No, I dont think thats what that particular article was saying at all. I dont remember the details, but if memory serves it was another example of slashdot summary sensationalism.
Its interesting to see the way that, 5 minutes after learning the word "optogenetics" (at least in my case), we already see factions of staunchly pro and anti opto-genetic slashdotters forming the battle lines.
Im willing to bet that some of these articles are made up of whole cloth by the editors, just to see how many people will argue for and against the made-up topics.
Japan's nuclear disaster has proven to me that neither the companies responsible for nuclear power plants, nor the people responsible for ostensibly regulating them can be trusted
So because one company in one country screwed up and had a disaster resulting in precisely 0 deaths, we need to move to Coal? Where we hear of non-compliant coal mines killing hundreds of miners a year, and causing large amounts of pollution?
Or what about Hydro, surely we can trust people with hydro. Oh wait, there was (among others) Banqiao Dam which failed in 1975, killing 171,000 people in a moment (incidentally, about 30 times as many people as Chernobyl is expected to kill over the next 50 years-- cancer deaths included).
For example, the latest generation BWR (ESBWR) uses heatpipes to pools on the reactor building roof to provide passive core coolin
Just to play devils advocate here-- if there were an earthquake, and the heatpipes were to crack (leaking the coolant/ whatever its called), wouldnt we be in the same situation as Fukushima?
Mostly because it's their only shot at stardom. They don't pick people with talent who could hack it on their own. They pick kids from podunk towns just dying to get out and be famous.
One could make the same remark about Las Vegas and getting rich. My parents however had the good sense to teach me that gambling is an awful way to get rich, and if I were to waste my money at a casino, I would have noone to blame but myself.
1) The labels hook them young and stupid to get them on treadmill.
Thats what parents are for. While the artist is a minor, the parents can offer wisdom and set their foot down, and can raise the child to be smarter than that.
Nevertheless, people have responsibility for their actions.
2) The musicians that the labels bamboozle aren't known more for drugs and booze than math skills.
Im not sure that thats terribly relevant in contract law, and I dont think we should amend the system to evaluate whether or not someone is smart enough to sign their own contracts. Real life decisions have real life consequences.
3) Music agents are really good at lying to musicians.
Well, I suppose thats why you read contracts, and have a personal lawyer evaluate it. This isnt something new; if you sign a contract without reading it you will get burned.
I think you should be less worried about the potential evil of legislation which might be written to fix an unjust system than you should be about the fact there is an unjust system in the first place
No, thats exactly why im worried. Reactionary legislation is often worse than the evil it was meant to combat. Go tampering with contract law because some young artists made terrible decisions and we could end up far, far worse off, in a system where contracts are no longer considered binding-- or worse.
Since the artists provide the music, they are entitled to the lion's share of the profits.
Wrong. SInce they signed a contract, they are entitled to what the contract entitles them to. If the contract was onesided, guess what they should have done? Hint, its NOT sign it.
Everybody here seems to be missing a big factor....THEY ARE A CARTEL and as such control the gateway to the airwaves!
That may be true to some extent with radio BUT: A) Not all radio stations are big corporate entities. Some are small local gigs that would happily play local talent B) This isnt 1947. Music can now be distributed and advertised on the cheap through the internet. Pandora, Youtube, facebook, google adwords, etc; its very easy and cheap compared to the past
They had to break up to get out of their contract after the label decided to "change direction" before the first album was even released, they got left holding the bag to the tune of $100,000 for an album they had paid to record themselves for "various promotion expenses" which believe me, they didn't get shit for promo.
Sucks, but I dont see a need to change laws because people sign restrictive one-sided contracts that they can easily just not sign. People make bad decisions, face consequences-- news at 11. And its hard to get out of contracts-- thats the entire point of a contract.
So please, rip them off. Copy your asses off, don't pay for shit, because they certainly aren't! Why they aren't busted for RICO is only because of the bags of money they pay congress critters.
So, in other words, screw the RIAA, and screw legitimate artists that signed with them. Because they have something you want, and you feel that they break the law, you can break it in return (funny, that seems to be THEIR argument -- that people pirate, therefore theyre going to bring the hammer down).
The only RICO accusations Ive heard are because of piracy, and your argument fails in that regard because their "RICO" tactics were in response to others' breaking the law; your response is that because they are now breaking the law, piracy is thus excused? Brilliant.
Of course the RIAA still collects royalties from radios, pubs etc, for music by artists who don't belong to them.
Thats not the artist's problem; the radios, pubs etc need to refuse to pay and fight it out if theyre being extorted. EIther way, its is not directly the artist's problem.
A lot of artists already have, and the vast majority discover that they still don't make any money.
Then perhaps they need to accept that "musician" is not a very good get-rich quick scheme. A lot of artists play on the side and have a regular job; I dont see why THAT is a particular problem. Perhaps the main problems we have are A) shady accounting and B) bad expectations on the artist's part
Wait, ClearChannel and company own 98% of the internet?
