows on their farms in Africa, or at least they used to), etc..
Stop that and you'll stop the terrorist threats. Seriously, do you think Osama would have wanted to attack the US if they were not meddling in Middle Eastern affairs? Some would say "they hate we are free" but that's total bullshit. They hate your interference!
That's how you can have security and liberty co-existing, by NOT giving a reason for security in the first place!
Edward is an epileptic. If that's true, then that's what will happen. There will be some "oversight" committee established, a lot of hoop-la from Congress and the Senate, even the Prez will change his tune. However, before he can testify, or maybe before they even do the grand jury, Edward will pass away in Hong Kong from a seizure.
How? That's obvious. An asset will poison his food, he has to order it in, they'll get to it while in transit or have someone cook it into the food. The autopsy will be faked or twisted and he'll be cremated or something like that.
Then the masses who might just be waking up will fall back asleep with the next reality show.
The CIA's greatest play was manipulating the people of their own country of origin, using the apathy program.
You can't lump Amazon's cloud service in with NetFlix (which isn't a cloud service - a cloud service provides storage space, and in some cases like Azure, VM's, VN's, websites, SQL services, CRM services, or you can host them on VM's within VN's if you like).
Don't conflate technologies.
The filelockers/cyberlockers/cybershares/vaults etc.. you are referring to are USING cloud services (which is really just a bunch of servers acting together in a farm, using load balancing, hosting multiple machines). And the industry created that DRM-like functionality and are pushing harder for more control.
What pissed people off about DRM was it failed to let gamers play the games. It failed to let people BUY from iTunes and then transfer those files to their non-iPod device.
That's what DRM did. That's why iTunes, Amazon and the like offered DRM-free items - because they saw people getting pissed and sales dropping, in terms of adoption rates not yearly sales - don't conflate that shit either.
Said companies dropped DRM because they know consumers want to burn it to a CD for the car, listen on their OWN portable music device (not be device restricted) and they noticed MORE sales (increase in rate of sales) when consumers can access the fucking content they paid to access in a way they want to access.
That's why DRM is harmful. Many artists get that. Many artists groups have come out against DRM for that very reason. That includes the author groups.
Only "groups" or organizations made up of lawyers support DRM and that's been proven here when articles expose said members for what the organization really is.
What Mike has said was:
1) Don't give it away and pray (despite you saying he says that)
2) Don't rely on digital sales alone, give more, fans want more, offer packages that are more than just a digital download
3) Don't try to force a scarcity upon something that isn't scarce
There are "hundreds" more, but I'm not going to type them all out, I know you won't read them.
Maybe if you understood this sites assertions (non-abuse use of laws) you'd understand just how foolish you look when you comment as you do.
Quote this site where it endorses "sticking it to the man" via filesharing? Find it!
You won't, not from people who endorse this site.
You're just pulling the same old RIAA-based strawman arguments that only stupid musicians like Gene Simmons believe. It's almost as bad as the CastleLowery cherry-picking quotes and constant attacks on Google when not understanding what's really happening (all while using an "appeal to authority" fallacy saying he's a techy and a musician).
First and second sentences are wrong, you've been proven this already.
Second "paragraph" is not the same as what is happening. Even if such a service existed, where it was fast, easy and simple and didn't permit label music on it (for fear of lawsuits) it would be sued out of existence by RIAA/Label lawyers. Already happened.
Third paragraph: But why would you want competition when you can squash it and offer the sheep only what you deem salesworthy!
Our most expensive electricity bill was for using just over a kWh (1.08kWh) for an entire month. I could easily handle that with solar panels on our garage and bury a 6AWG cable through to the main panel. But I'd only zero out the usage, not make a profit.
The Industry NEVER delivers what customers want. They just present barely usable services while using legal and financial resources to kill any innovative service that delivers what the customer wants and pays the artist.
Take an acid trip through distorted reality of trichordist.com and riaa.com, it makes Alice in Wonderland seem like Forest Gump
Where they'll march over the cliff dragging our Governments with them, while we stand on the edge and watch.
If only more musicians would read this type of analysis instead of only reading the usual "musician reporters" (aka lawyers claiming to be musicians) selective quoting to keep the "sky is falling" mantra going.
Actually you can go into the automotive business. You can do so without worry. You must conform to safety laws with whatever products you produce and labour laws, but those are for safety, not legalized monopoly. Quite different.
Second, why don't you do that, design the perfect electric car, charges via solar panels, uses the ideas built upon the Panasonic battery patent owned by Chevron, so you can create a car that charges in an hour, has a 500mi range on full charge (6-8h) using standard 15A 120VAC power (likely more given the power required for such a range), all stored within a super efficient, lightweight, environmentally friendly, reliable battery (maybe scrap the Panasonic idea base and come up with your own). And the vehicle will be built in the US, by domestic employees whom are paid a decent wage (not GE's definition of a decent wage), and will be affordable, half the cost of Tesla's vehicles.
Then watch the legal shitstorm that follows you, from oil companies, car companies, all claiming you can't innovate like that, you're violating their bought laws, you'll kill the entire economy, and even if they haven't a legal leg to stand on, their money will bankrupt you back into the horse and buggy era.
Only then can you compare to what has happened thanks to Napster lawsuits and the attempts at innovation in the music biz.
Same source as always Mike, the Trichordist, who then goes and gets manipulated data (I've seen the corrected figures, corrected for inflation and such and there's a huge diff).
We know it is all in the label of "full time musician." However, I've not seen the survey, which could easily include "Are you a full time musician who has no other source of income?" type of questioning. That easily leads to bias. Some might have secondary incomes. Steve Vai created Light Without Heat and keeps bees, likely an additional source of income, but who would argue he's not a full time musician?
So even though this person might source a study, without seeing the questions used for the study, we can't quite discount it, other than attack the credibility of the source, rather than the method used - which would increase our credibility.