Slashdot Mirror
Record Labels Push for iTunes Price Hike
csteinle writes "Looks like the major labels are getting their own way again. The New York Post reports that the price per track may be going up to $1.25, while the per album price for some albums could go as high as $16.99. The Register has its own take on this, too. Aren't you glad you starting paying for downloaded music?" Update: 05/07 19:15 GMT by M : Apple says their prices won't increase.
Suckers. That's what you get for paying.
I get all my music from the radio. Bow down before the Holiest of Holy: CLEAR CHANNEL! They know what's best for me. Them, and songs that get stuck in my head.
Though, since Cartoon Network started running it every night, the theme to ATHF seems to be stuck there!
All together now: "My name is, Shake.."
The problem is that the word "irregardless" breaks all rules about word construction in the English language. The root word is "regard". "regardless" means to have no regard, as per standard English suffixing rules. "irregardless" represents the negation of the word "regardless", as per standard English prefixing rules. So, it must mean to not not have regard for. IOW, it's a double negative, all in one word. It's like someone saying "unthaw" when they really mean "thaw"... it's just - plain - wrong!
"irregardless" is a typical midwestern word. I am from the mid-west, and find myself saying it frequently. It is just one of those regional things. Yes it is wrong, yes it does drive midwestern english teachers nuts, but it is still in common usage as a synonym for regardless.
note: I have heard it in other parts of the US, but not nearly as often.
So the parent post (mine) was 2 points by default, and then was modded "Overrated", so it was reduced to 1 point.
How is a post overrated when it hasn't been "rated"?
I wish I knew for which moderators I was on "the bad list". I find it particularly interesting that the modder chose to spend their points on my neutral post.
In any event, my point was valid. Apple can change its EULA and associated DRM rules, but fortunately we'll always be able to regain access to our music through tools which DMCA calls illegal.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
And you understand that if I customarily stick a thumb in your eye everytime I say hello, that this is simply my way of greeting you. No sense in getting worked up that I just stuck a thumb in your eye. You should be more tolerant.
People who go around saying words like unthaw and irregardless are sticking a thumb in the eye of those of us who like language to be clear and not annoying. Of course we understand what's being said--that is not what is at issue.
You seem to be saying that people should be free to violate every rule of grammar and clear speaking without being corrected. "Good lord" indeed.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
irregardless aint not a real word. Learn gooder english.
Pro-choicers don't think life begins at birth
I admit to purposeful overstatement. I certainly concede that not every pro-choicer think life begins at birth. But don't think for a moment you speak for every pro-choicer when you say this. Indeed, some of the strongest defenders of so-called abortion "rights" fully believe that abortion should not be restricted under any circumstances whatsoever.
Furthermore, pro-choicers are required to play semantic games. It is simply indisuputable that life begins at conception. By all biological definitions, even the single-celled embryo is a life, a unique, distinct. So the answer to "when does life begin" is simply not open to debate. Thus pro-abortioners are forced to shift the debate not to the more amorphous discussion of "when is a fetus sufficiently developed to give it the full rights of protection we give to born persons."
In fact, Princeton professor Peter Singer has advocated that parents be given the right to kill their infants up to 28 days after birth. I quote: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." I must give him credit, he takes the pro-choice argument to a radical extreme---but it is an extreme which is entirely consistent with pro-choice logic on "when does life begin."
In practice they prefer to be cautious - an abortion after 8 months would not be defended by any pro-choicer (except when there is danger to the health of the mother), while an abortion after 1 month is nothing special.
To simply ignore the conclusion because it's difficult to make is not caution at all. True caution would be to make the choice that errs on the side of life. After all, 1) as mentioned above, it is indisputable that life is present at all stages; and 2) the right to life trumps the right to liberty.
Where to draw the line is up to everyone, but we usually rely on legislators to set some limits and then stick to them.
Because life is involved the line must be drawn collectively, not individually. After all, once a child is born we give a parent certain latitude on how to discipline and raise their children. But we have our limits---and physical abuse and killing are definitely outside of those limits. We rightly forbid parents from taking such acts.
The same goes with the unborn child. If the killing of the child is not enjoined, what else can be? I mean, we indict women who use illegal drugs while pregnant, on grounds of child endangerment. We are justifiably outraged when someone causes a miscarriage through assault.
