But I stand by my point. Many people not trained in risk management would not immediately realize that "removing risk" is a real economic incentive, as good a payoff to a business as a literal bag of money.
The gov't can offer this "risk reduction" bribe without needing to allocate any budget, carve any checks, or send any suitcases of cash. It's "off balance sheet", and almost invisible to the voting public. The costs are socialized, but not a tax, so Grover Norquist won't bitch about it. It slips under the radar.
As such, it can be easily corrupted, as good as any slush fund and as honest as any Iran-Contra payoffs.
Geez. Let's just write up another song. It's such a simple, mindless song that we can surely conjure up another similar Public Domain version in a matter of minutes.
But inventing a new song, and putting it in the public domain would NOT work, would it? Because people have learned the existing song, memorized it already. It's part of the fabric, part of our culture.
It is, thus, the culture and the people that imbue that stupid little song with it's extraordinary value. The value comes from US. The incongruous notion of treating that value as Real Property, and as specifically the property of Warner/Chappell is bullshit.
It is the public that has created the value in the song, and Warner/Chappell has made us pay them for the value we created.
That said, you are otherwise right. The problem we have with the media is that terrorism is completely aligned with the business goals of news channels. Fear and terror make people turn on the news more, and stay tuned longer. Terrorism is great for Nielsen ratings.
This applies to domestic shooters, or political, or theocratic terrorists. It bleeds, it leads. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Listen, I dislike her a little, and a LOT on this subject. But to be fair, people complaining about "Freedom of speech" are frequently NOT making a valid 1st Amendment complaint.
Also said as, just by invoking the 1st doesn't actually mean your complaint is valid.
Take many of the idiot commenters on Techdirt, whose comments are voted away, who complain about censorship and 1st Amendment rights. They are wrong on so many levels: Mike didn't censor them, the community did, this is not a gov't site so it is not a violation of free speech, and their speech is not removed, but voted into a low visibility state.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about The Transitive Law? No more Logic?
CLINTON: This is something I've said for a long time, George. I have to believe that the best minds in the private sector, in the public sector could come together to help us deal with this evolving threat. And you know, I know A = B and B = C. I respect that. Nobody wants B to not = C.
But I also know that if the best minds just work with us on this problem, we could make it so that A does not = C. So, please, let's get together and try to figure out the best way forward. I know Silicon Valley can make A <> C.
"There is A REASON people use lead vests and lead screens in the hospitals. (just google lead garment, lead gonad shield) There is a reason you cannot work on a cell tower until it is off."
Reason 1: They use lead vests because of repeated, consistent, daily exposure to high blasts of X-rays (an ionizing wavelength of EMF.) And with modern equipment, they wear it just to have an abundance of caution. You or I don't wear lead shields, but on the contrary, we are the subjects of the exposure.
Reason 2: Cellular towers concentrated locations of higher-power (100 watts), and focused directional beams of EMF. At these power levels, the effects of EMF are measurable on humans (mostly detected as a heating of our meat). Of course, this is one of the reasons we mount antennas high on masts, and aim horizontally instead of towards the people below. The inverse-square law provides safety after just a dozen or so meters.
As directional antennas are used, you'll note that the output power of the radios is restricted downwards. But users can work around this by adding directional antennas to equipment that is specced for omni-directional ones.
Re: Re: Less education = More respect, More education = Less respect
I find that when I try to educate people who start from a place of zero knowledge (almost everyone), they generally react by not believing me, and thinking I'm a conspiracy nut.
I then have to do more legwork to re-establish my "sanity" credentials with them. But one quick email with about 4-5 links to ridiculous (and fun) stories usually works. I like to include ones with "death plus 70 years" as incentive, and "collection agencies for horse stable's music".
That email is usually met with a reply of "Holy shit! I had no idea. This is ridiculous!"
You MUST Buy This. Oh, And We Just Raised the Price.
ESPN has benefited from a number of factors:
- Great brand, has market power, IS beloved by its fans - Disney offers a "take ESPN for ALL your subs, or leave it" deal to cablecos - Cablecos afraid of losing subs for lack of sports accept the bad deal - Thus ESPN gets forced into every cable subscriber's plan. - ESPN then ratchets up the price, year after year.
The long-term effect of this has been that cable companies PAY about $30/mo per subscriber for the content channels, or an average of 14 cents per channel. But how much of that $30 does the cable co pay for ESPN? A whopping $6/mo!! For me, I've watched about 0 minutes of ESPN in my 20 years of cable subscription, which means over $1,000. So excuse me while I politely think "Fuck those guys!" Also unpleasant is the fact that I'm giving $1/mo to Fox News.
BTW, if you want to follow the money, there are two places your $6/mo goes: to wildly overpaid athletes and to fat cat team owners. So F those guys, too. The reason I can get angry is because these transactions have NOT taken place in a free market. The athletes have a union and agents, sports teams have market control and are exempt from anti-trust laws, the cable cos have franchise monopolies and regulatory capture, the networks have price control...Geez, the entire supply chain is a litany of market failures. The only group with no union, no organization, and no seat at any of the tables is the group footing the bill, aka YOU. Don't tell me the reason the guy who throws the ball slightly better gets paid $40 million is because "the market has said that's his value" - the market is not a fair one.
But ESPN and cablecos have been oblivious to the following for years:
- Despite it's great brand, many people don't give a fig for ESPN - These people resent having to buy it. - Most people are unaware of how much they are paying ESPN. If they knew, they'd get even angrier. - With the Internet, the market will seek to find a way to sell me the content I want, and less of the content I don't. - Customers will eventually be shown the actual price of ESPN, and they will compare it to other things like Netflix...and unless they are a die-hard sports fan, they will not be impressed with the relative value.
So now, ESPN is not just suffering under the weight of cable cutting, but even more ironic, I would argue that they, singularly, are the biggest driving force behind it.
The shuttle was not really a re-usable space vessel, because the boosters (what really provides the motion) were discarded in stages. What SpaceX and Blue Origin are working on are vessels where 100% of the vessel is re-usable, and only fuel is expended. Very different.
Also, Blue Origin and SpaceX are doing VERY different kinds of trips into space:
- Blue Origin is basically a bottle rocket: it goes straight up, enters the edge of "space", then falls back down.
- SpaceX does the same as Blue Origin, but then ALSO accelerates the craft horizontally to a speed of 8 Km/s or about 18,000 miles per hour. That's 18,000 miles per hour FASTER than Blue Origin - not an insignificant difference when it comes to how much energy is needed. The energy is a factor of about 30x.
Blue Origin, in it's current model, does not and cannot launch anything into an orbit. It's more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK62tfoCmuQ Which is cool for a brief space travel with a short period of weightlessness. At the top of the flight, the force of gravity is still about the same as on earth's surface, and speed is 0. Free fall down occurs.
In contrast, in a Low Earth Orbit from SpaceX vessels, the force of gravity remains about the same as on earth, but the free fall is never-ending because the 8km/s lateral speed means that the upward component of your lateral motion exactly offsets the downward motion of your free fall. aka orbit.
So, while Blue Origin may someday also do LEO flights, for now they are dealing with a challenge that is 30x less energy intensive, as compared to SpaceX.
And, yeah, I'm a total Musk fanboy. 100%. I've never fanboyed anyone in five decades, and I've chosen him to start. Totes better than Bieber.