I don't think you would make such a statement if you really knew Moby.
He has a huge head.
Unfortunately, the popularity of derivative works like some of the songs on Play cause people to overlook Moby's true originality and musical wizardry.
Derivative? From what? That music is absurdly simple. It's embarrassing that a) he recorded that, and b) people listen to it.
See, you jump to the conclusion that I'm complaining about this because I lack a sense of humor. In reality, my sense of humor is far superior to those who would post such nonsense. That is what you must attempt to grasp.
This is going too far. Someone already posted this quote, in a comment containing actual information. There is thus no reason to post it again. I understand you want people to know you like the Simpsons, but this is really the wrong way to do it. Join a webring or something, with your favorite 11kHz WAVs of quotes such as this.
Yes, you and 1000 other idiots. Shut the fuck up, you are not funny.
Re:The workers would never have made such a mistak
on
Mattel Spyware
·
· Score: 1
Dude. That wasn't even what Atlas Shrugged was about. It was in defense of the "robber barons" and exploitive capitalists. The importance of the workers has been acknowledged for a very long time. Ayn Rand was pointing out that, while labor is of course necessary for industry, skilled management is also essential to any kind of manufacturing.
Moby is the worst music. I cannot believe the shit that people will pay to listen to. In the past few days I've read about Offspring and Moby on slashdot. Why? There are good musicians out there, no reason to destroy your brain with this garbage.
This is ridiculous. I can't believe how many whiny hippie comments and stories show up here. I would be upset if I couldn't offer an ISP more money for better service. Otherwise, isn't it terrible that John's Bait gets 100% of the web business in Sometown, just because Bob's Bait didn't pay for a web site?
So, why is it that the socialistic european countries seem to generally be acting smarted than the free capitalistic US recently? I'm all for capitalism, but, some things make you wonder...
The US export ban cannot be said to be motivated by capitalist thinking. It comes from other American mentalities such as nationalism. If the US were a purely capitalist country, we wouldn't have any kind of export or import regulation.
Also, older games are a lot more accessible. I tried playing Smash Bros. on the N64 and it's complete mayhem. Shapes and sounds and so forth. I can't even understand the controller. I am 20 years old, not past my prime by any standards, but after 5 years or so of being "out of the loop" in gaming terms, I'm completely lost. But I really enjoy playing some of the older games, whether Nintendo or Atari or whatnot. Another point, games used to be way more creative. Games today can be easily classified into a few categories. But Nintendo had games (Wall Street Kid and Downtown Cross Country Race or whatever) that were completely unlike any others. I'll often times start up a ROM and be amazed at the originality in gameplay and interface, not to mention graphics and music. Oh, don't even get me started on the beautiful music.
Did anyone in their wildest dreams think that Chuck D(!) would become their political ally?
Yes. PE has always had a healthy outlook on exactly what the government does to screw people over, and Chuck D's lyrics in particular have been very supportive of Constitutional rights. It did surprise me how quickly he got involved in the Internet aspects of these concerns. I am hoping his is recognized as the voice of reason. He definitely comes across as more informed than, say, the members of Metallica. I just hope Congress will listen to a rapper.
Hardly any viruses are targeted at Linux because Linux is still pretty uncommon, especially for home PCs which are the main victims of most viruses these days.
Home users were not the target of this virus; I haven't felt the urge to install an Exchange server for my home LAN yet. As others have said, it's more about Outlook than Windows. It just happens that Outlook (with VBS) only runs on Windows. The huge amount of companies where everyone has a nice fat address book and an integrated scripting language in their email client is what made Outlook (such a/the only) easy target for the virus.
do yourself a favor: Don't use Napster. They obviously don't want you as a user. Here's some more advice: Don't buy anything by Metallica. They obviously don't want you as a fan.
I don't see how this does any favors for yourself. People were never Metallica fans because the band wanted them to be fans, but because the music appealed to them. Metallica's stupid behavior does not affect this. If Napster and Metallica really don't want you, the concept of boycotting them is what's absurd.
I don't understand why such a program would use AI... And if it does, it sounds like this company should be putting their efforts elsewhere. It's unfortunate when people think they have to be complete weiners just to make money.
If Open Source is better for the software companies, legal requirements are not necessary. The participation of gov't here only hurts OS, because it implies that, were it not for the legislative intervention, OS wouldn't make it. I think this is an issue for the market, and though it may be tempting to try and speed up the transition to Open Source, this is not the way to do it.
