I was once told that the original show was popular enough that they wouldn't have cancelled it, except they simply couldn't buy enough trans ams for all the stunts.
Same rumour circulated about the Duke boys and the General Lee when I was a kid. I had assumed urban legend.
I don't understand the popular/. stance that there is some higher form of music of greater intellectual value than the stuff that/. posters suggest is being pushed upon us by **AA or some other nefarious organization. The stuff that is pirated is pirated because people want to hear it - I don't care if they want to hear it because the pirate has some inherent sense of fine music that makes them want the latest Xtina record, or if they are brainwashed to think that the latest Xtina is worth listening to, or if Xtina is a musical genius (I personally think she kicks ass!!!) - people pirate/download what they want to hear, brain-dead/tech-dead/taste-dead though they may be. So if you like the non-**AA music, go ahead and download that without paying - and good luck finding it.
I'm a total hobby musician who thinks it would be cool to make money from making music one day. I also work in a company that makes software (I don't personally build it these days). So I wonder how I'd feel about people stealing my company's software because they felt it should be free, and I know the answer - I'd be pissed, it would impact my ability to pay my mortgage, and if I could track them on a network that said "person x pirated your cool-ass software" and I had some reason to rely on that information, I'd go after them.
At any rate, can somebody explain to me why a significant number of/. folks seems to think that downloading (without paying) music that belongs to an RIAA member is generally okay, and that because the best method of identifying likely culprits is flawed, pursuing claims is such a big problem? What else would you do if *you* were the rights-holder and should have been paid for that song being heard?
That said, I'm not against restricting the ability of the **AA to go after essentially random litigation targets, but too often I read/. opinions that equate to the ridiculous "well, I'm kinda fuzzy in your camera shot of me mugging that old lady, so I get to keep the $50 I pulled from her fist as I kicked her in the face, and besides, how do u know my pet monkey didn't do it?". What am I missing?
There is a universe somewhere in which you did not make that joke. And some luckier copy of me gets to live in that universe.
There is a further universe somewhere in which the GP post was modded funny instead of insightful. Some luckier copies of all of us live there. Oh, and some more insightful moderators too:)
Slashdot Mirror
Run DMC eh?
Same rumour circulated about the Duke boys and the General Lee when I was a kid. I had assumed urban legend.
Man - I sure hope poor Natalie doesn't ever read Slashdot. Heebies! Jeebies!!
Flipped, dried, ran it, and 3/4 of the keys didn't work.
Intentionally poured in water, swished, flipped, dried, ran it, and 1/2 of the keys didn't work. Improvement!!
Amazingly, the laptop kept going!!!
New keyboard installed by (an irritated and laughing-at-me) IT guy, and it is all back to normal.
I'm a total hobby musician who thinks it would be cool to make money from making music one day. I also work in a company that makes software (I don't personally build it these days). So I wonder how I'd feel about people stealing my company's software because they felt it should be free, and I know the answer - I'd be pissed, it would impact my ability to pay my mortgage, and if I could track them on a network that said "person x pirated your cool-ass software" and I had some reason to rely on that information, I'd go after them.
At any rate, can somebody explain to me why a significant number of /. folks seems to think that downloading (without paying) music that belongs to an RIAA member is generally okay, and that because the best method of identifying likely culprits is flawed, pursuing claims is such a big problem? What else would you do if *you* were the rights-holder and should have been paid for that song being heard?
That said, I'm not against restricting the ability of the **AA to go after essentially random litigation targets, but too often I read /. opinions that equate to the ridiculous "well, I'm kinda fuzzy in your camera shot of me mugging that old lady, so I get to keep the $50 I pulled from her fist as I kicked her in the face, and besides, how do u know my pet monkey didn't do it?". What am I missing?
Hey, hey, hey! It's faaaaaat Alba!!
And the mentally retarded. Let's just keep the ones that can put up a fight.
Ooooh yeah! Retarded baby brains for breakfast!!
There is a further universe somewhere in which the GP post was modded funny instead of insightful. Some luckier copies of all of us live there. Oh, and some more insightful moderators too
OMG - git me one!!!!
"never make it to the Wii"
That sounds like a painful medical problem.
Or merely a pride-painful but really wet one!!
> A woman won't accept a 3.5" floppy.
You just need to orient it vertically.