Well at least they might be able to do this if Connecticut were to secede from the United States. Not sure if you're from the U.S. or not, but we have a Bill of Rights which was originally intended to protect states from the federal government... But in this case it looks like we'll have to use it to protect us from our own states.
the 4th amendment has been incorporated to the states. states can't legislate/constitutionalize less protections than what federal law provides.. you know... because the supremacy clause
this should be killed by a federal court very fast
The supremacy clause is, however, the basis for why state statute can't brush aside the protections in the federal constitution, including those incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendemnt.
> Not sure if you're from the U.S. or not, but we have a Bill of Rights which was originally intended to protect states from the federal government...
This language seems overly patronising, and unlikely to contribute to the important point that the rest of your post makes. I think it doesn't matter whether or not GP is from the US.
They haven't handled the transition to new media and values properly:
1. Their magazine: Almost all magazines have been replaced with websites. Their website dramatically undersells their content. Look at it, really. It's basically like clickhole, but with stories of climate change. The dramatic photography of the magazine is only coming across in about 50% of the photos and the headlines are all clickbait format.
2. Their television presence includes shows like "Drugs, Inc." whose primarily job is to scare old people with re-enactments of drug crimes. Who would pay for that "value"? (I guess people who watch police shows? but what does that saturated market have to do with their brand?)
3. Their youtube stream is a massive quantity of short, low-quality videos. I subscribe and only watch about 1 in 50 of them. Another problem with their videos is so few have narration which I feel is a key feature of travel and wildlife shows.
4. They haven't handled outreach to a younger generation. With all the urban young people (esp. women IMO) who love to travel the world with disposable income (no families, marrying late), NG has no selling relationship with them.
5. The global geopolitical situation is more interesting than ever with worldwide communication, but I don't see NG addressing that. Maybe they are - somewhere? - but their marketing isn't penetrating.
I feel like they could turn it around if they primarily address the youngest generation - perhaps get more involved in the travel and outdoor supplies markets.
I'd disagree with point 4. Their Instagram feed has all of the stunning beauty that National Geographic originally became famous for: https://instagram.com/natgeo/, and commands a 35.4 million person following. I'm not sure how you parlay this into a "selling relationship", but it is a great way to outreach to a younger generation.
The National Geographic Channel is a different company than the magazine and is a subsidiary of FOX. So, it's a good example of the kind of schlock that the Murdoch Empire will produce.
Despite all the issues that the magazine and non-profit org may have, they produce quality journalism. You can't say that about the TV channel.
The National Geographic Channel has been with FOX for much longer than a few months. I can't seem to find the date when FOX became involved, but it predates this acquisition by many years. This latest acquisition is just a furthering of the takeover of National Geographic by FOX.
> With all the urban young people (esp. women IMO) who love to travel the world with disposable income (no families, marrying late), NG has no selling relationship with them.
Given its mission to increase and diffuse geographical knowledge, it's remarkable to me that National Geographic doesn't operate a travel-services agency (insurance, tours, guidebooks—that kind of thing). It seems like that should be right in its wheelhouse, and could be profitable enough to fund its research projects, if competently run.
Obviously discoverability, and advertising of these is less than ideal. A lot of it is actually verging on overextending to the brand, like "The Dog Lover's Guide to Travel" just doesn't seem a good brand expansion.
Wow, I never knew, despite my folks & grandparents being members my entire life, and it's not even on their Wikipedia page, either. As you note, the discoverability doesn't seem very good.
I guess it boils down to the 'competently run' part: if one is going to run a profit-making enterprise, one needs to advertise!
> shows like "Drugs, Inc." whose primarily job is to scare old people with re-enactments of drug crimes. Who would pay for that "value"?
Since we're talking about Murdoch's media assets, this reminds me there's a thriving business in the "news" media based entirely on scaring (mostly) old people with fabricated alarmist stories.
4) I think they were trying to handle that with a spin off magazine "National Geographic Traveler". The ones I looked at weren't that compelling although beautiful. (and I love the National Geographic magazine).
