The Glade 4.0

Awesome, thanks Vindi. Knopfler is really one of my all time favorites.

What particularly impresses me, doing a quick youtube search, is how many videos there are of him performing with all sorts of other unrelated stars. It's like he's buddies with the entire music community.

For instance,

Knopfler, Clapton, Collins, and Sting...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Heheh, it is pretty cool. When you think about it, when you get to the level these guys are, they are your peers; probably can't help but hang out occasionally.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Truer words have never been written!!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

I always liked Canada.......they drink lots of beer.

As for their form of FCC....meh. Our FCC pisses me off enough I can't comment on anyone else's form of govt control.

It's because of the FCC, I can't get TV affiliates on my sat dish and have to buy a freakin' antenna if I want to view them....

Funny thing is, many people could give perfectly well reasoned opinions for why others, like, say, Clapton, might be better. Somehow, I don't think Knopfler or Clapton care. They get together and jam, not duel.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

How would you even measure such a thing?

I mean, once you get past a certain level of proficiency with the instrument, it becomes completely subjective.

If that example isn't censorship, what would you consider an example of private censorship?

Frankly, I don't see much difference between the government issuing an edict saying that work on certain topics can't be sold in stores (like many European countries do for "unrated" material, it's not illegal to possess or distribute, you just can't sell it in stores) and, say, an association of all the major retail stores agreeing that works on the same topics will not be sold in their stores. In both cases, it forces the minority to go to extreme lengths if they want their message to be heard.

a true guitar god could still make his music awesome while his guitar was on fire a foot in front of him?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Do you realize that in your second example, an enterprising businessman can make a tidy sum by catering to the market segment wishing to purchase the material?

_________________

Stuff that is censored, whether by the government or private enterprise, is generally considered offensive by the vast majority of the population, or it wouldn't be censored. So your target market is miniscule and spread out, making running a successful business difficult. On top of that, you have no way of informing your market that you exist, as major newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations won't carry your ads because of what you sell in your store. And that's not even getting into situations where the large private enterprises can actually dictate to you that you can't sell your product, a good example would be AO-rated games on consoles.

Isn't anti-censorship supposed to be about letting the little guy be heard if he wants to be heard? Well private "censorship" is just as effective at shutting that down as public censorship is.

You're a very odd little man. How do you arrive at these conclusions when you are basically surrounded by things that disprove you? You should just have a cigar, watch some porn, and rock out.

_________________

Surrounded by things that disprove me? What do you think about things like the Hays Code and the Comics Code? The government was not involved. Were these not censorship? They only fell apart when a large enough segment of the population wanted to watch the things that were banned, they were perfectly effective at censorship before that.

I believe Xeq is operating under the somewhat accurate assumption that when it comes to the media, big corporations are all in collusion over so many things and have an effective monopoly. Also, when Corporations essentially ARE the goverment (or are even above the government in the chain of command, like in the world today), he's certainly got a point. "Private enterprise" doesn't answer to government, it buys government. Force of law is always sold to the highest bidder. The CEOs and such are just the new robber-baron aristocracy, and nothing has really changed over the centuries.

Maybe it will change when Obama gets rid of the lobbyists in washington. HA!

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Here's the unedited version. Really is a classic riff. Have they banned a lot of stuff in Canada? Blazzing Saddles, Predator, stuff like that?

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

First of all, the "ban" is from the public airwaves, like the FCC does.Nothing is banned for sale. Secondly, with movies and/or television, they do less censoring than the FCC, although it's very possible they have different sensitivities for the type of stuff that gets "Bleeped."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So far in this thread, you have made the following assertions about censorship:
You have to be crazy to not want the government to do it.
Non-government censorship has no checks or oversight.
You can't discern a difference between government and corporate censorship.
There's no viable market for censored items.
Even if there was a viable market, there isn't because you can't advertise.
Both government and corporate censorship is insurmountable.
And now you seem to be going off into the weeds with the quoted item.

In response to some of your statements, I have attempted to convey the following:
There's a vast difference between government and corporate censorship. As an example, with corporate censorship there's a legal market waiting to be tapped.
We can point to any number of things that are or have been censored, and yet are thriving concerns. As an example, when was the last time you saw a TV ad or heard a radio ad for a tobacco product? Can you name a few and do you know where to find them if you want them? As another example, I bet you know where to go get your hands on some pictures of naked ladies. Isn't it amazing that you can, considering the stiff opposition? Finally, that Negro devil music must have squeaked into success by the skin of its teeth, huh? What with all the stores that weren't going to carry it, and the townships that tried to outlaw it.