So if I asked you whether I should say the "word" irregardless, or stick my thumb in your eye, you'd flip a coin, huh? Give me a fucking break. If someone wants to sound like an idiot, that's they're prerogative
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
Second - find a dictionary. The word in question is listed, if that's what you need for "clear and not annoying" language.
People who go around saying words like unthaw and irregardless are sticking a thumb in the eye of those of us who like language to be clear and not annoying.
:)
You obviously don't spend much time on IRC huh? You'd probably have killed yourself by now.
-matt
Try again.
First of all, the embryo does not implant in the mother and "feed" off of her for a couple of days after conception, at which point it is at blastocyst stage; at least thousands of cells large. But hey that's a technical error, so no big deal.
Secondly, cancer cells are genetically indistinct from their host. Yes they obviously have undergone a genetic mutation but no more so than the many benign mutations our cells often undergo. In contrast, an embryo has a distinct DNA signature indicating clearly that it is a different organism. So to call it a cancer would not be accurate. As for the comparison to a virus---a single-celled embryo is far more complex on the taxonomic scale than a virus, or even a bacterium.
Arguably, "parasite" is a more accurate term. You say you have no problem putting an end to the growth of a parasite; and you define as a "parasite" a living thing that depends on a host to stay alive. Well, an infant for the first several months, even years, of its life depends upon the care of others for its very survival. Does that make them parasites? Are you in agreement with Dr. Singer, then? Or perhaps you would even extend the time period within which parents can kill their infants?
Finally, the basic fact is that you don't get to decide for yourself what constitutes "a life". For example, I could decide that you're not alive, justifying a host of activities that would bring an end to your oxygen processing. (I can't say "kill" here, of course, because it's not killing if you're not alive.) I'm sure you would object to my definition (well, hey, maybe not), and so would the authorities. Which definition should prevail?
Now to be honest with you, I don't believe the "full" human life begins at conception. That's because I believe in the concept of ensoulment: that the body is in fact the host of a soul which is not necessarily present at conception, but rather somewhere later in the development of an embryo. However, while I am confident that ensoulment occurs somewhere within the normal 40-week gestation process, I do not know exactly where. Heck, it is likely different for each child. Thus to avoid murder we must err on the side of safety---at the very least, ratcheting legal abortion way back to, say, the first trimester alone.
I don't make many friends in the pro-life community with such a view, indeed. But I share their cause because the salient issue in the abortion debate is one of life, and not one of choice. As our country's founding documents illustrate, the right to life precedes the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Giodnamdt, I htae tihs agruenmt!!!! If yuo wnat to be lzay aobut yuor witrnig, tath's fnie, btu we cna slitl btcih auobt it! If yuo dno't wnat to bheotr lraineng teh rlues, dno't kdi ysorulef taht teh lganugae is eolvivng, yrou'e jsut bnieg lzay!!!
Srue, mnay rlues aer arrrbtiay, btu wtih no rlues, (scuh as in tihs empxlae) rdinaeg bcmoees, cisfuonng, pnaiufl, adn mlsiaednig!
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
I've always found spelling and grammer nazi's to be anal-retentive retards that don't have much of a life.
You however, have displaced that notion with your example on how to corect someone. I;m prolly an offtopic troll now but, I find little or no hostility to your corections and explanation were I usually do with others. Good job!
After all, 1) as mentioned above, it is indisputable that life is present at all stages; and 2) the right to life trumps the right to liberty.
Does life beging at conception? Yes, but not human life. The embryo is alive just as a bacteria is alive and less alive than a mosquito. And there is nothing wrong with ending life per se. Now does human life begin at conception? If you argue that it does, I will argue that it doesn't end when a person dies. After a person dies some cells will remain alive for hours, some even for days. So a cadaver should enjoy all rights a human being enjoys, shouldn't it? Or, if you argue that embryo should be protected because it has the potential to develop into human, I will simply say it's irrelevant. You have the potential to become President of your country, but that doesn't give you immunity from prosecution and other perks today. The potential is irrelevant, simply because nowhere else in the legal system we take it into account.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
More semantic games. A "life" is something that is "alive".
Besides, I did consult the definition of "life" in the dictionary. And again, there are conflicting definitions. And we don't get to choose the one that suits our arguments and ignore the rest.