Yeah. I was having a bad day. Please see later comments, this thread - TIA. The webpage I did for some pals googles & yahoos okey dokey. I've put it as my homepage if anyone cares. It has all of the evil - JS, CSS and Flash (the latter to accommodate embedded http://www.magnatune.com/ music.
Finally, Google pays the telcos (but not the web site) for the spider traffic it generates on its end.
I think it has to be that way.
I'm not into web ads, but from what I gather, there's some payment for webhits (somehow). If the spider generated payable hits, I'd imagine that that would be tantamount to a pyramid scheme.
If I have that wrong, I think I at least got all of my spelling correct....:)
Oh - and here's a big PS: If you feel you're getting too much spider traffic - meaning you're somehow SO wildly popular that you really believe Google is hitting you too often - you can reduce the Google crawl frequency via your Google webmaster account - voila, your (non-existent) problem solved.
And for those that don't use the service, and I do - the Google webmaster features in no way require you to be hosted at Google.
No - I had often before, but haven't seen eligibility lately. If I had it, I may have missed it with the visual page changes (CSS-related? not sure).
I'll keep an eye out and next time I have the privilege I'll exercise it. Meta-modding is like (real world) voting - if you don't do it, you don't get to bitch about the results!!
Since music/movies are widely available digitally, do you now incur an add-on charge for every SD, flash, or hard-drive purchased?
No - and I don't want to, either. AFAIR, the RIAA did attempt the same with blank CDs, but I'm in a rush and don't have a reference for that either way....
No problemo - my partial disagreement didn't rise to the level of posting it. It was the (very practical) part on operating silently - some of us have big mouths (me) and would rather die (or lose karma) than to take something lying down. That's because I've been silent and have never forgiven myself, so far as I know.:)
Good for you - you're exercising your right of responsibility, just in another way. I salute you.
I raised my kids with just one rule - Think With Your Brain. No matter what they did, if they could show that they were really thinking with their brains, and could handle my follow-on arguments, then they passed.
Nowadays, I'm a grandparent (that's the kiddies in my house that I filter for), and I think with my brain - and I don't think I want to precipitate porn discussions with my grandkids. That's my kid's job.
I've got the whole cartoon-time duty - and I must say, it doesn't suck.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
I disagree with part of what unlametheweak wrote above. HOWEVER - while controversial, his comment is neither disruptive to the conversation nor is it obviously intended to evoke an emotional response for its own sake.
As I write this, the above post has been modded Troll - and it is not. That is not an opinion that it's not trolling - it is a statement of fact.
Will whatever fucking dweeb or dweebs going around abusing their fucking mod privileges please fucking stop? There have been a lot of LOT of unnecessary Troll mods in the last few weeks and I, for one, am getting sick of it. Mod points are here to help us focus and defocus interest - they are not intended for your personal censorship agenda.
The irony of having to explain this in a thread on free speech is maddening in the extreme.
Comrades all - N.B. that I am not posting anonymously.
Sure, it's ok for you to collect all of the nickels - and I suppose that that's because the banking industry and the rest of the November traitors created this nickel-rich environment, isn't it? Godwin? You know who else said that he would win because of God? Adolph Hitler, that's who, and did he win? He did not. Did he also brag about having taken no nickels, beyond that strictly necessary for his life? He did... and you're sounding more and more just like him! I hope you burn with the rest of the Nazis!!!! But you won't, will you? No, not you! You'll just go on trying to propagate the great lie because you know that if you tell the biggest lie in the loudest voice long enough, you'll win. And we know who taught that one - Der Führer, that's who!
There.
I call Godwin on myself. But, as I have no intention of stopping the thread, Quirk doesn't apply.
I believe... in fact, I'm rather sure... you owe me a nickel.
(And yes, you may know me from aav or af - some time ago. This is all very toned down.../. is no place for real humor. And don't even try to say meow around here - arf!)
Yeah - I called myself an idiot for not noticing that already (see above).:)
In your above sentence, is the word should supposed to be sound? Have you compared a lossless song with an AAC of same through your iPod? I'm very curious....
Your homepage, I notice, supports - ironically - the sale communist posters. Given the great number of people that lost their lives in the gulag - that all began with the suppression of ideas - I for one am not the least bit surprised that a strong advocacy of free speech cheese whizes you right off.
No need to even try to remind of the defenses at Nuremberg.
But perhaps you're right about failure of the species being an overblown invective. After all, the 20th century saw the death of millions made possible in the beginning by information control, and just because weapons are more advanced, intelligence agencies are more advanced, governments are as corrupt as always, and just because there now exists an unprecedented tool for information dissemination and its control, why would anyone believe that the threat is even greater in the 21st century?
