I saw a clip today of representative Marsha Blackburn (R - TN) denouncing the MoveOn.org ad. I was speechless. I thought the interviewer did a great job of putting this fool in her place.
I don't understand any of this. I'm also really tired of hearing republicans tell me how offended they were. I'm offended you keep trying to tell me how to live my life, but I digress. I actually used to LIKE republicans. Before they found that jebus guy. He seems to ruin everything he touches.
After watching this ad several points came to mind:
1. Does the democratic party control MoveOn? I'm a voting democrat and MoveOn never asked me about the ad. Personally I think it was fine (but then again I'm one of the silly few who still seem to think the 1st amendment should apply). I simply don't think the government should be in this business of censoring what we are allowed to print, more and more that seems to make me unAmerican (wtf?).
I don't think they should control Fox News either, I simply don't watch it. Don't like the ad? Don't look at it. Don't want to support the NYT? Don't buy their paper. That is democracy in action baby.
Democracy is NOT you controlling what everyone else gets to see and read. If you think that ad shouldn't have been run, then you should have to give up your rights. I'm sorry, but if you feel this way you are the problem in this country. Get out of my rights and my life.
Who are you to tell me what I am and am not allowed to read? Who are you to tell a newspaper, or magazine, or television show, or book what they can or cannot use their resources to publish?
2. If the representative for any district anywhere is spending time on a television show bickering about newspaper ads while ignoring the troops in their district they should be tarred and feathered. Republican or Democrat. I'm equal opportunity about this.
Also, other representatives not knowing does not make this OK. She's a big girl and makes her own decisions. I somehow doubt she was threatened with physical violence to go on the show.
Furthermore, she is clearly well informed and closely following an ad that ran in a newspaper. If any of you think that a representatives time is better spent denouncing ads in newspapers than helping out their constituents (whom she is sending to war) then off yourself. Seriously.
I'll wait.
3. It was an ad. I don't think my teeth are going to fall out if I don't buy colgate. I don't think Petraeus is or is not doing anything based on the ad. I know who MoveOn is just like I know who colgate is. They're selling me something, so I take ads with a grain of salt. You'd think we were printing this in an encyclopedia to hear the whining.
Did this change any ones mind? It did not for me. I have not read that it did for anyone else. So who cares? They bought an ad, they ran it, it is done. Can we please not all stop and look at the sparkly object? Pretend that we respect the Bill of Rights and our right to say whatever we want?
4. You fundies are going to find this bizarre I know, but freedom of speech applies to EVERYONE. This includes the NYT. If they want to run an ad at a special price that should be their decision (assuming for a moment any of that part is true... not that I would accuse the republicans of being anything other than honest with us). It's their paper. I don't see the government telling Fox they can't have tools like O'reilly on, so who are they to deem what is and is not appropriate?
5. The majority of Americans agree with the ad (at least in spirit). We don't like what we are doing in Iraq. We do not like that we are there, we do not like how we got there, and we do not like that we are being constantly told we are all children and our opinion's do not really count for anything. Oh, but please keep sending us your taxes.
That's reality people. So the NYT running an ad that reflects the mood of the general populace is not completely invalid just because of who it came from. I'm not saying it was in great taste, but neither is anything I've heard O'Reilly say (have we passed any resolutions about him yet?).
Just because you don't like reality, doesn't mean censoring ads in newspapers is the answer.
Maybe if the fundamentalists spent a little less time being condescending, and a little more time actually HELPING people who need it, we would not be having this conversation at all?
Friday, September 28, 2007
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Universal Music - When idiots refuse to learn.
DRM is evil for lots of reasons. The funny thing is now the music industry is festering in the waste land of it's own making.
First, it artificially limits the audience the media was meant to be sold to. Instead of selling your wares to anybody with a few bucks in their pockets, your market is now restricted to those who have already invested in your particular schema. Anyone else simply doesn't have the tools to use your content even if they were interested in it. It would be like Ford producing a new proprietary gas tank tomorrow. Ford cars can only be filled by special Ford pumps. These pumps of course cost way more than the rest of the market; as does the gas. Does anyone really doubt how that would play out? I predict you could kill Ford in a matter of years pursuing such a strategy. It certainly seems to be doing the trick for the music industry.
