Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.
Responsibility in a corporate situation is kind of a difficult subject, and you certainly have a point; these shareholders are not really at fault, at least not in any tangible way.
Still, if you're going to to say that shareholders shouldn't bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, doesn't it follow that they shouldn't reap the benefits of decisions they didn't make either? That is to say, why should they profit when the company makes good decisions if they don't lose money when the company makes bad ones?
They can only be solved with armed revolutions. Revolutions? Fine, I'll buy that. Armed revolutions, though, seems a little extreme. Of course it might come to that in any number of countries, and I'm not saying it wouldn't work. Still, it's a strange mind that goes straight from complacency to armed revolution without seeing the possibility of non-violent uprising tucked away in between
If you want to get ambitious, build a.teens.us as well, for info available to those 13 and older, much like PG-13 movies. You, sir, scare the sweet ever-loving fuck out of me, and everyone else who is or ever was a teenager.
This is sort of tangential to the issue at hand, but I'm wondering where your value judgment comes from. What makes something wrong? I want to clarify that I'm no an advocate for pedophilia or murder or anything of the sort. It's just that I used to be able to dismiss these things as "wrong", and then I graduated from the tenth grade. Now that I recognize how ignorant I am, I can't take that easy way out anymore. How do you do it? What is the reasoning process there? I ask only out of curiosity.
I have trouble with the suggestion that you are more "free" than you would be in the EU. Ignoring for a moment my fundamental disbelief in the concept of freedom, it seems to me that countries with lower drinking ages, nearly unrestricted borders, and generally shorter work weeks are offering a lot more "freedom" than the U.S.
Of course, the point is moot. Freedom is a Ron Paul talking point, a lie you tell yourself for any number of reasons. No more.
He obviously wants to allow exclusive access to fourth-party apps.
If first party is apple, second party is the consumer, and third party is other developers, that makes fourth party... el-jobso in front of a mirror rubbing one out?
This way big brother might know I'm in the red light district, but at least he won't know whether I'm in Marv's Muff Emporium or Kinky Kurt's Krotch Kingdom
It just occurred to me that... are you... the RIAA? I mean it seems ridiculous, you're clearly not going to change anyone's mind, but who the fuck thinks like that? Are there actual human beings who don't realize bittorrent has legal uses? Or is this some kind of RIAA campaign to shame people into obedience? The latter is so absurd it just seems possible.
How true. My legitimately owned copies of the latest Chingy, Fergie and My Chemical Romance albums sounds simply divine. When I put on my surround-sound headphones, everything comes through so crystal clear I can even hear legitimate, unsigned artists weeping in the distance.
of hearing about ron fucking paul. The paulies' unending, dogmatic jabbering generates the kind of negative publicity for paul that other candidates' money could not possibly buy.
I like what's happening here, but I agree with an earlier poster that this is more of a "fuck you" to the recording industry than a genuine indication of the viability of the model. It probably won't last. Artists need a way to ensure they get paid, while still embracing this whole consumer-friendly mentality. Here's how I think they can:
The artist signs up with what I will call "The Company". They complete their musical work. They release a song or two, or snippets of all of them. These could be played through The Company's website, seeded via bittorrent and other p2p protocols, or made available on a client in a way similar to the existing itunes store feature which allows track previewing.
The Company would use an algorithm - based on traffic to these various distribution channels, visits to the artist's myspace page, maybe even frequency of google searches if they'd be willing to make that data available -- to estimate consumer interest in the music. This would be used to determine a dollar amount that the public would likely pay for the music (a total, not an individual price).
With this figure in hand, The Company would set up a webpage where donations could be pledged. Credit card information is given, but no payment is taken until the total money pledged reaches the previously determined figure for predicted revenue (which should probably be made public, but I don't really know). When the figure is reached, all amounts pledged are withdrawn from the pledgers' credit cards. At this point, the music is made available to everyone, through bittorrent, and perhaps the itunes-style client I already mentioned. Pledgers are notified, and perhaps receive priority downloads, but the music is available to everyone. It spreads on its own, and nobody gets sued. The Company takes an eensie weensie cut to cover bandwidth costs (I imagine this as a non-profit entity). A "tip jar" type of business model could then take over to collect the donations of any conscientious consumers, but I would hardly expect this to generate much revenue.