Browsing this portion of their site induced me to (attempt to) subscribe to the print edition of "Traveler." However, their subscription page automatically signs me up for "auto renewal" (with no option to opt out) and also notes that they will sell my information to other companies with no direct way to opt out. Changed my mind. I have encountered this same issue with other magazines and each time I balk when I read stuff like this. Treat me like your customer, not a product to sell to someone else. And don't require me to auto-renew before I've even read a single issue.
Re #5, at least in Thailand, they have high-quality translations of their magazine at affordable prices. But yes I wonder why they don't have a good digital back catalog.
Re #4, National Geographic Kids ebooks are available on the Reading Rainbow platform, and it is very high quality (Thanks mostly in part due to Reading Rainbow's transcription it seems)
I would agree with all your sentiments expect Drugs Inc and Underworld Inc. I don't think its designed to scare old people and the people on the show are not made up. Its a documentary. You take from it what you will. In fact I find the show to be sympathetic to both sides of drug and crime problems we have.
That's the thing that kills me - or almost did last month... [ 1 ]
People are delirious about self-driving cars, but even the simplest automatable task of stopping when something is in front of you is not only an option, but an expensive one.
If CAS is a pricey option, how much more will full driverless cost? How prevalent will it be? How likely is it that only the top 1% will have it? How long until it trickles down into middle-class? How much longer will it take to trickle down than CAS?
[ 1 ] Another driver and myself were rear-ended hard in a senseless accident that would have been avoided if "car 3" had had CAS (or was driverless or if the driver had been paying attention, not speeding, not following too close). My last 6 weeks have been paperwork, doctor's appointments, painkillers, ice packs, phone calls and soon physical therapy appointments. All cutting into my productivity and good mood.
Well in Subaru's case the cost of CAS has dropped by 1/4th. From a 3K "Eyesight only" package on the top trim few years ago, to a 1.3K package on the mid trim this year that also gives you other features (e.g. winter driving assists, like heated mirrors, and so on).
From rumours Subaru wants to make Eyesight (CAS) standard by the 2018 model year (mid-2017 release).
Only recently Europe has made mandatory to have an emergency communication system. I barely know the details but I guess it's something like airbag worthy event -> phone whatever safety institution. It's not even high tech, and it's also not cheap for the customer. This should have been implemented long ago and as cheap as possible (I mean profit wise) .. society is so damn slow.
i agree. i just wanted to raise the imagery of being a prosecutor in jail. if they're hostile to child molesters, imagine what they do to prosecutors! yowza.
Hmm yeah your example makes me think of fast-food as an analogy.
That is to say, there may be applications of sensing that benefit corporations financially, but don't help their users... Imagine an automaton that provokes couples into divorce though advertising, using sensed data (Instead of "You've got mail!" "you're having less sex!") as evidence.
Give me a few 1980s-vintage robot arms and I will outperform this system in any category except entertainment value. Robot arms once held great entertainment value and this system will become old media some day, too. Semiologically speaking, this system represents a silo of sublime resources from dopaminergics to labor and cash, but when the zombies come, I'll bet people will still run to the shed full of AK-47s.
The prototypes I saw in person a few years ago were actually surplus automated potentiometers :) They were DC motors with gear reduction and a spool, with light steel wire coiled on the spool to slide the pot or the "3-d pixel" back and forth. these may very well be pneumatic.
True, although oftentimes way slower and getting the types of feedback they were using in the video would be tougher. On the upside, I'd expect this would work far better for heavier objects.
A regular threaded-rod would be slower, but you could speed it up by using a different thread profile with a longer pitch. If speed was the top goal, though, a belt-driven system could be as effective as pneumatics, but quieter. (But then you can't hold weight when the power is off.) Lots of trade-offs to consider, depending on design goals.
This is interesting to listen to, b/c Eno is well-known and has some interesting observations and ideas, but as far as his main idea, that art is play, he seems tragically unaware of the sexual implications of "hair styles, boob jobs, music," It's not merely play, it's demonstrations of reproductive fitness. Even when he talks about two females on a bus "synchronizing." How can he be so oblivious?