Second, it removes almost all the value from the actual creation of content. Why bother making anything, when you can ensure that anyone who does produce anything has to go through you? Now Ford doesn't need to compete with BP or ExxonMobil. If you want gas for your new Ford you have to get it from them. Regardless of quality or price, you have to buy it to use that flashy new car. Since they control the pump they simply squeeze all the value out of making the gas in the first place. Who cares where the gas comes from or how much the market says that gas is worth? You HAVE to buy it from those new Ford pumps, so they make the rules. In short order it becomes difficult to find many people that interested in producing the gasoline. There is simply no longer money in it. The money is in controlling the channel. What is that you say? Seems like there has been a noticeable drop-off in the quantity and quality of new music in the last few years?
Third, it creates bizarre long-term problems. Nothing is forever, and this includes companies. Imagine the Ford pump does not work out so well. It takes a few years, but eventually the market decides that open free gasoline pumps is really the way to go. Where does that leave you with your new Ford? It is worthless. One cannot even put new gas in it, let alone make repairs. If we can all imagine for a minute that maybe Apple is not immortal we have a real problem. What happens to all that content that has been created/distribued through them? Do we just start accepting that potentially decades worth of content should just be inaccessible to future generations? Oh sure the files will still be around, but no apple to let you play it. Or even better, 80 years down the line specs have changed. The DRM on that old music or movie you found on an old computer is simply not supported anymore. Let us hope it was not the last copy.
Fourth, it creates a booming black market. Now all official Ford dealers across the country are only selling these new Fords. However, some small companies have started retrofitting new Fords with gas systems compatible with current pumps. Through some bizarre twist of fate these old gas lines can be sold back to manufacturers for much more than the cost of putting in an old system, which reduces the cost of the car.
Now you the consumer have a dilemma. You want to support Ford. They make vehicles you enjoy and you would like to see more in the future. However, these pirate cars are staggeringly better. They use open gas pumps that enjoy higher quality and lower prices. They cost less to run (gas) and maintain (non-proprietary gas system) because you can use open parts. Oh, and they will be supported by the open market long after Ford has stopped caring about them. Oh, and the car costs less.
It's so staggeringly one sided, only a fool would choose to buy the regular Ford. Then the Ford execs all stand around scratching their heads wondering why this is happening? Are you kidding me? This is the innevitable conclusion of the policies they chose to pursue.
Problems 1, 2, and 4 have already come to pass. Does anyone doubt 3 is on the horizon? DRM was just a bad idea on all levels. The first thing it did was reduce the size of the potential market. Then it created so much extra value in piracy that it was all but over. When the cheaper version is better than the pay-for version on every possible level, you will always lose. Always.
Music has sold in lots of forms, for the entirety of human history. We like music. Every single generation claims the new technology is going to destroy them, and yet, music is still being created. We have never had DRM before, and music has always sold, why is the internet any different? To find working examples all you need do is look at companies like AllOfMp3.com. Sadly it seems we are finally putting the final nails in their coffin, but their mere existance should give us pause.
We are being told on a nearly constant basis that the music industry cannot survive without DRM. Yet, here is a company that sold no DRM at all and gave it to you at the quality you wanted. They should have died, according to RIAA myth. Yet, they were actually one of the biggest online retailers. Their legality not withstanding, the point is they were selling music. Lots of it. When the prices are reasonable, the quality good, and I can use it on any device I have today or get tomorrow, there is a lot of value in that. People are willing to pay for that.
I believe most people want to support their favorite artists, they are just being brutalized by a group of companies that refuse to sell it fairly to them. I think $.99 for a song is ridiculously expensive. If it cost that to produce the CD, how can it cost that when there is no more physical media being produced, shipped, and stocked? Even then I could probably stomach it, except then the files won't play on my Windows Media Center.
Guess where I have to go to download files that can?
First, it artificially limits the audience the media was meant to be sold to. Instead of selling your wares to anybody with a few bucks in their pockets, your market is now restricted to those who have already invested in your particular schema. Anyone else simply doesn't have the tools to use your content even if they were interested in it. It would be like Ford producing a new proprietary gas tank tomorrow. Ford cars can only be filled by special Ford pumps. These pumps of course cost way more than the rest of the market; as does the gas. Does anyone really doubt how that would play out? I predict you could kill Ford in a matter of years pursuing such a strategy. It certainly seems to be doing the trick for the music industry.