No, but he's going to start, and very soon. And he's going to do while listening to music purchased from http://www.magnatune.com/ and http://www.jamendo.com/ - and I'm pretty sure that neither those organizations nor the fine artists they represent would condone any use of any mind altering substance at all. Unless you do and they do. Anything to get people to go to those sites and support them.
And if that means drinking away the pain of having to tote the barge of talking to you (et al?), going uphill both ways, barefoot in the snow, with the RIAA shills nipping and snarling, well - I'll do it.
Wow. I don't know how you got that. Talking about the idea of taxation of something and the pros and cons is quite different to advocating it.
Nice complete contradiction of yourself. From your own fossil record:
The most I said is that I'm "generally in support" of this if it means we get to use our internet connections for media.
So while I'm generally in support for an artistic tax...
Talking about an idea AND repeating why you SUPPORT it is an ADVOCACY of the idea.
You're certainly arguing against a strawman; you're quite angry...
Oh, pulleeze, don't flatter yourself. Pointing out the occasional idiocy of an AC doesn't raise my blood pressure one iota.
... and there's no point talking to you any more.
Advocating taxation in favor of the RIAA and MPAA and contradicting yourself in two posts does not constitute having a point in talking to me in the first place.
I am completely tired of listening to people use the "for the safety of the children" argument for every damn thing.
I completely agree.
For the part of the argument that children do need net protection - I have it on the desktop and so restrict the kiddies in my house. Not that adult a puzzle to solve.
Clearly you failed at reading the bit where I wrote that "American spends something like $50/yr on copies of movies/music"
Clearly, I did not miss that at all. There's a diff between RIAA and MPAA. The rest of your post discussed music. Your fault for any diff between what you say you meant by artist tax and what you wrote.
And your source of the info that Americans spend about $50/yr on COPIES of music/movies is from...? The same people using our courts nefariously? The same people screwing the artists? And those of us who spend $0/yr on COPIES of music/movies and download nothing illegally and share nothing illegally should pay your proposed tax because....??
Talking about $50/yr puts some metrics so that we can discuss how we can support artists, preferably through voluntary schemes.
Try http://www.magnatune.com/ or http://www.jamendo.com/ and give the artists the $50 directly. Companies that Are Not Evil and support Creative Commons licensing are way ahead on the metrics of which you speak.
Wow, you're just plain obnoxious.
Now you're talking about taxing all sorts of countries. I'm obnoxious, AC? You fucking bet.
iPod nano is spec'd 20 to 20kHz, no other info. And there's a world of difference between +/-3 db from 20 to 20k - it can mean a 6dB drop from 10k on for all we know. Everything in the world is rated 20 to 20k - and everything sounds differently so that spec alone is completely meaningless.
OTOH, I'm prolly an idiot. The things supports AIFF - I can easily hear the difference between that and AAC on my home system (I have a Mac connected to it). I've never tried to compare AIFF vs. AAC on my iPod - if the same diff is audible there, then the parent poster has good reason to speculate that the iPod can support AACplus, I suppose.
So while I'm generally in support for an artistic tax (of perhaps $50/yr on an internet connection)...
What a great idea.
Any more taxes you'd like to add for Americans while not being one yourself?
You missed the film industry completely. DVDs cost more than CDs. If $50/yr is fair artistic tax for music, then naturally you must be all for $100/yr for movies as well. How about the software industry? I hear that Microsoft products are pirated and that involves the internet. How much additional tax shall you add to protect Microsoft and other software vendors?
Of course, taxes require oversight. It's an odd thing in America - you can't force a business to collect taxes without also allowing them to recoup the costs of so doing. So - how about we add in a just a bit of an extra ISP charge to account for that?
And, there's a precedent for it - how about the add-on charged for every blank cassette recording tape - not a dime of which has gone to a single artist.
Yeah. Great idea pal. Really interesting. And please don't mind if add, fuck me.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I was having a bad day. Please see later comments, this thread - TIA. The webpage I did for some pals googles & yahoos okey dokey. I've put it as my homepage if anyone cares. It has all of the evil - JS, CSS and Flash (the latter to accommodate embedded http://www.magnatune.com/ music.
Much appreciated!
Finally, Google pays the telcos (but not the web site) for the spider traffic it generates on its end.
I think it has to be that way.
I'm not into web ads, but from what I gather, there's some payment for webhits (somehow). If the spider generated payable hits, I'd imagine that that would be tantamount to a pyramid scheme.
If I have that wrong, I think I at least got all of my spelling correct.... :)
I appreciate that.
I'd have been happier with a -1, Moron, on my first post instead of Troll, but that option isn't there, either.
np: Benni Hemm Hemm - Riotmand (Ein à Leyni)
https://www.junodownload.com/products/1298622-02.htm
http://www.bennihemmhemm.com/
Riotmand is in Danish, French and Icelandic and can not be translated properly.