Last I checked, getting on Pandora, Grooveshark, GoogleAds, etc didnt require you to be signed on with ANYONE. Get on pandora and all of a sudden you have a lot of exposure to your very demographic.
You might as well complain about losing your money at a casino because you think thats the only way to strike it rich, even though you know most people dont at a casino. You take a bad gamble, you pay the consequences.
Given that weve seen similar stories for years (hollywood accounting, unfair contracts, better off going alone), 2 questions spring to mind:
1) Surely enough people have been burned to set up a class action lawsuit and/or lobbying for new regulation/legislation towards Hollywood / the recording industry for their accounting practices; Im generally gun-shy of unnecessary regulation but this seems to be an area where audits would be helpful, and the odd multi-million-dollar judgement might not hurt either
2) If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them? I sympathize if the contracts are simply not being honored, but if it continues to happen and people continue to sign the contracts, my sympathy begins to wane. I do NOT want to get into a situation where contracts are no longer enforceable because of legislation protect people from sneaky contracts; people DO bear responsibility for contracts that they sign if they are upheld to the letter of the contract.
Articles like this make me really nervous because they may have a valid point, but I am terribly worried about the results of overambitious and overreacting legislation.
Exchange 2007, however, gives that functionality to all browsers, and Exchange 2010 presents an identical interface across all browsers. Its interface, incidentally, is vastly superior to Evolution.
It doesnt explain why those packages simply dont depend on Evolution, rather than gnome-desktop depending on evolution-data-server even after Ive ripped all of evolution, empathy, and all other dependent services out.
I mean, I thought a dependency was supposed to accurately depict what packages require others to be there; but I can inspect the package, rip out all of its files, and Im sure GDM and gnome would continue to function as I expect.
Evolution supports skimming data from the OWA interface. That barely counts as "exchange support". Call me when they get MAPI support, otherwise Im better off simply using the web interface.
You do realize that you could consider every email server "in the cloud", right? Exchange servers for example store all the data on the server, not on the individual workstation.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I dont think thats what that particular article was saying at all. I dont remember the details, but if memory serves it was another example of slashdot summary sensationalism.
Im not sure MIT really counts as "Big Pharma".
Its interesting to see the way that, 5 minutes after learning the word "optogenetics" (at least in my case), we already see factions of staunchly pro and anti opto-genetic slashdotters forming the battle lines.
Im willing to bet that some of these articles are made up of whole cloth by the editors, just to see how many people will argue for and against the made-up topics.
Japan's nuclear disaster has proven to me that neither the companies responsible for nuclear power plants, nor the people responsible for ostensibly regulating them can be trusted
So because one company in one country screwed up and had a disaster resulting in precisely 0 deaths, we need to move to Coal? Where we hear of non-compliant coal mines killing hundreds of miners a year, and causing large amounts of pollution?
Or what about Hydro, surely we can trust people with hydro. Oh wait, there was (among others) Banqiao Dam which failed in 1975, killing 171,000 people in a moment (incidentally, about 30 times as many people as Chernobyl is expected to kill over the next 50 years-- cancer deaths included).
Or geothermal... except that it can cause earthquakes
I guess if you will accept nothing less than a perfect energy source, we'll just have to do without electricity.
Oh, and the Fukushima meltdown had started before the tsunami hit.
Oh, and that statement needs a source.
For example, the latest generation BWR (ESBWR) uses heatpipes to pools on the reactor building roof to provide passive core coolin
Just to play devils advocate here-- if there were an earthquake, and the heatpipes were to crack (leaking the coolant/ whatever its called), wouldnt we be in the same situation as Fukushima?
Mostly because it's their only shot at stardom. They don't pick people with talent who could hack it on their own. They pick kids from podunk towns just dying to get out and be famous.
One could make the same remark about Las Vegas and getting rich. My parents however had the good sense to teach me that gambling is an awful way to get rich, and if I were to waste my money at a casino, I would have noone to blame but myself.
1) The labels hook them young and stupid to get them on treadmill.
Thats what parents are for. While the artist is a minor, the parents can offer wisdom and set their foot down, and can raise the child to be smarter than that.
Nevertheless, people have responsibility for their actions.
2) The musicians that the labels bamboozle aren't known more for drugs and booze than math skills.
Im not sure that thats terribly relevant in contract law, and I dont think we should amend the system to evaluate whether or not someone is smart enough to sign their own contracts. Real life decisions have real life consequences.
3) Music agents are really good at lying to musicians.
Well, I suppose thats why you read contracts, and have a personal lawyer evaluate it. This isnt something new; if you sign a contract without reading it you will get burned.
I think you should be less worried about the potential evil of legislation which might be written to fix an unjust system than you should be about the fact there is an unjust system in the first place
No, thats exactly why im worried. Reactionary legislation is often worse than the evil it was meant to combat. Go tampering with contract law because some young artists made terrible decisions and we could end up far, far worse off, in a system where contracts are no longer considered binding-- or worse.