Second, it removes almost all the value from the actual creation of content. Why bother making anything, when you can ensure that anyone who does produce anything has to go through you? Now Ford doesn't need to compete with BP or ExxonMobil. If you want gas for your new Ford you have to get it from them. Regardless of quality or price, you have to buy it to use that flashy new car. Since they control the pump they simply squeeze all the value out of making the gas in the first place. Who cares where the gas comes from or how much the market says that gas is worth? You HAVE to buy it from those new Ford pumps, so they make the rules. In short order it becomes difficult to find many people that interested in producing the gasoline. There is simply no longer money in it. The money is in controlling the channel. What is that you say? Seems like there has been a noticeable drop-off in the quantity and quality of new music in the last few years?
Third, it creates bizarre long-term problems. Nothing is forever, and this includes companies. Imagine the Ford pump does not work out so well. It takes a few years, but eventually the market decides that open free gasoline pumps is really the way to go. Where does that leave you with your new Ford? It is worthless. One cannot even put new gas in it, let alone make repairs. If we can all imagine for a minute that maybe Apple is not immortal we have a real problem. What happens to all that content that has been created/distribued through them? Do we just start accepting that potentially decades worth of content should just be inaccessible to future generations? Oh sure the files will still be around, but no apple to let you play it. Or even better, 80 years down the line specs have changed. The DRM on that old music or movie you found on an old computer is simply not supported anymore. Let us hope it was not the last copy.
Fourth, it creates a booming black market. Now all official Ford dealers across the country are only selling these new Fords. However, some small companies have started retrofitting new Fords with gas systems compatible with current pumps. Through some bizarre twist of fate these old gas lines can be sold back to manufacturers for much more than the cost of putting in an old system, which reduces the cost of the car.
Now you the consumer have a dilemma. You want to support Ford. They make vehicles you enjoy and you would like to see more in the future. However, these pirate cars are staggeringly better. They use open gas pumps that enjoy higher quality and lower prices. They cost less to run (gas) and maintain (non-proprietary gas system) because you can use open parts. Oh, and they will be supported by the open market long after Ford has stopped caring about them. Oh, and the car costs less.
It's so staggeringly one sided, only a fool would choose to buy the regular Ford. Then the Ford execs all stand around scratching their heads wondering why this is happening? Are you kidding me? This is the innevitable conclusion of the policies they chose to pursue.
Problems 1, 2, and 4 have already come to pass. Does anyone doubt 3 is on the horizon? DRM was just a bad idea on all levels. The first thing it did was reduce the size of the potential market. Then it created so much extra value in piracy that it was all but over. When the cheaper version is better than the pay-for version on every possible level, you will always lose. Always.
Music has sold in lots of forms, for the entirety of human history. We like music. Every single generation claims the new technology is going to destroy them, and yet, music is still being created. We have never had DRM before, and music has always sold, why is the internet any different? To find working examples all you need do is look at companies like AllOfMp3.com. Sadly it seems we are finally putting the final nails in their coffin, but their mere existance should give us pause.
We are being told on a nearly constant basis that the music industry cannot survive without DRM. Yet, here is a company that sold no DRM at all and gave it to you at the quality you wanted. They should have died, according to RIAA myth. Yet, they were actually one of the biggest online retailers. Their legality not withstanding, the point is they were selling music. Lots of it. When the prices are reasonable, the quality good, and I can use it on any device I have today or get tomorrow, there is a lot of value in that. People are willing to pay for that.
I believe most people want to support their favorite artists, they are just being brutalized by a group of companies that refuse to sell it fairly to them. I think $.99 for a song is ridiculously expensive. If it cost that to produce the CD, how can it cost that when there is no more physical media being produced, shipped, and stocked? Even then I could probably stomach it, except then the files won't play on my Windows Media Center.
Guess where I have to go to download files that can?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Strip Mining
So I log into digg today and what do I see?
First let's discuss the notion that there are some evil people all sitting around cackling evil plans to destroy the environment. Where are these people? I've never met one, and yet there seems to be this widely held belief that we do things simply because these people are so over-shadowed by greed that they intentionally choose the worse possible way to get the coal.
Has it occured to anyone that if there was a cheap, easy, and less destructive way to get it out of the ground they would? I wager if there was an option even close, the miners would go with that just to be spared the drivel from the environmentalist (we'll leave them for a future post). Nobody picks the option that creates such heavy backlash without a good reason.
So why do they do it? Spending two seconds on wikipedia (I know it's not a reputable source, but it's quick, easy, relatively accurate, we all know to take it with a grain of salt; all of which makes it better to use than randomenergysite.com, about whom we know nothing.) reveals this is a common process when the coal is very deep beneath the earth.
