The media companies are playing a game they can't win. The only thing they can do is move copyright infringement to the gray area where it's more convenient for a percentage of their customers to buy it. I'm surprised torrent link sites haven't moved to tor yet. Tor seems like the perfect place to store links. Tor is too slow for streaming but it would a perfect place to catalog where on youtube you can find the videos a person wants to watch. As currently, it's still legal to watch pirated movies, the only thing that needs to be protected is the cataloguing of where the movies can be found. This seems like an ideal use of Tor.
But it's an error to project an intern's monthly pay over the entire year. The amount they earn is for a small number of months, and has to last them the remaining 9 or 10 until the next time they can intern.
Where did you get this? Intern money is not designed to support someone for the entire year. It's designed to give them a little bit of experience and maybe a little bit of pocket change. Some interns don't even get paid. They are not paying you more because it's only a short time. Projecting it over a full year seems perfectly reasonable. Also, how many people actually do more than one intern? Most people I know do one their Junior year and that was it.
Yeah. Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".
I have reasonable discussions with people I disagree with all the time. I can have conversations with far left liberals and far right conservatives with no problem. Now there are some that I can see are violently opposed to a different opinion and I quickly end those conversations or steer to more neutral ground. If someone thinks republicans are evil and mentioning John Stossel causes smoke to come out of their ears then you need to back off and pick at the edges as you aren't going to have any meaningful conversation trying to go head on but most people can discuss issues they disagree with without going postal. I personally like to talk to people with opinions different than me because I like to understand how the other side thinks.
Iframe or hyperlink, the issue is that someone is creating an organized list of infringing items that they have uploaded to youtube. The stuff is not suppose to be on youtube and youtube is supposed to be policing it but youtube is playing whack a mole. If youtube doesn't know where the mole is then most of their users won't either. A 3rd party site can bypass this as they can index it on their side and they don't necessarily have to even name it correctly on youtube's side which makes it even harder for youtube to find it. This is the reason that the media companies have used the courts to go after hyperlinks and iframes. With cloud computing and thousands of sites, it's pretty easy to dump something into an anonymous ftp, dropbox, youtube, amazon instance, etc... that isn't owned by you. You could even store it piecemeal in comments on a wordpress site, etc... It's practically impossible to stop someone from hosting data somewhere but if you can restrict someone from organizing that data then it's not near as useful as there is noway to really find it.
Guaranteed Income and the like may not be the right answer, though it's certainly the common thought right now. We definitely have to look into the issue further.
I think a better solution that Guaranteed Income would be reduced work hours and mandatory vacation. If people were forced to work less hours then those hours could be given to other people. This works as long as middle class jobs that can't be automated continue to exists. It reduces the supply of labor which should increase the demand for labor and therefore the pay. It doesn't work for jobs that can just be automated away though because if labor cost goes above the automation cost then those jobs just vanish. The only thing that is currently keeping unemployment from spiralling out of control is that it's currently cheaper to pay someone $8 per hour than it is to automate that job away. Increase minimum wage to $15 per hour like many are suggesting and you will likely see any job that can be automated or eliminated like cashier, waitress, stocker, drive thru worker, etc... automated away.
Counterpoint: Sales and Services are the most common job in the US today, along with maybe some form of Educator:
It'll still be a while before those social jobs are automated away.
The problem is that the current trend is replacing good jobs with crap jobs. Even worse, many of the crap jobs exist not because they can't be automated but because it is cheaper to pay $8 per hour to a person than it is to automate the job. This means that automation has put a ceiling on all those jobs so they will never be middle class jobs. Take a job at mcdonalds and figure out how much it would cost to automate it and depreciate that over 20 years and you can easily calculate the point where raising minimum wage would cause that job to disappear. Likewise, you can calculate what the price of the robot needs to drop to before that job vanishes.
If people don't work, they can't afford to buy things. So who is going to buy the things that get created? Robots?
The 0.01% have more money than they can spend in a lifetime. What makes you think they need people to buy their stuff? If a robot provides your food and a robot cleans your house and a robot provides your entertainment and a robot hauls you from place to place why do you need people?