"Just because" should be enough. That's what we like about the Internet, remember? It's like what America was before someone decided we need building permits to make a porch. How is there any connection between your porch and the government? If I have a house, some wood, and hammer and nails, and I want a place to sit in my rocking chair on summer evenings, its the most natural thing in the world for me to build a porch. How can a permit requirement possibly help anyone? There is simply no reason for it. This may seem like its going off topic, but it all comes down to the role of government in private lives. Here we have the worst consequence: people are so used to liberties being usurped that they see something as unregulated as the Internet and think something's wrong. Actually, its one of the few things that's right.
I am surprised to see so many comments like "it could go either way." I don't see how this legislation could be construed as anything but a disgusting infringement on free commerce.
As I see it, Party 1 registers a domain name. Some time later, Party 2 decides it wants that domain. So Party 1 offers to sell it for a certain price. Party 2 can pay or not, the price can be negotiated, and so forth. At no point is anyone involved except those two parties. Neither can force the other to do anything against their will. It is the very definition of a fair business transaction.
Now the government decides that they should make the above illegal. That is, whenever Party 2 decides they want the domain name in question, the government will go and steal it for them. The idea of only prosecuting those with an "intent" to squat is absurd; intent is indefinite at best, and in no free market in history (including the US, in most cases) is "purchase with intent to sell at a profit" a crime. As in any business, the seller takes the risk when she initially registers the domain name, hoping someone will be willing to pay for it in the future. The current environment happens to place some of these names in high demand, but that is not a permanent state. In any case, it takes a certain amount of business sense to find domains that will be desired.
Cybersquatting is no different from buying World Series tickets and sticking them on ebay (I have a friend who just made 3200% profit doing that). It's not dishonest, it's smart.
Another warning flag: Clinton is opposed to the legislation, in part (according to the Wired story) because it might encourage other nations to pass similar bills. Huh? If we don't want anyone else to have the law, what in the world do we want it for?
Slashdot Mirror
He has a huge head.
Unfortunately, the popularity of derivative works like some of the songs on Play cause people to overlook Moby's true originality and musical wizardry.
Derivative? From what? That music is absurdly simple. It's embarrassing that a) he recorded that, and b) people listen to it.
Thanks. :)
No problem, dude. No problem.
See, you jump to the conclusion that I'm complaining about this because I lack a sense of humor. In reality, my sense of humor is far superior to those who would post such nonsense. That is what you must attempt to grasp.
That shit's good.
This is going too far. Someone already posted this quote, in a comment containing actual information. There is thus no reason to post it again. I understand you want people to know you like the Simpsons, but this is really the wrong way to do it. Join a webring or something, with your favorite 11kHz WAVs of quotes such as this.
Yes, you and 1000 other idiots. Shut the fuck up, you are not funny.
Dude. That wasn't even what Atlas Shrugged was about. It was in defense of the "robber barons" and exploitive capitalists. The importance of the workers has been acknowledged for a very long time. Ayn Rand was pointing out that, while labor is of course necessary for industry, skilled management is also essential to any kind of manufacturing.
Thanks for looking out for us all. Those commoners are way out of control already!
Moby is the worst music. I cannot believe the shit that people will pay to listen to. In the past few days I've read about Offspring and Moby on slashdot. Why? There are good musicians out there, no reason to destroy your brain with this garbage.
This is ridiculous. I can't believe how many whiny hippie comments and stories show up here. I would be upset if I couldn't offer an ISP more money for better service. Otherwise, isn't it terrible that John's Bait gets 100% of the web business in Sometown, just because Bob's Bait didn't pay for a web site?
Yeah, if you compare it to a CD being played out of my asshole.
Which begs the question...how many times was each machines revi^H^Hbooted during the "death"match?
There were no machines. It was an interview with two expert users.
So, why is it that the socialistic european countries seem to generally be acting smarted than the free capitalistic US recently? I'm all for capitalism, but, some things make you wonder...
The US export ban cannot be said to be motivated by capitalist thinking. It comes from other American mentalities such as nationalism. If the US were a purely capitalist country, we wouldn't have any kind of export or import regulation.
Just because you're smart enough to do well without cheating doesn't mean you will do well without cheating.
