https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Saturday, September 3, 2016
flashback....
"are you going to spend your whole life in the basement?"
turns out i kind of am. yeah.
"are you going to spend your whole life in the basement?"
turns out i kind of am. yeah.
at
13:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
there is no reason to think that allowing private health insurance will reduce wait times. rather, most studies suggest the opposite.
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/09/02/canadas-universal-health-care-system-in-court-and-at-risk/
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/09/02/canadas-universal-health-care-system-in-court-and-at-risk/
at
13:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
why hasn't a new justice been appointed yet?
it's astounding.
it's astounding.
at
13:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
again: the ibd poll is a reason to pause, although it currently remains an outlier. what the la times is doing is not polling, but active propaganda. it remains to be seen if it works, but it's not to be taken seriously as polling.
at
12:51
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is just like obamacare: it was the most obvious thing in the world that if you leave space exploration to the market, it's going to be a catastrophe. can we reverse this insanity soon, please?
http://www.wired.com/2016/09/spacex-explosion-need-know/
http://www.wired.com/2016/09/spacex-explosion-need-know/
at
12:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
no. you're not entitled to a court date. they don't have to give you a trial. this is their private property. they host your videos at their leisure. they have every right to arbitrarily demonetize you all they want.
i think it says something broader about how young people see the internet. i'm just kind of cluing into this. the internet seems to have completely destroyed any concept of market exchange. and, they see the internet not as a collection of privately owned servers but as a publicly held good.
maybe i ought to be spinning this around. after all, there's a socialist idea about property at the core of this, right?
if you think that the internet should be a publicly owned good, let's have a revolution. i'm down with that. but, you can't have it both ways.
the way people are reacting, it's like they think google is the state.
-----
if you want to use the employment analogy, which is wrong, then think about your argument. you're suggesting that employees ought to have the right to talk to customers however the fuck they damned well please. can you imagine walking into a restaurant and having the server swear at you while taking your order, then arguing they can't get fired due to freedom of speech? that's your analogy. great analogy.
the server could and no doubt will get fired for swearing at somebody while taking their order. why is that allowed? because it damages the brand.
but, this isn't even right. uploading here is not an employment contract. ad revenue probably isn't even legally taxable income (that is legal advice, but note that you have to win the supreme court case, first, and it's going to cost you time and money). it's legally probably a gift, for the precise reason that the terms are so vague.
there's an exchange, but the terms aren't defined. and, as such, there isn't really a contract. what are you getting paid for? it's not hourly. it's not salary. it's not even commission, really - there's no defined percentages. this is not within the realm of employment law.
i think it says something broader about how young people see the internet. i'm just kind of cluing into this. the internet seems to have completely destroyed any concept of market exchange. and, they see the internet not as a collection of privately owned servers but as a publicly held good.
maybe i ought to be spinning this around. after all, there's a socialist idea about property at the core of this, right?
if you think that the internet should be a publicly owned good, let's have a revolution. i'm down with that. but, you can't have it both ways.
the way people are reacting, it's like they think google is the state.
-----
if you want to use the employment analogy, which is wrong, then think about your argument. you're suggesting that employees ought to have the right to talk to customers however the fuck they damned well please. can you imagine walking into a restaurant and having the server swear at you while taking your order, then arguing they can't get fired due to freedom of speech? that's your analogy. great analogy.
the server could and no doubt will get fired for swearing at somebody while taking their order. why is that allowed? because it damages the brand.
but, this isn't even right. uploading here is not an employment contract. ad revenue probably isn't even legally taxable income (that is legal advice, but note that you have to win the supreme court case, first, and it's going to cost you time and money). it's legally probably a gift, for the precise reason that the terms are so vague.
there's an exchange, but the terms aren't defined. and, as such, there isn't really a contract. what are you getting paid for? it's not hourly. it's not salary. it's not even commission, really - there's no defined percentages. this is not within the realm of employment law.
at
00:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)