As to what I think of the Hays Code and the Comic Code, I think they were bad ideas to begin with, and they're now defunct. I haven't made any statements regarding who is and isn't capable of attempting censorship.

_________________

Thank you Dash! It's been a while since I heard the unedited version!

(I love Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler!! )

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

1. I dislike censorship in general, but I think if it's going to be done, it should be done by the government.
2. Non-government censorship certainly has less checks. Government censorship can be undone by the courts even if supported by a majority, corporate censorship cannot. Also, government censorship is generally easier to defy, a government-banned work can be distributed in secret. Corporate censorship usually results in the work not being created at all in the first place.
3. My replies were in response to the general sentiment that government censorship is evil and wrong while corporate censorship is perfectly acceptable, even if the end result is similar.

So, wait.

Corporate censorship creates an environment where it's difficult to reach your market and thus make a living off of it.

Government censorship creates an environment where it's *illegal* to reach your market and thus make a living on it, and if you get caught doing it, you're fined or incarcerated.

But government censorship is better, because you can distribute your work in secret?

Why not "distribute your work in secret" to defy corporate censorship? That way, you don't get prosecuted if the secret gets blown!

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Vind, what assertion do you believe is incorrect - that the FCC prohibits "obscene" material from broadcast radio in the US and fines radio stations that violate that prohibition, or that "faggot" is one of the words the FCC considers obscene?

The incorrect assertion is that this was not a choice made by private enterprise.

As far as the FCC and "obscenity", they're going to have to come up with a new way to butter their bread, because they can't do it that way any more; their methods served to "chill free speech", so said the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Are you really trying to say that the market not producing stuff that's offensive to the vast majority of people because there's therefore almost no market for it is, in some way, censorship?

Somehow private industry has an obligation to produce each and every conceiveable product, no matter how limited in saleability or profit potential, or they're engaging in censorship?

All you're doing is abusing the word "censorship" and trying to make it mean "good business decisions in an attempt to pretend that there is some sort of equivalence between not acting to produce the material, and prohibiting the production of it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm saying we should treat corporate censorship with the same level of derision that we treat government censorship, that the negative effects associated with corporate censorship are just as bad as if the government does them. Most major retailers refusing to stock a certain type of work has the same chilling effect that the government does when it bans "obscene" material and leaves the obscenity definition loosely defined. Both do not make it impossible for you to sell your message or product but they make it very difficult. Both government and corporate censorship also involve the majority enforcing their will on the minority. The reason Wal-Mart doesn't stock certain "obscene" products is not because they wouldn't sell, but because a large number of other customers would be offended simply by the fact that the product is on the shelf and would stop shopping there for that reason. It's exactly the same effect as the people complaining to their legislators and asking for something to be banned just because they're offended by it.

So in other words, you're saying exactly what I pointed out you're saying, except for the fact that you think obscene products actually would sell. They might, indeed, but the fact of the matter is that there's already plenty of obscene products out there and the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't stock them doesn't stop them from being produced or sold. Just how much more obscene are you talking about here, if the local porn shop doesn't stock it either, and what kind of market would there really be for anything so disturbing that porn shops don't already stock it (leaving aside things that are illegal because making them involves harming or exploiting someone)? Is a 5" diameter butt plug or enema porn with overweight women having excessive body hair not obscene enough for you?

I haven't noticed that Wal-Mart stocks model railroading supplies either. Is Wal-Mart censoring the hobby of model railroading?

All you're doing is taking two completely different actions and claiming they're the same because they have vaguely similar effects and because they involve powerful entities. You're not fooling anyone.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wal-Mart doesn't have any model railroading market share, so no. However, there are a number of markets that Wal-Mart has a large enough market share in (like music and video games) such that if they refuse to stock a product, it is no longer profitable to make that product. So yes, their refusal to stock a product can in fact stop that product from being produced or sold.

Haven't you read some of the major criticisms of Wal-Mart? They go to suppliers and flat out tell them, "you're going to do this, this, and this, and if you refuse we'll stop stocking you and you're bankrupt."