Quboid wrote on Dec 19, 2016, 18:30:

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 19, 2016, 15:44:

Beamer wrote on Dec 19, 2016, 14:41:
It's always fun to play the "guess where Cutter's views fall" game.
Essentially, look at it from "does this impact Cutter."

If a topic is about rich CEOs, then Cutter will call them evil for holding back wages, because that may impact him directly.

If the topic is about millenials complaining about bad wages, then he'l call them entitled, because he's not a millenial so there's no way he can fathom improved wages for millenials helping him out, personally.

Never mind that there's a huge inconsistency between endlessly complaining about low wages, then calling others doing so "entitled."

Cutters views are subject to change per post. But that's why we luv him.

He has an almost unique talent to look at any situation so completely from his own perspective, he seems constantly baffled and angered that people don't just agree with him. If he had money he'd be Trump.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 14:05:

The Pyro wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 13:33:

The main problem IMO is using a bunch of private insurers. Profit is always a motive.

I hear that a lot, but the evidence doesn't seem to support it. Private health insurance companies in the US have been performing terribly. They're pulling out of entire states because they're losing money. Somebody's making a profit here, but I'm not convinced it's the insurance guys.

EDIT: A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation based on public data makes me think that UHC (the largest insurer in the US) is making less than 5% profit on the premiums they charge. Feel free to fact check me, as I'm not confident about this number.

I should also note that in some places (like Texas) insurers are required by law to refund any profits above 10%. There's a cap on how greedy they can be.

Why let them make a profit at all? WHat's the purpose? Make them all be nonprofits.

Sempai wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 21:56:

Cutter wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 16:21:
A company will only pay you what they feel you're worth. If you can't negotiate for better pay, royalties, etc. than you aren't of much value to them, are you? Major actors never have these problems. It's no different from a corporation hiring an exec over a member of the rank and file. Once makes a lot more money, stock options, benefits, etc. and the other is lucky to have a paying job. Learn to cope with it already. If you don't like it, go do something else. The world owes you nothing.

Ug..How does one even respond to this idiocy?

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 14:12:
Valid claims, valid case. Unfortunately the tech world seems highly resistant to unionization, to its own detriment. Good luck with that.

Jivaro wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 00:50:

Devinoch wrote on Nov 4, 2016, 21:38:
This was their big reveal of the show? Really?

err..no. It was the big reveal regarding Diablo 3 but hardly for Blizzard's show. I suggest reading some of the other headlines from their other games if you haven't already. I am pretty sure you will pick out the 2 (minimum) announcements that Blizzard considers their big reveals of the show pretty quickly.

edit: I don't want to come off as a smart ass as that isn't my intent so here are the two I think are easily the big reveals as far as Blizzard is concerned: Allen is back and Overwatch League is a go. The Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm expansions/content would probably be next. This content for D3 is fan service more than anything. That's probably how Blizz looks at it..or at least I think so. As for us gamers, I suppose it all depends on your tastes...but yeah...this is a letdown if you were really banking on either a full expansion or D4. Personally I was hoping for HD D2. This D1 inside of D3 will be a fun consolation prize I imagine though.

Eirikrautha wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 16:54:

Devinoch wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 14:10:
The original copyright exclusivity was also based on the life expectancy of people being in their mid to late 60s, not, as it stands now, their mid to late 80s.

80s - 60s = ~20 years

100 years - 14 years = 86 years

So copyright length has gone up four times as fast as life expectancy.

No wonder you support this stupidity. Your math skills suck...

jdreyer wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 13:15:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 10:32:
So if VA's get royalties then I (as 3d artist) want royalties as well.

Then they need to unionize too. I know a lot of people hate the idea of unions reflexively, and there have been a lot of abuses by them. But it's no coincidence that a large part of having the greatest inequality since the great depression has been tied to declining union membership in the USA. And that decline has been in large part legislated, as corporate interests have backed political candidates in order to get laws passed that make unionizing more difficult.

Remember, we live in an oligarchy now. There is no longer any correlation between what the people want and what laws get passed. Laws are only passed in favor of monied elites. Unionizing is one of the few hedges against that. Unions are preferable to the alternative: a corporatocracy.

Cutter wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 12:58:
It's cute how you guys keep talking about what people deserve. Ditch diggers deserve more than minimum wage but they don't get it, do they? There's a way things ought to be and a way things are. If actors don't like it than they can do what every other fucking person on the planet has to do, quit and go do something else. You're owed nothing.

"A man said to the Universe, 'Sir, I exist!' 'However that may be,' came the reply, 'that fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

jdreyer wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 04:51:

Devinoch wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 03:54:
http://www.starlightsociety.com/

BTW, are you paying royalties to the artists whose music you feature on your podcast?

jdreyer wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 04:18:

Devinoch wrote on Oct 21, 2016, 03:05:
I mean, he even makes the argument that I'm arguing someone should be "paid forever" when I'm on record for more stringent enforcement of copyrights having expiration dates, and things passing into public domain after about 100 years, which seems fair. I've also been advocate that corporations are NOT people, and was probably against Citizens United before Cutter even knew what that was.

Wait, did I read that right? Things should pass into the public domain after 100 fucking years??? How is that in any way "fair?" You do realize that is the current system (90 to 120 yrs), and it's completely stupid and ridiculous. That's one of the things Cutter is arguing against that he happens to be right on. It's also why he's so pissed he's arguing you should have no royalties at all: Rights holders have manipulated the system by paying off politicians to pass laws to give themselves exclusivity in de facto perpetuity. Let me reacquaint you with the commerce clause in the US Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

LIMITED TIMES. How is 100 fucking years "limited times?" That right there is just fucking greedy, and counterproductive to a healthy, vibrant arts and sciences scene that needs free access to arts and sciences in order to build upon and improve it.

Original copyright exclusivity was 14 years. Fourteen. That's what it should be. That's going to cover 99% of royalties anyway, except in a few extreme cases. And it allows people who were alive during the original creation of the content, to use it years later to do new things. That strikes a good balance between encouraging authors & inventors and the public good. 100 years is just greedy, protectionist, un-American, and counterproductive.