Riotmand
Riotmand, ó riotmand, ca va?
Jörundur, ó Jörundur Blatand
More like a magical mand? I should probably quite while I'm behind.... nah.
It would have been less surreal...
Who wants that? Magritte? Dali? Shameless plug - http://www.pingostudios.com/Pingo_Studios/Dashboard.html
Please disregard everything I just said and I apologize for my bad attitude.
I don't know how, but I read your first sentence 100% backwards from what you wrote.
I totally fucked up and I'm sorry.
Oh - and here's a big PS: If you feel you're getting too much spider traffic - meaning you're somehow SO wildly popular that you really believe Google is hitting you too often - you can reduce the Google crawl frequency via your Google webmaster account - voila, your (non-existent) problem solved.
And for those that don't use the service, and I do - the Google webmaster features in no way require you to be hosted at Google.
First of all, the traffic a web site gets from Google's spider is dwarfed by the the traffic it gets from legit users.
First of all, you can use your Google account, register your website with them and see how often they crawl your web.
Secondly, you can use something pretty way OK like http://www.statcounter.com/ and monitor your own traffic.
Thirdly, you'll discover that there's no truth whatsoever in the assertion of your First of all.
Your first point is complete bullshit. I don't even want to guess how you made up the factual-sounding second point.
Thank you, come again.
Have you tried meta moderating recently?
No - I had often before, but haven't seen eligibility lately. If I had it, I may have missed it with the visual page changes (CSS-related? not sure).
I'll keep an eye out and next time I have the privilege I'll exercise it. Meta-modding is like (real world) voting - if you don't do it, you don't get to bitch about the results!!
Since music/movies are widely available digitally, do you now incur an add-on charge for every SD, flash, or hard-drive purchased?
No - and I don't want to, either. AFAIR, the RIAA did attempt the same with blank CDs, but I'm in a rush and don't have a reference for that either way....
Well - some days it just seems irresistible. :)
No problemo - my partial disagreement didn't rise to the level of posting it. It was the (very practical) part on operating silently - some of us have big mouths (me) and would rather die (or lose karma) than to take something lying down. That's because I've been silent and have never forgiven myself, so far as I know. :)
Good for you - you're exercising your right of responsibility, just in another way. I salute you.
I raised my kids with just one rule - Think With Your Brain. No matter what they did, if they could show that they were really thinking with their brains, and could handle my follow-on arguments, then they passed.
Nowadays, I'm a grandparent (that's the kiddies in my house that I filter for), and I think with my brain - and I don't think I want to precipitate porn discussions with my grandkids. That's my kid's job.
I've got the whole cartoon-time duty - and I must say, it doesn't suck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) --
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
I disagree with part of what unlametheweak wrote above. HOWEVER - while controversial, his comment is neither disruptive to the conversation nor is it obviously intended to evoke an emotional response for its own sake.
As I write this, the above post has been modded Troll - and it is not. That is not an opinion that it's not trolling - it is a statement of fact.
Will whatever fucking dweeb or dweebs going around abusing their fucking mod privileges please fucking stop? There have been a lot of LOT of unnecessary Troll mods in the last few weeks and I, for one, am getting sick of it. Mod points are here to help us focus and defocus interest - they are not intended for your personal censorship agenda.
The irony of having to explain this in a thread on free speech is maddening in the extreme.
Comrades all - N.B. that I am not posting anonymously.
Sure, it's ok for you to collect all of the nickels - and I suppose that that's because the banking industry and the rest of the November traitors created this nickel-rich environment, isn't it? Godwin? You know who else said that he would win because of God? Adolph Hitler, that's who, and did he win? He did not. Did he also brag about having taken no nickels, beyond that strictly necessary for his life? He did... and you're sounding more and more just like him! I hope you burn with the rest of the Nazis!!!! But you won't, will you? No, not you! You'll just go on trying to propagate the great lie because you know that if you tell the biggest lie in the loudest voice long enough, you'll win. And we know who taught that one - Der Führer, that's who!
There.
I call Godwin on myself. But, as I have no intention of stopping the thread, Quirk doesn't apply.
I believe ... in fact, I'm rather sure... you owe me a nickel.
(And yes, you may know me from aav or af - some time ago. This is all very toned down... /. is no place for real humor. And don't even try to say meow around here - arf!)
More sleazy capitalism than communism.
Precisely.
FWIW - that's also an apt description of the many pseudo-communists I've met.
Yeah - I called myself an idiot for not noticing that already (see above). :)
In your above sentence, is the word should supposed to be sound? Have you compared a lossless song with an AAC of same through your iPod? I'm very curious....
Your homepage, I notice, supports - ironically - the sale communist posters. Given the great number of people that lost their lives in the gulag - that all began with the suppression of ideas - I for one am not the least bit surprised that a strong advocacy of free speech cheese whizes you right off.
No need to even try to remind of the defenses at Nuremberg.
But perhaps you're right about failure of the species being an overblown invective. After all, the 20th century saw the death of millions made possible in the beginning by information control, and just because weapons are more advanced, intelligence agencies are more advanced, governments are as corrupt as always, and just because there now exists an unprecedented tool for information dissemination and its control, why would anyone believe that the threat is even greater in the 21st century?
Oh - wait....
No, but he's going to start, and very soon. And he's going to do while listening to music purchased from http://www.magnatune.com/ and http://www.jamendo.com/ - and I'm pretty sure that neither those organizations nor the fine artists they represent would condone any use of any mind altering substance at all. Unless you do and they do. Anything to get people to go to those sites and support them.
And if that means drinking away the pain of having to tote the barge of talking to you (et al?), going uphill both ways, barefoot in the snow, with the RIAA shills nipping and snarling, well - I'll do it.
Agreeing 100% with someone mod'd Informative is evidently the new definition of Troll.
Pardon me while I throw myself on the floor laughing.
Wow. I don't know how you got that. Talking about the idea of taxation of something and the pros and cons is quite different to advocating it.
Nice complete contradiction of yourself. From your own fossil record:
The most I said is that I'm "generally in support" of this if it means we get to use our internet connections for media.
So while I'm generally in support for an artistic tax ...
Talking about an idea AND repeating why you SUPPORT it is an ADVOCACY of the idea.
You're certainly arguing against a strawman; you're quite angry...
Oh, pulleeze, don't flatter yourself. Pointing out the occasional idiocy of an AC doesn't raise my blood pressure one iota.
... and there's no point talking to you any more.
Advocating taxation in favor of the RIAA and MPAA and contradicting yourself in two posts does not constitute having a point in talking to me in the first place.
I am completely tired of listening to people use the "for the safety of the children" argument for every damn thing.
I completely agree.
For the part of the argument that children do need net protection - I have it on the desktop and so restrict the kiddies in my house. Not that adult a puzzle to solve.
Clearly you failed at reading the bit where I wrote that "American spends something like $50/yr on copies of movies/music"
Clearly, I did not miss that at all. There's a diff between RIAA and MPAA. The rest of your post discussed music. Your fault for any diff between what you say you meant by artist tax and what you wrote.
And your source of the info that Americans spend about $50/yr on COPIES of music/movies is from...? The same people using our courts nefariously? The same people screwing the artists? And those of us who spend $0/yr on COPIES of music/movies and download nothing illegally and share nothing illegally should pay your proposed tax because....??
Talking about $50/yr puts some metrics so that we can discuss how we can support artists, preferably through voluntary schemes.
Try http://www.magnatune.com/ or http://www.jamendo.com/ and give the artists the $50 directly. Companies that Are Not Evil and support Creative Commons licensing are way ahead on the metrics of which you speak.
Wow, you're just plain obnoxious.
Now you're talking about taxing all sorts of countries. I'm obnoxious, AC? You fucking bet.
iPod nano is spec'd 20 to 20kHz, no other info. And there's a world of difference between +/-3 db from 20 to 20k - it can mean a 6dB drop from 10k on for all we know. Everything in the world is rated 20 to 20k - and everything sounds differently so that spec alone is completely meaningless.
OTOH, I'm prolly an idiot. The things supports AIFF - I can easily hear the difference between that and AAC on my home system (I have a Mac connected to it). I've never tried to compare AIFF vs. AAC on my iPod - if the same diff is audible there, then the parent poster has good reason to speculate that the iPod can support AACplus, I suppose.
I'm not an American, I'm a New Zealander...
So while I'm generally in support for an artistic tax (of perhaps $50/yr on an internet connection)...
What a great idea.
Any more taxes you'd like to add for Americans while not being one yourself?
You missed the film industry completely. DVDs cost more than CDs. If $50/yr is fair artistic tax for music, then naturally you must be all for $100/yr for movies as well. How about the software industry? I hear that Microsoft products are pirated and that involves the internet. How much additional tax shall you add to protect Microsoft and other software vendors?
Of course, taxes require oversight. It's an odd thing in America - you can't force a business to collect taxes without also allowing them to recoup the costs of so doing. So - how about we add in a just a bit of an extra ISP charge to account for that?
And, there's a precedent for it - how about the add-on charged for every blank cassette recording tape - not a dime of which has gone to a single artist.
Yeah. Great idea pal. Really interesting. And please don't mind if add, fuck me.