Then I guess an awful contract and no profits are the cost of that, and they need to live with it; or alternatively, not sign that contract.
Since the artists provide the music, they are entitled to the lion's share of the profits.
Wrong. SInce they signed a contract, they are entitled to what the contract entitles them to. If the contract was onesided, guess what they should have done? Hint, its NOT sign it.
People signed a contract they didn't understand
Whoops, I guess they shouldnt do that. Our legal system doesnt really have a "contract mulligan" clause, unfortunately.
Everybody here seems to be missing a big factor....THEY ARE A CARTEL and as such control the gateway to the airwaves!
That may be true to some extent with radio BUT:
A) Not all radio stations are big corporate entities. Some are small local gigs that would happily play local talent
B) This isnt 1947. Music can now be distributed and advertised on the cheap through the internet. Pandora, Youtube, facebook, google adwords, etc; its very easy and cheap compared to the past
They had to break up to get out of their contract after the label decided to "change direction" before the first album was even released, they got left holding the bag to the tune of $100,000 for an album they had paid to record themselves for "various promotion expenses" which believe me, they didn't get shit for promo.
Sucks, but I dont see a need to change laws because people sign restrictive one-sided contracts that they can easily just not sign. People make bad decisions, face consequences-- news at 11. And its hard to get out of contracts-- thats the entire point of a contract.
So please, rip them off. Copy your asses off, don't pay for shit, because they certainly aren't! Why they aren't busted for RICO is only because of the bags of money they pay congress critters.
So, in other words, screw the RIAA, and screw legitimate artists that signed with them. Because they have something you want, and you feel that they break the law, you can break it in return (funny, that seems to be THEIR argument -- that people pirate, therefore theyre going to bring the hammer down).
The only RICO accusations Ive heard are because of piracy, and your argument fails in that regard because their "RICO" tactics were in response to others' breaking the law; your response is that because they are now breaking the law, piracy is thus excused? Brilliant.
Of course the RIAA still collects royalties from radios, pubs etc, for music by artists who don't belong to them.
Thats not the artist's problem; the radios, pubs etc need to refuse to pay and fight it out if theyre being extorted. EIther way, its is not directly the artist's problem.
A lot of artists already have, and the vast majority discover that they still don't make any money.
Then perhaps they need to accept that "musician" is not a very good get-rich quick scheme. A lot of artists play on the side and have a regular job; I dont see why THAT is a particular problem. Perhaps the main problems we have are
A) shady accounting and
B) bad expectations on the artist's part
Wait, ClearChannel and company own 98% of the internet?
Last I checked, getting on Pandora, Grooveshark, GoogleAds, etc didnt require you to be signed on with ANYONE. Get on pandora and all of a sudden you have a lot of exposure to your very demographic.
You might as well complain about losing your money at a casino because you think thats the only way to strike it rich, even though you know most people dont at a casino. You take a bad gamble, you pay the consequences.
Given that weve seen similar stories for years (hollywood accounting, unfair contracts, better off going alone), 2 questions spring to mind:
1) Surely enough people have been burned to set up a class action lawsuit and /or lobbying for new regulation/legislation towards Hollywood / the recording industry for their accounting practices; Im generally gun-shy of unnecessary regulation but this seems to be an area where audits would be helpful, and the odd multi-million-dollar judgement might not hurt either
2) If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them? I sympathize if the contracts are simply not being honored, but if it continues to happen and people continue to sign the contracts, my sympathy begins to wane. I do NOT want to get into a situation where contracts are no longer enforceable because of legislation protect people from sneaky contracts; people DO bear responsibility for contracts that they sign if they are upheld to the letter of the contract.
Articles like this make me really nervous because they may have a valid point, but I am terribly worried about the results of overambitious and overreacting legislation.
Exchange 2007, however, gives that functionality to all browsers, and Exchange 2010 presents an identical interface across all browsers. Its interface, incidentally, is vastly superior to Evolution.
Calling debian an ubuntu derivative, even as a joke, isnt funny, its just wrong in a way that im sure causes many geeks to rage.
It doesnt explain why those packages simply dont depend on Evolution, rather than gnome-desktop depending on evolution-data-server even after Ive ripped all of evolution, empathy, and all other dependent services out.
I mean, I thought a dependency was supposed to accurately depict what packages require others to be there; but I can inspect the package, rip out all of its files, and Im sure GDM and gnome would continue to function as I expect.
I begin to suspect the lack of progress in the discussion is due to your inexplicable conclusion that I support secrecy for secrecy's sake.
Its very likely that the folks working Plasma are not the folks who worked on Kopete nor the folks who work on amaroK, etc.
Evolution supports skimming data from the OWA interface. That barely counts as "exchange support". Call me when they get MAPI support, otherwise Im better off simply using the web interface.
You do realize that you could consider every email server "in the cloud", right? Exchange servers for example store all the data on the server, not on the individual workstation.
Im not sure what you mean by "imap support is shitty". It supports IMAP; any awfulness would be caused by an awful email client (ahem, Outlook...).