Also, older games are a lot more accessible. I tried playing Smash Bros. on the N64 and it's complete mayhem. Shapes and sounds and so forth. I can't even understand the controller. I am 20 years old, not past my prime by any standards, but after 5 years or so of being "out of the loop" in gaming terms, I'm completely lost. But I really enjoy playing some of the older games, whether Nintendo or Atari or whatnot.
Another point, games used to be way more creative. Games today can be easily classified into a few categories. But Nintendo had games (Wall Street Kid and Downtown Cross Country Race or whatever) that were completely unlike any others. I'll often times start up a ROM and be amazed at the originality in gameplay and interface, not to mention graphics and music. Oh, don't even get me started on the beautiful music.
Most likely, you download a few tracks by Moby, realize it's complete shite, and go out and buy real music.
Long Island, in fact, and that's even further East.
Did anyone in their wildest dreams think that Chuck D(!) would become their political ally?
Yes. PE has always had a healthy outlook on exactly what the government does to screw people over, and Chuck D's lyrics in particular have been very supportive of Constitutional rights. It did surprise me how quickly he got involved in the Internet aspects of these concerns. I am hoping his is recognized as the voice of reason. He definitely comes across as more informed than, say, the members of Metallica. I just hope Congress will listen to a rapper.
Hardly any viruses are targeted at Linux because Linux is still pretty uncommon, especially for home PCs which are the main victims of most viruses these days.
Home users were not the target of this virus; I haven't felt the urge to install an Exchange server for my home LAN yet. As others have said, it's more about Outlook than Windows. It just happens that Outlook (with VBS) only runs on Windows. The huge amount of companies where everyone has a nice fat address book and an integrated scripting language in their email client is what made Outlook (such a/the only) easy target for the virus.
do yourself a favor: Don't use Napster. They obviously don't want you as a user. Here's some more advice: Don't buy anything by Metallica. They obviously don't want you as a fan.
I don't see how this does any favors for yourself. People were never Metallica fans because the band wanted them to be fans, but because the music appealed to them. Metallica's stupid behavior does not affect this. If Napster and Metallica really don't want you, the concept of boycotting them is what's absurd.
What Language is this anyway Je bent dom. Als Metallica.
I don't understand why such a program would use AI... And if it does, it sounds like this company should be putting their efforts elsewhere. It's unfortunate when people think they have to be complete weiners just to make money.
If Open Source is better for the software companies, legal requirements are not necessary. The participation of gov't here only hurts OS, because it implies that, were it not for the legislative intervention, OS wouldn't make it. I think this is an issue for the market, and though it may be tempting to try and speed up the transition to Open Source, this is not the way to do it.
"Just because" should be enough. That's what we like about the Internet, remember? It's like what America was before someone decided we need building permits to make a porch. How is there any connection between your porch and the government? If I have a house, some wood, and hammer and nails, and I want a place to sit in my rocking chair on summer evenings, its the most natural thing in the world for me to build a porch. How can a permit requirement possibly help anyone? There is simply no reason for it. This may seem like its going off topic, but it all comes down to the role of government in private lives. Here we have the worst consequence: people are so used to liberties being usurped that they see something as unregulated as the Internet and think something's wrong. Actually, its one of the few things that's right.
I am surprised to see so many comments like "it could go either way." I don't see how this legislation could be construed as anything but a disgusting infringement on free commerce.
As I see it, Party 1 registers a domain name. Some time later, Party 2 decides it wants that domain. So Party 1 offers to sell it for a certain price. Party 2 can pay or not, the price can be negotiated, and so forth. At no point is anyone involved except those two parties. Neither can force the other to do anything against their will. It is the very definition of a fair business transaction.
Now the government decides that they should make the above illegal. That is, whenever Party 2 decides they want the domain name in question, the government will go and steal it for them. The idea of only prosecuting those with an "intent" to squat is absurd; intent is indefinite at best, and in no free market in history (including the US, in most cases) is "purchase with intent to sell at a profit" a crime. As in any business, the seller takes the risk when she initially registers the domain name, hoping someone will be willing to pay for it in the future. The current environment happens to place some of these names in high demand, but that is not a permanent state. In any case, it takes a certain amount of business sense to find domains that will be desired.
Cybersquatting is no different from buying World Series tickets and sticking them on ebay (I have a friend who just made 3200% profit doing that). It's not dishonest, it's smart.
Another warning flag: Clinton is opposed to the legislation, in part (according to the Wired story) because it might encourage other nations to pass similar bills. Huh? If we don't want anyone else to have the law, what in the world do we want it for?