It's ironic b/c he begins the discussion invalidating the idea that art is an "industry," in order to enable it to merit value under contemporary economic systems, but then spends his time constructing an alternate view in which art has value as "play." And this definition of culture as a collection of rituals has already been thought by people hundreds of years ago. Rituals are a subset of culture, not an ersatz.
A lot of what he says about play seems consistent with Huizinga's book. It's not an eccentric theory.
Although presumably only behaviours which demonstrate reproductive fitness get selected for, I don't think wasteful activities (like art) are necessarily evolved in this way. See e.g. Jeremy England on thermodynamic drivers of evolved complexity.
Wow, thanks for the downvotes, everyone! Maybe I'm simply in the wrong community? I thought some intelligent discussion would be welcome, but let's try this:
FWIW, I think the problem with some of your comments, including this one, is that they're too dismissive. It's fine to make substantive critiques, but if the substance/dismissiveness ratio gets too low, people treat those as bad comments.
I've been considering buying rental properties to supplement my income, but something deep inside somewhere, based on living close to people well below my income level as one of a 4-unit building, prevented me from doing it.
When I tried to compute how much rent I would charge, I realized I would be profiting simply by taking money from them because they have been unable to accumulate capital at the pace I have been. While that does indicate some skill on my part - hey, I scrimp and shop wisely - I don't feel it morally qualifies me to skim from others. That would be paying myself twice. When I scrimp and shop wisely, I benefit from having extra savings, but using that savings to get more from others without adding more value is something I don't feel right doing.
I could morally accept money as a landlord based on my labor doing maintenance and time spent bookkeeping, I suppose. That - speaking as a current tenant - does have some value, but I just don't think it would be much, approximately that of a day laborer or accountant for several hours a week. So screw it, i'll make a lot more money creating something of real value.
Thank you for helping me recognize and articulate this, branchless.
I'm really confused... The thing of value you are providing as a landlord is housing. How is it skimming? Putting money towards a house/condo instead of investing it in business has an opportunity cost. You lose out on the profits from dividends/interest/cap gains. That has to be replaced. If you charge too much rent, other people will under-cut you. The price is set by available housing. Where is the deceit?
Do you feel you would owe people the freedom to use your property free-of-charge? What about the mortgage payments you endure? The maintenance/upkeep (roofs, siding, carpet, plumbing, electrical, all amortized over the life of the building)? Should this be a loss you take in order to let someone else sleep in your house?
Disclosure of bias: In Seattle where I live, the cost of real estate is higher than the prevailing rents, when you factor mortgage payments, maintenance, utilities, HOA, etc. This makes it a little easier for me to see the equity in pricing between rentals and owned homes. It may be different in your parts of the world.
It's got nothing to do with deceit or skimming, it's power. There is no fraud, it would be simply taking advantage of people beyond the amount of value that I would be interesting in providing.
Your allusion to a market that would correct the price doesn't account for a market which no tenants can enter because none of them can afford the entrance (a 20% down payment).
They'll get the benefit of housing no matter how much I would charge, but if I charge more than the value of the maintenance and accounting them I would be exploiting them, taking advantage of their inability to produce capital in the time it's taken me to produce it. And everyone else who is in the position I am could exploit them just as easily so the market doesn't help there.
It's like gas prices: if so many gas stations can compete, how come they prices aren't driven down to nothing? Because of the entrance cost to the market. You can't start a well and refinery, so you have to go to one of the established ones.
For luxury items like phones, art, fancy cars, etc., I don't care about charging people a lot of money. But for water, air, food, medical and housing, which people have no choice to acquire or consume I'm not going to gouge them.
This is not some rational choice about what a person or market theory can or should do, this is my personal code of ethics.
Not trying to change your mind, and I appreciate the chance for a dialogue... Your perspective seems based on the idea that housing (shelter) is a basic need and should be provided for, and at some fundamental level I'm inclined to agree. (In my mind, it would be pretty basic housing...)
