First of all, Luddism isn't relevant. Luddites sabotaged industrial equipment out of a pretty clear and direct sense of economic self-interest*, not a sense of skepticism toward technology per se—in other words, anti-globalization protectionism is far more akin to Luddism than skepticism about technological development.

Second of all, everyone should be proud to be labeled "Luddite" in the colloquial sense you're using it. It's a badge of critical thinking. New technological developments are not by definition good, and contrary to modern thinking on the subject technology certainly isn't universally neutral. Some technology is demonstrably, fundamentally harmful. In other words, technology is just like every other product of human activity, and just like every other thing in nature. It's wise to approach new developments, in any of those domains, with skepticism.

* You might argue that this expression of self-interest was short-sighted, but that's a different dispute, one I'd be glad to take on if you're interested.

I'm pretty sure you end up informing against the other prisoner out of paranoid self-interest, even though the obvious intelligent choice is to operate on the assumption that everyone benefits more when you don't.

In terms of the political system working as it should, and the public being listened to, it should be noted that the legalizations in Washington and Colorado were a result of ballot initiatives—direct democracy. To the extent that the initiative process is less compromised than other legislative processes, the result is by definition determined by the public.

Washington and Colorado legalized possession of small amounts, without penalty. I don't know all the details of the Colorado law offhand, but in Washington sales are also legalized. Both states already had medical marijuana, this is legalization for recreational use. At least one other state legalized medical marijuana in the same election.

I think responses like this are missing the forest for the trees in the idea being proposed here.

Let's take a step back. The context of the idea is a dying traditional music industry; most of the old business models are failing. In the old models, there were a number of large marketing and distribution networks who collected the sort of data Keating is asking for, and used that data to inform their marketing and distribution efforts. An organization in the business of successful music sales needs to know the size, makeup and geographical distribution of the audience. As those organizations become increasingly irrelevant, the capacity to make those informed decisions is to some extent decentralized, but also to a large extent in danger of vanishing entirely.

What Keating is asking of "internet radio" (Pandora being a major source of her exposure, but it is really a clarion call to the changing music industry) is to recognize the fact that artists are becoming more and more isolated and atomized, and to create a business model that represents that. If any of the businesses currently "in the game" want to be relevant, they'll allow artists (to the extent they're motivated and willing) to act as their own respective businesses, and do a lot of the work that the old marketing and distribution channels no longer can or want to do.

And it really is a gift to the industry players to publicize the idea this way. The alternative is to build the new model in relative obscurity, grow it and supplant the current players. The idea is about more than data, but that data is central to its success. The real idea, at its core, is that the new model (and she touches on this in her blog post) requires a great deal more individual initiative on the part of artists. And whatever you may think about "whose data is it?" and the fairness of the request, a music industry can't survive if artists fail. A successful, modern music industry would help to foster all of that atomized effort in a productive way. And isn't that, basically, what most of us have been asking for since we saw the writing on the wall for old music business?

Keating and other enterprising artists want a venue to reach their fans. They don't just want this, they require it for commercial success. We, as music fans, require the artists' success for our lives to be enriched by the music. A team of enterprising developers could provide this in a relatively short time (relative, at least, to the pace of the old industry's death), and pretty much steal the show. As Keating says, the new model is supposed to be peripheral sales, the music being the driving force behind those sales. Providing what Keating has asked for is not a concession, it's a recipe for success.

As an artist myself, I've imagined creating a tool of this nature. It's not enough to have a place to upload music files and artwork. It's not even enough to have a couple of form fields to link to the artist's blog. A lot of the elements of a powerful new business model already exist, but they're woefully unintegrated. What artists and fans alike need is a way for everyone to get connected, in a very distinct way from the existing social networks. Artists are businesses in this model, and anyone who empowers them to act in that capacity stands to win the day. And I think we'd all be better off for it.

As a developer, I'm unfortunately indisposed with other work too important to me to pursue a business like this, but I thought it would be helpful to share this perspective in case other developers are reading and want to create the next big thing in music. That thing is: create the tools that artists need to reach their audience. Giving them data lets them adjust their own marketing efforts, their own performance efforts, their own merchandise efforts. Everything else is icing on the cake. These tools are force multipliers, and the more you can accommodate those efforts, the more artists will succeed and the more they'll choose your service. And fans will follow, not just because that's where the music is heading, but also because that service would provide more of what fans want too. Why would I choose the noise of "radio" when there's something better?

No, it doesn't! The mere fact of authority doesn't determine validity. It only determines power. Unless you believe that miscegenation was wrong until the Civil Rights movement changed all that. Or if you believe that being Jewish and existing in nazi Germany was wrong, until the Shoah was ended. Or that it was once wrong to believe that the universe doesn't require a supernatural creator, but is also wrong no longer. Or any number of other formerly prohibited but unquestionably valid thoughts, behaviors, characteristics. (All cases of being no longer wrong depending, of course, upon jurisdiction! Validity is both temporal and geographical? I think not.)

To believe that punishment determines rightness is to believe that power comes from a divine source.

Now, you buried a second claim in your response—that defying authority is stupid. In some cases that may well be true, but in others it may just as well not. It quite depends on what edict you defy, what your values are, what the costs might be and whether they are worth the action having been done.

I should anticipate the stupid claim that I'm assigning some sort of moral equivalency between the parties in TFA and the parties I discussed above, which of course I haven't done and have no intention of doing. Illustrating fallacious reasoning requires no such equivalency. It simply encourages us to consider our arguments more carefully and thoughtfully.

Note that the screenshot I provided is for an external third-party display. No Apple display I'm aware of supports rotation, but the OS does support it for those third-party displays which can be rotated. I expect that the share of Mac users who rotate their non-Apple displays is roughly proportionate to Windows or Linux or other OS users who do the same, but I'm not aware of any data for that. But I doubt the feature would exist if it isn't used.

Argument by punishment (a behavior is wrong because it will be punished) is clearly fallacious. Not that I'm defending Apple, but find a better argument.

All current Macs (OS X) support rotated display for displays that support rotation (no Apple-branded displays, but many from third-party vendors).

http://cl.ly/image/3z37153l2G1S

I can't speak for thaylin, but had I looked at the same times I would have noticed, because I often look for interesting design techniques when I view apple.com (not the actual graphics of the design so much as the site has been used for years as a testbed for interesting CSS and JS techniques), and I have certainly noticed that their front page has for some time been viewport-dependent; but it has not used the same implementation that it does on the UK version (it's been the way it is on the US version), and I would notice that change.

Not that it must but that it does. That doesn't validate anything, it addresses reality rather than ignoring it.

Given al Qaeda's foundation in wahabism, centered in the Arabian peninsula and expanding into south-central Asia and northern Africa, the dearth of democratic institutions is pretty relevant. For that matter, the fact that no targets of US foreign policy have any input into the policy underscores that. This is still not to justify the extremism, but rather to point out that other forms of input are lacking, broken, or compromised.

That said, I'll reiterate that the concerns are worth addressing on their own merits and that it's a positive side-effect that it would undermine the support climate for the violent extremist reactions.

Thanks? Maybe you can say how I've moved off the goal of addressing terrorism, the actual topic I responded to.

Man, that Prophet was very forward-thinking, to be able to foster a context for violent extremism 12 centuries later.

It's not a necessary consequence, but the complaint is a necessary precursor! Violent extremism, as a phenomenon, requires a sea in which to swim.

It's not giving credence to bad behavior. It's addressing real problems that already need to be addressed. As a positive side-effect, it provides much less of a foundation for those violent extremists to rally people.

I don't know why you're obsessed with this. Of course they chose. I want to discourage that choice. You want to punish it. I would rather eliminate the hydra than fight it as it spawns new heads. To resist that is just stubborn self-destruction.