There will likely still be a few hundred thousand craftsmen that create the luxury lifestyle for the 0.01% but the other 98% of the population will be useless.
That doesn't sound like loses badly. That just sounds like a relatively normal loss. A normal loss should probably include attorney fees. I'm glad the student won and didn't end up having to pay money but the student was probably still out a ton of time and hassle and it didn't sound like there was any compensation to the student or punishment to the firm besides having to pay the other side's court cost. Again, glad the student fought it but the only thing the student got to show for it was to be able to keep their review online. The student should be rewarded somehow for fighting a frivolous lawsuit instead of taking the easy route and just deleting the review.
On the other hand, if you compare items sweetened with Aspartame and those sweetened with stevia, you'll find that they taste similar.
Not at all. I can tolerate aspartame but stevia tastes bitter to me like black coffee bitter. Stevia has a horrible aftertaste to me. Splenda is my favorite, the pink stuff is overly sweet to me, and aspartame is somewhere in the middle. I can easily tell which sweetener is used in which diet soda with a single sip. None of them taste the same to me especially stevia. I'm always amazed how anyone can tolerate stevia at all. It's like someone added cleaning chemicals to my sugar. Of all of them, I would probably have the hardest time telling splenda and real sugar apart so no, it's not the artificiality, it's that everyone tastes them a little bit different or in some cases a lot different.
I don't think that's true, judging from coffee which usually smells fantastic but has a bitter taste.
That's just because it's concentrated. Vanilla, salt, coffee, etc... are pleasant in their weaker forms. I can't think of anything though that is opposite where the weaker form is unpleasant and the stronger form pleasant. There might be but not that I can think of.
Being a womanizer is not the same as bragging about literally sexually assaulting people. You're fucking delusional.
Please explain to me what the difference between bragging about being able to use your power to take advantage of women and what Bill Clinton did which was *actually* use his power to take advantage of women. I'm not a fan of Trump and didn't vote for him but trying to say that what he said is somehow worse than Bill Clinton *did* is idiotic. I realize that it was Bill and not Hillary but Hillary has plenty of her own problems. If you want people to vote based on the character of candidates then you need to give people candidates who actually have *some* character. When your only choices are two deplorable characters then people have no choice but to vote on the issues and ignore the character of the candidates.
For the record, I think someone like Kasich or Sanders would have easily beat Trump or Clinton because they at least appear to be normal people with morals. Kasich lost because the republican primary had too many candidates and really needed some form of runoff voting. Sanders lost because Clinton and the DNC flat out cheated and rigged the entire primary against him.
Exactly. It's also a double edged sword. The internet allows someone (perhaps with a rare disorder) to find a support group of similar people to talk to so that they don't feel as alone and are not as depressed and feel happier while at the same time it allows a different person who is also depressed instead of finding a support group ends up finding a group that promotes violence against their perceived enemy and ends up self-radicalizing and blowing something up.
The business model of TV is also built upon "maximizing the time users spend inside of it". Millennials need to stop trying to think. They aren't good at it.
The big difference is that TV has to create something the maximizes the average time of all their users so it has to create something relatively generic that will appeal to a large cross section. Facebook doesn't have this limitation. It can custom tailor its drug to the individual user. Every time a person "likes" something on facebook, facebook can now show them more of what they like and less of what they don't like. Facebook is the perfect echo chamber. Add in VR and you have the perfect escape from reality where you customize your virtual world to be exactly how you want it just like the addicts in movies like "Strange Days" or "Inception".
There is an issue there but it is not what liberal media made it to be.
The issue is that he did it not that he admitted to it. The other problem I have with the liberal media is bringing up stuff that happened 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. Everyone has a past. Both Clinton and Obama were anti-gay just a few years ago and the media is talking about Trump discriminating against black people 30 years ago. If you don't allow people with pasts you either end up with someone like Clinton who has had a fake persona for years, someone like Obama that appears out of nowhere with no past at all, or someone like Trump who has no political experience. I would much rather see a candidate that has grown, made a few mistakes, changed their position where they realized it was a mistake, and is a better person now because of it than all the fake BS that we get now.
It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys.