> it doesn't require the people who control those institutions to make infinite allowances to people who are unable to fulfil the purpose of the institutions
If a moron gets into a University, that is one student slot not available to me now. I was their 510th pick, but they only enroll 500. 20 of those people are retarded & were only listed above me because of that fact. Fair? Of course not.
That lesbian's "slot," (sorry) however, is off-limits to me whether she marries her lover or not. I remain unaffected, except perhaps that I now have something new to imagine at night.
There is no limiting involved in ALLOWING gay marriage, only in banning it. These asshole christian politicians seem to have the idea that if something is banned, people will immediately see that they were "wrong," and start fucking people of the opposite sex again. What a crock of shit.
Er... Neutering. I don't mean to be an ass (OK, I do) but nudering, I suppose, would mean to make it naked, revealing all the nastiness. We already knew how nasty it was. Now it's had its overgrown balls cut off, as you meant (or perhaps just shrunk a bit).
> they're the ones preventing the artists from doing what they like to do
I'm not trying to insult you, but do you seriously believe that if you had sold 20 copies of that CD that you would now magically be a profitable musician? I'm sure you made more than just the first CD, but even then, there's a good chance you'd still have a net loss. Granted that combined, it may have been enough to cover your next CD's costs, since you presumably now own all your instruments, etc...
I'm not trying to tell you to "quit whining" and I'm not complaining that all music should be free, but try to keep some perspective (which is not the same as saying you've already lost it).
Some businesses exist to serve a product and make a living for the employee(s), not to "maximize profits." Unfortunately, those are small businesses that are being run out by megacorps. Result: product quality & individual customer service goes to shit.
> Because this system doesn't give the RIAA their share.
<mumble>I agree, but</mumble> Won't the performers still need advanced money to do the recordings & promotions? Just putting something on the Internet or P2P networks doesn't mean anyone will download it at all. Sure, advanced home PCs can help many people make music they wouldn't have otherwise, but for the best sound quality, at least for vocals, nothing beats a sound stage/studio. Just because distribution costs crumbled, it doesn't mean the production costs have (well, they have dropped, but not as drastically). No, I believe artists will still need to be raped, err... helped.
Of course, RIAA knows this, but they don't want to accept (to anyone else) that their inflated distribution "costs" are B.S.
> But exactly why do we need to stick with a disc distribution system? [...] There is no need for this out-dated, expensive distribution technology when the customers themselves are already paying for the modern, efficent distribution.
I think you need a better grasp of the percentage of homes with an actual broadband connection. I don't mean that as an insult, BTW. It is MUCH MUCH smaller than you seem to think. Heck, some people don't even own computers (the backward hicks)!:) If you live in a city, you need to remember that there are a WHOLE LOTTA PLACES in the U.S. where broadband simply is not available at all and satellite is not a viable option (for example, those pesky mountains get in the way where I live).
CDs are far from outdated. People still buy records furpeet's sake. Even 8-tracks -- hard to imagine, I know, but there are some masochists out there.
DESPITE what I have said, I agree with your sentiment. A real musician is about playing music, not about making money. If you make money while doing it, however (even millions), more power to you. Otherwise, you just play an instrument or sing songs, not make music. Unless you're a music nut, it's a pretty worthless distinction these days, but I make it anyway.
> people are allowed to watch what the networks feed them
Ignoring On-Demand, pay-per-view, movie rentals, etc...
There are 200 Channels or so on my Digital Cable. I'm not exactly force-fed all that stuff. Sure, a lot of it is crap, but I don't buy for a second that you know that every single show on every single channel is prolefeed. As a matter of fact, I don't think there's anything more than your luddite-like egotism at play here. Or maybe you just judge everything on a small sample. What do you want? Everything ever produced and even not-yet-produced available on demand? Do you want 5 billion channels so everything is on all at once?
The bottom line is, regardless of what bullshit words you attach to it, it is a personal choice. If you don't like it, good for you, here's a fucking cookie. Just don't watch it -- you'll save a lot of money on the cable bill. Either way, stop complaining about other peoples' choices. Just because you are 100x smarter than them does not mean your tastes are any better. Perhaps more refined because you enjoy more intelligent programs, but not better.
And the father's strategy should be to slap his son "upside his freakin' head." Unless, by "stole" you meant "borrowed & 'forgot' to return, with my permission." I'd be pretty p.o.ed.
> You got modded -1, Flamebait for asking for evidence of that parent's claims.
No, he was modded Flamebait because his wording was condescending -- it seems he was more interested in saying that someone was lieing than looking fol the evidence himself. I am not saying I agree with the moderation, just the reasoning.
In addition, Mr. Pedant, the period goes inside the quotes. Any good troll would know that -- especially when trying to look smart by pointing out a silly little mistake.
Granted, that hasn't been considered funny for years, but it does have a "claim." And unless you think "the man" is suffering here, it's not at anyone's "expense."
> the site you referenced does not refute anything
Okay, then, what about this one, then? It's still not a "rule" of the English language, just some stupid idea some rich jerks thought up to try to make themselves sound smart. I stand by my assholishness.
> Are you implying that the Enola Gay and the WTC attacks are morally equivalent?
It's all a matter of perspective. I don't attribute morality to either one, but rather an action that those performing it thought was necessary at the time. I believe both were ultimately unnecessary, but I also don't claim to have enough knowledge in either case to say for sure.
> you would probably have to include the thousands of people that did the r&d to create the bomb
And if they used guns, you would have to include all the people who helped develop guns, whoever first was able to manipulate metal into a weapon, whoever first worked with metal at all, etc.
If they used sticks, they would have to count the first human to use a stick as a weapon...
I don't think the quote meant to include incidentals like that, but I also don't think it meant to encompass nuclear weaponry.
For many bureaucrats, all the necessary paperwork & regulations are a blessing. I mean, how else does a government succeed, but by becoming more bloated and useless?
Re:Flying Car: Completely Impractical
on
NYT On Flying Cars
·
· Score: 1
> Next we will have the Dept. of Homeland Sec. warning of terrorists planning on flying cars into skyscrapers....
Actually, once we have flying cars, no one would expect the terrorists to drive real cars into buildings! It's just crazy enough to... Uh -- do... something.
> If management still decides to shit on IT, then it's definately time to move on, as you're employed by a lot that won't take responsibility, even after you tried to do so.
I don't expect you're a lawyer, but if you get fired due to the management's incompetence & ignorance, couldn't you sue for wrongful dismissal? It would be a hell of a case to prove, but would you be justified in trying?
> I am sick of brainwashed idiots who dont even know they are slaves too.
They aren't aware that they are on a leash because they never tug at it. They are told that pulling on it is evil, so they don't attempt to use their rights. Then, since they don't use them, they don't complain when they are taken away.
I had a rude awakening by my mother a few weeks ago. I don't know the exact topic, but I think it might have been regarding "fair use" and backup copies, and how those rights have been limited by unconstitutional laws. I explained to her how this directly affected me & others like me. Even after all of that, she basically said "I don't need to back up anything, so what do I care if those rights are taken away. I had no idea what to say. I have come to the conclusion that I must do whatever I feel I must do, without regard to anyone else -- however, if my actions end up helping more people than it hurt, it was probably the right thing to do.
This says nothing of (il)legality of anything, only how I make some of my decisions. You see, I decide to live my life how I choose, regardless of whether or not someone else agrees with it. Law is an invention of man and not even close to perfect. Assuming one believes in God (I happen not to) man is more perfect individually than the laws they create, and therefore should act like they truly believe they should, not how they are told.
Slashdot Mirror
> it doesn't require the people who control those institutions to make infinite allowances to people who are unable to fulfil the purpose of the institutions
If a moron gets into a University, that is one student slot not available to me now. I was their 510th pick, but they only enroll 500. 20 of those people are retarded & were only listed above me because of that fact. Fair? Of course not.
That lesbian's "slot," (sorry) however, is off-limits to me whether she marries her lover or not. I remain unaffected, except perhaps that I now have something new to imagine at night.
There is no limiting involved in ALLOWING gay marriage, only in banning it. These asshole christian politicians seem to have the idea that if something is banned, people will immediately see that they were "wrong," and start fucking people of the opposite sex again. What a crock of shit.
> the judicial branch nudering the PATRIOT act
Er... Neutering. I don't mean to be an ass (OK, I do) but nudering, I suppose, would mean to make it naked, revealing all the nastiness. We already knew how nasty it was. Now it's had its overgrown balls cut off, as you meant (or perhaps just shrunk a bit).
> they're the ones preventing the artists from doing what they like to do
I'm not trying to insult you, but do you seriously believe that if you had sold 20 copies of that CD that you would now magically be a profitable musician? I'm sure you made more than just the first CD, but even then, there's a good chance you'd still have a net loss. Granted that combined, it may have been enough to cover your next CD's costs, since you presumably now own all your instruments, etc...
I'm not trying to tell you to "quit whining" and I'm not complaining that all music should be free, but try to keep some perspective (which is not the same as saying you've already lost it).
> Isn't this what all corporations are after.
Some businesses exist to serve a product and make a living for the employee(s), not to "maximize profits." Unfortunately, those are small businesses that are being run out by megacorps. Result: product quality & individual customer service goes to shit.
> Because this system doesn't give the RIAA their share.
<mumble>I agree, but</mumble> Won't the performers still need advanced money to do the recordings & promotions? Just putting something on the Internet or P2P networks doesn't mean anyone will download it at all. Sure, advanced home PCs can help many people make music they wouldn't have otherwise, but for the best sound quality, at least for vocals, nothing beats a sound stage/studio. Just because distribution costs crumbled, it doesn't mean the production costs have (well, they have dropped, but not as drastically). No, I believe artists will still need to be raped, err... helped.
Of course, RIAA knows this, but they don't want to accept (to anyone else) that their inflated distribution "costs" are B.S.
As much as I'd love to claim some fantasy "moral high ground" here, I have to agree: I wouldn't either.
> That is what the RIAA [..] keep shouting about .. the artist, the artist ..
While under their breath, they say the yacht, the yacht.
(Note that I have nothing against rich people in general: only assholes who steal from their clients. Or from anyone else, for that matter.)
> But exactly why do we need to stick with a disc distribution system? [...] There is no need for this out-dated, expensive distribution technology when the customers themselves are already paying for the modern, efficent distribution.
:) If you live in a city, you need to remember that there are a WHOLE LOTTA PLACES in the U.S. where broadband simply is not available at all and satellite is not a viable option (for example, those pesky mountains get in the way where I live).
I think you need a better grasp of the percentage of homes with an actual broadband connection. I don't mean that as an insult, BTW. It is MUCH MUCH smaller than you seem to think. Heck, some people don't even own computers (the backward hicks)!
CDs are far from outdated. People still buy records furpeet's sake. Even 8-tracks -- hard to imagine, I know, but there are some masochists out there.
DESPITE what I have said, I agree with your sentiment. A real musician is about playing music, not about making money. If you make money while doing it, however (even millions), more power to you. Otherwise, you just play an instrument or sing songs, not make music. Unless you're a music nut, it's a pretty worthless distinction these days, but I make it anyway.
> people are allowed to watch what the networks feed them
Ignoring On-Demand, pay-per-view, movie rentals, etc...
There are 200 Channels or so on my Digital Cable. I'm not exactly force-fed all that stuff. Sure, a lot of it is crap, but I don't buy for a second that you know that every single show on every single channel is prolefeed. As a matter of fact, I don't think there's anything more than your luddite-like egotism at play here. Or maybe you just judge everything on a small sample. What do you want? Everything ever produced and even not-yet-produced available on demand? Do you want 5 billion channels so everything is on all at once?
The bottom line is, regardless of what bullshit words you attach to it, it is a personal choice. If you don't like it, good for you, here's a fucking cookie. Just don't watch it -- you'll save a lot of money on the cable bill. Either way, stop complaining about other peoples' choices. Just because you are 100x smarter than them does not mean your tastes are any better. Perhaps more refined because you enjoy more intelligent programs, but not better.
And the father's strategy should be to slap his son "upside his freakin' head." Unless, by "stole" you meant "borrowed & 'forgot' to return, with my permission." I'd be pretty p.o.ed.
> You got modded -1, Flamebait for asking for evidence of that parent's claims.
No, he was modded Flamebait because his wording was condescending -- it seems he was more interested in saying that someone was lieing than looking fol the evidence himself. I am not saying I agree with the moderation, just the reasoning.
> "are".
"Asshole."
In addition, Mr. Pedant, the period goes inside the quotes. Any good troll would know that -- especially when trying to look smart by pointing out a silly little mistake.
> I'm sure they will use the gender info in a sexist way.
And I'm sure you'll have something to back up this wild claim... Oh, you don't? Say something intelligent then, not "'X' will make me a victim."
> and every joke* is at someones expense
Why did the man throw the clock?
To see time fly!
Granted, that hasn't been considered funny for years, but it does have a "claim." And unless you think "the man" is suffering here, it's not at anyone's "expense."
> Just another sad fact of humanity, I guess.
I see it as the opposite. If we couldn't joke about things, we'd all go mad from stress. It's one way we deal with it.
> Odd that slashdot would find people being burned alive funny...
Anything is funny, in the proper context.
> the site you referenced does not refute anything
Okay, then, what about this one, then? It's still not a "rule" of the English language, just some stupid idea some rich jerks thought up to try to make themselves sound smart. I stand by my assholishness.
> Are you implying that the Enola Gay and the WTC attacks are morally equivalent?
It's all a matter of perspective. I don't attribute morality to either one, but rather an action that those performing it thought was necessary at the time. I believe both were ultimately unnecessary, but I also don't claim to have enough knowledge in either case to say for sure.
> you would probably have to include the thousands of people that did the r&d to create the bomb
And if they used guns, you would have to include all the people who helped develop guns, whoever first was able to manipulate metal into a weapon, whoever first worked with metal at all, etc.
If they used sticks, they would have to count the first human to use a stick as a weapon...
I don't think the quote meant to include incidentals like that, but I also don't think it meant to encompass nuclear weaponry.
I can't think of a better site to discredit your pompous, pedantic bullshit with.
> Sounds to me like a bureaucrat's nightmare
For many bureaucrats, all the necessary paperwork & regulations are a blessing. I mean, how else does a government succeed, but by becoming more bloated and useless?
> Next we will have the Dept. of Homeland Sec. warning of terrorists planning on flying cars into skyscrapers....
Actually, once we have flying cars, no one would expect the terrorists to drive real cars into buildings! It's just crazy enough to... Uh -- do... something.
> If management still decides to shit on IT, then it's definately time to move on, as you're employed by a lot that won't take responsibility, even after you tried to do so.
I don't expect you're a lawyer, but if you get fired due to the management's incompetence & ignorance, couldn't you sue for wrongful dismissal? It would be a hell of a case to prove, but would you be justified in trying?
> I am sick of brainwashed idiots who dont even know they are slaves too.
They aren't aware that they are on a leash because they never tug at it. They are told that pulling on it is evil, so they don't attempt to use their rights. Then, since they don't use them, they don't complain when they are taken away.
I had a rude awakening by my mother a few weeks ago. I don't know the exact topic, but I think it might have been regarding "fair use" and backup copies, and how those rights have been limited by unconstitutional laws. I explained to her how this directly affected me & others like me. Even after all of that, she basically said "I don't need to back up anything, so what do I care if those rights are taken away. I had no idea what to say. I have come to the conclusion that I must do whatever I feel I must do, without regard to anyone else -- however, if my actions end up helping more people than it hurt, it was probably the right thing to do.
This says nothing of (il)legality of anything, only how I make some of my decisions. You see, I decide to live my life how I choose, regardless of whether or not someone else agrees with it. Law is an invention of man and not even close to perfect. Assuming one believes in God (I happen not to) man is more perfect individually than the laws they create, and therefore should act like they truly believe they should, not how they are told.
> You have to wonder if they were ever told that utopias don't exist?
I make no statement here regarding the subject, nor the content of your post except for the exact phrase that is quoted above.
Just because they don't exist, should we then never strive to achieve it? Even if we know it is an impossibility, should we give up?