>I do see several posts dismissing the whole response as empty rhetoric that doesn't say anything, even though there are several measures they say quite plainly and unambiguously they won't support (and it is good that they won't).
I agree that there is rampant cynicism abound, but it is not without merit. Obama "quite plainly" (in fact, explicitly) doesn't support NDAA, yet he somehow managed to reconcile has lack of support with making the bill into law. The people believe the white house is full of shit.
>Sadly, level of debate here is more like Slashdot lite than anything constructive:
No HN post is complete without a smug jab at an inferior web community, great way to elevate the debate.
>yada yada. It's just rationalizing breaking the law
Another quality debate technique: aggregate every position enumerated by the silly neckbeards and broadly dismiss them all in a single rhetorical stroke.
>I would bet good money that most people doing so haven't got the slightest clue about how many people work in creative industries and the real economics of those industries
That is just insulting. Particularly on HN, many of those who take the positions you casually dismiss represent a surplus of extremely creative and successful software developers who endure the dubious menace of piracy on a daily basis. The reason these people say things like "do live shows" is because they responded to the reality of a digital world by creating value that is not intrinsically bound to a sequence of ones and zeroes (SaaS etc) instead of refusing to adapt.
>So, can we please try to have a constructive, balanced debate about this issue from now on? We have clearly reached a tipping point. There is potentially more public awareness and support for action from other businesses both large and small now than at any time in a generation.
I agree that a more constructive debate would benefit everyone, but we don't just throw all our ideas out the window in an effort to placate those who might just be on the wrong side of history.
I agree that there is rampant cynicism abound, but it is not without merit. Obama "quite plainly" (in fact, explicitly) doesn't support NDAA, yet he somehow managed to reconcile has lack of support with making the bill into law. The people believe the white house is full of shit.
>Sadly, level of debate here is more like Slashdot lite than anything constructive:
No HN post is complete without a smug jab at an inferior web community, great way to elevate the debate.
>yada yada. It's just rationalizing breaking the law
Another quality debate technique: aggregate every position enumerated by the silly neckbeards and broadly dismiss them all in a single rhetorical stroke.
>I would bet good money that most people doing so haven't got the slightest clue about how many people work in creative industries and the real economics of those industries
That is just insulting. Particularly on HN, many of those who take the positions you casually dismiss represent a surplus of extremely creative and successful software developers who endure the dubious menace of piracy on a daily basis. The reason these people say things like "do live shows" is because they responded to the reality of a digital world by creating value that is not intrinsically bound to a sequence of ones and zeroes (SaaS etc) instead of refusing to adapt.
>So, can we please try to have a constructive, balanced debate about this issue from now on? We have clearly reached a tipping point. There is potentially more public awareness and support for action from other businesses both large and small now than at any time in a generation.
I agree that a more constructive debate would benefit everyone, but we don't just throw all our ideas out the window in an effort to placate those who might just be on the wrong side of history.