In other words, the safest and best way to extract deep coal is by blowing off the top layers. Is it pretty? No. However, it is important to remember this whole situation is of our own making. We are the managers of America, and as business school 101 taught me, problems are always managements fault (also for a future article).
As Americans we have not allowed new nuclear plants to be built in decades (management). The cheapest, safest, most environmental friendly energy source ever known to man, and we chose to opt-out. We also use more power every year than we ever have before. It has got to come from somewhere. Guess where the majority of our power comes from? (hint: it isn't magical fairies from Disney World)
So we are demanding more power than ever, which leads to the need to dig deeper than ever to get it. Yet we refuse to adopt new technologies, and then complain about how we make it.
I have trouble seeing how this catch-22 is the coal miners fault. They are producing electricity in the only way current technology and management allows.
Second the concern that this makes a "desert", or unuseable land. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but humans don't make much use of tall mountains. We tend to clear areas for housing, commerce, roads, and agriculture. As our population grows so does our need for flat land. So mowing that mountain flat may actually have unintended benefits for us.
We require (by law) companies that do use this method of mining to do reclamation once complete. In other words, they blow the mountain flat, strip out the resources we want, then have to return the land to something that can be used either by us, or nature. What is so unreasonable about that?
This argument is always followed by the statement that the coal companies are not performing this reclamation to the standards we would like, or at all. Well whose fault is that? Do we tell people to not commit murder, and then just take it on faith they will not? No, we set up a system to enforce the laws. If we are not enforcing our reclamation laws then it is our (managements) fault again.
When you sit there using your computer you are creating the demand for this. When you vote and picket to keep nuclear power away, you are creating the demand for this. As Americans we are so used to getting what we want when we want it, we tend to forget that everything has a price. You use electricity everyday, and it has to come from somewhere.
Do you love the mountains? Look what GREED is doing to them! Picture.....
The comments are unbelievable. Let's have a little rational discourse about strip mining.First let's discuss the notion that there are some evil people all sitting around cackling evil plans to destroy the environment. Where are these people? I've never met one, and yet there seems to be this widely held belief that we do things simply because these people are so over-shadowed by greed that they intentionally choose the worse possible way to get the coal.
Has it occured to anyone that if there was a cheap, easy, and less destructive way to get it out of the ground they would? I wager if there was an option even close, the miners would go with that just to be spared the drivel from the environmentalist (we'll leave them for a future post). Nobody picks the option that creates such heavy backlash without a good reason.
So why do they do it? Spending two seconds on wikipedia (I know it's not a reputable source, but it's quick, easy, relatively accurate, we all know to take it with a grain of salt; all of which makes it better to use than randomenergysite.com, about whom we know nothing.) reveals this is a common process when the coal is very deep beneath the earth.
In other words, the safest and best way to extract deep coal is by blowing off the top layers. Is it pretty? No. However, it is important to remember this whole situation is of our own making. We are the managers of America, and as business school 101 taught me, problems are always managements fault (also for a future article).
As Americans we have not allowed new nuclear plants to be built in decades (management). The cheapest, safest, most environmental friendly energy source ever known to man, and we chose to opt-out. We also use more power every year than we ever have before. It has got to come from somewhere. Guess where the majority of our power comes from? (hint: it isn't magical fairies from Disney World)
So we are demanding more power than ever, which leads to the need to dig deeper than ever to get it. Yet we refuse to adopt new technologies, and then complain about how we make it.
I have trouble seeing how this catch-22 is the coal miners fault. They are producing electricity in the only way current technology and management allows.
Second the concern that this makes a "desert", or unuseable land. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but humans don't make much use of tall mountains. We tend to clear areas for housing, commerce, roads, and agriculture. As our population grows so does our need for flat land. So mowing that mountain flat may actually have unintended benefits for us.
We require (by law) companies that do use this method of mining to do reclamation once complete. In other words, they blow the mountain flat, strip out the resources we want, then have to return the land to something that can be used either by us, or nature. What is so unreasonable about that?
This argument is always followed by the statement that the coal companies are not performing this reclamation to the standards we would like, or at all. Well whose fault is that? Do we tell people to not commit murder, and then just take it on faith they will not? No, we set up a system to enforce the laws. If we are not enforcing our reclamation laws then it is our (managements) fault again.
When you sit there using your computer you are creating the demand for this. When you vote and picket to keep nuclear power away, you are creating the demand for this. As Americans we are so used to getting what we want when we want it, we tend to forget that everything has a price. You use electricity everyday, and it has to come from somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)