I did want to call attention to your gas prices example... Gas prices are driven down to approximately the cost of getting more oil out of the ground, refining it into gasoline, and transporting it to your local Chevron. These are costs inherent to "making gas" - it's not free. The same goes for housing, so whether you'd have renters pay it or have the government pay it for them, someone's going to have to cut down trees, pour concrete, level land, install plumbing, etc.
This is this "value" of the housing I'm talking about, which is separate from the moral right to shelter that seems to guide your judgement on the issue. Thanks for being willing to engage me in the discussion!
>>Your perspective seems based on the idea that housing (shelter) is a basic need and should be provided for
There is a very unfortunate problem with this line of thinking. It takes a lot of effort/money to build a house. You need to procure raw materials, pay for human labor and various other expenses, this is apart from acquiring land.
And the problem with this kind of 'equality for all' argument towards housing is you are assuming, that a good quality home should either come at a cheap price or some one being ready to pay and make up for everybody else. Both of them are problematic, why should every single economic link in the chain related to building a house suffer? Or why are we expecting some people to pay taxes and have houses built for every one else?
You don't have the right to anything unless the cost of achieving that is literally free or negligible.
This is so wrong it hurts. The cost of the "house" is the land. Building houses has never been cheaper. Just like everything else has never been cheaper.
I don't think this is correct - construction costs are currently below the all-time peak, but they have been steadily increasing. According to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB):
"The average construction cost of a single-family home in the 2013 survey is $246,453. This average is significantly higher than the 2011 average construction cost of $184,125, and is the highest it has been since 1998. Although the cost of construction per square foot remained relatively stable in 2009 and 2011 ($82 per square foot, and $80 per square foot, respectively), it jumped to $95 per square foot in 2013."
Also, regarding the relative impact of land cost vs construction costs:
"NAHB’s most recent construction cost survey (conducted in August and September of 2013) shows that although lot sizes are shrinking, both the cost and size of the home are on the rise. The average home in our survey was built on 14,359 square feet (about a third of an acre) of land, had 2,607 square feet of finished area, and sold for $399,532. The average share of the home’s sales price which goes to construction cost jumped from 59 percent in both 2009 and 2011 to 62 percent in 2013. Finished lot costs, accounting for the second largest share of the sales price, dropped from 22 percent in 2011 to 19 percent in 2013."
The situation might have changed since this survey in 2013, but this is the most recent information I was able to find.
Fascinating results, I would only caution people before taking this article's results to apply to "all" women. IME, approximately 10% of women desire employment success way more than the others.
So what on Earth is objectionable in my comment? I speak from a moderate viewpoint, to take the study seriously, but not apply it blindly, apply my own small amount of experience, and get downvoted to -4?
Did this offend anyone? Please explain how. Otherwise I would perceive the downvotes to be the work of trolls.
Ah you're right. Thanks. That was driving me crazy. I should have learned by reading substantive comments found elsewhere. This one below, for example, struck me as exceptionally substantive and now I can see why it hasn't been voted below zero:
"I don't want to show up to work sweaty. And I want the utility of a vehicle if my plans change. So I'll drive regardless."
Attacking the source rather than the content is usually the mark of a poor debating position. If the content is good, the source doesn't matter. If the content is bad, the source's badness will be self-evident.
A debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstructive, that's fine, but it's not because if I were debating I would have made a blunder, it's because we have different expectations and desires in this conversation.
That's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.
Fortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.
There is a nonzero cost of verifying, analyzing, and engaging with any text. The more substantial the text, the larger the cost. I don't have to read another Reason article to know that it's got the same systematic blindspots Reason articles have, and I don't think I could convince anyone of that, so I just communicated my stance and went on. There's nothing 'illogical' about it. I did not state my argument; I just stated my position. I think the charge that this violates basic logic is making a poor assumption: that absence of my argument is the same thing as not having an argument.
I don't want to make the argument. I want to snark about Reason. So I did. Shrug.