It's not a very sophisticated plan, I suppose, but I've been mulling over it for a while and I just have to know what slashdot thinks. If some entity with enough resources, like google for example, really worked the idea over, I think there's potential.
P.S. if the RIAA patents this tomorrow I'm going to go totally fucking banana fudge sundae.
OR, what sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist for a presidential candidate to submit to an inevitable humbling at the hands of people who actually know things?
I'm thinking at least 6000 psi, and they're all on fire.
In fact, what better way to attract the interest of ordinary Americans than a cadre of jackasses all aflame?
Now that's edutainment.
Slashdot Mirror
Responsibility in a corporate situation is kind of a difficult subject, and you certainly have a point; these shareholders are not really at fault, at least not in any tangible way.
Still, if you're going to to say that shareholders shouldn't bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, doesn't it follow that they shouldn't reap the benefits of decisions they didn't make either? That is to say, why should they profit when the company makes good decisions if they don't lose money when the company makes bad ones?
It seems probable to me that the reason this happened is phone records which show calls
from politicians to call girls
from lobbyists to politicians
and of course
conference calls between the three.
That Kenya is beating you guys at democracy right now
you: I know I know
me: it sucks to be you
you: I know it's true
LOL U.S. CONSTITUTION
Fondly,
Dr. Hellno
Of course, the point is moot. Freedom is a Ron Paul talking point, a lie you tell yourself for any number of reasons. No more.
If first party is apple, second party is the consumer, and third party is other developers, that makes fourth party... el-jobso in front of a mirror rubbing one out?
This way big brother might know I'm in the red light district, but at least he won't know whether I'm in Marv's Muff Emporium or Kinky Kurt's Krotch Kingdom
when I get the update I'll tell it, "these are not the apps you are looking for."
five words:
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Lightbrite.
It just occurred to me that... are you... the RIAA? I mean it seems ridiculous, you're clearly not going to change anyone's mind, but who the fuck thinks like that? Are there actual human beings who don't realize bittorrent has legal uses? Or is this some kind of RIAA campaign to shame people into obedience? The latter is so absurd it just seems possible.
RIAA: Die in a fire.
of hearing about ron fucking paul. The paulies' unending, dogmatic jabbering generates the kind of negative publicity for paul that other candidates' money could not possibly buy.
I like what's happening here, but I agree with an earlier poster that this is more of a "fuck you" to the recording industry than a genuine indication of the viability of the model. It probably won't last. Artists need a way to ensure they get paid, while still embracing this whole consumer-friendly mentality. Here's how I think they can:
The artist signs up with what I will call "The Company". They complete their musical work. They release a song or two, or snippets of all of them. These could be played through The Company's website, seeded via bittorrent and other p2p protocols, or made available on a client in a way similar to the existing itunes store feature which allows track previewing.
The Company would use an algorithm - based on traffic to these various distribution channels, visits to the artist's myspace page, maybe even frequency of google searches if they'd be willing to make that data available -- to estimate consumer interest in the music. This would be used to determine a dollar amount that the public would likely pay for the music (a total, not an individual price).
With this figure in hand, The Company would set up a webpage where donations could be pledged. Credit card information is given, but no payment is taken until the total money pledged reaches the previously determined figure for predicted revenue (which should probably be made public, but I don't really know). When the figure is reached, all amounts pledged are withdrawn from the pledgers' credit cards. At this point, the music is made available to everyone, through bittorrent, and perhaps the itunes-style client I already mentioned. Pledgers are notified, and perhaps receive priority downloads, but the music is available to everyone. It spreads on its own, and nobody gets sued. The Company takes an eensie weensie cut to cover bandwidth costs (I imagine this as a non-profit entity). A "tip jar" type of business model could then take over to collect the donations of any conscientious consumers, but I would hardly expect this to generate much revenue.
It's not a very sophisticated plan, I suppose, but I've been mulling over it for a while and I just have to know what slashdot thinks. If some entity with enough resources, like google for example, really worked the idea over, I think there's potential.
P.S. if the RIAA patents this tomorrow I'm going to go totally fucking banana fudge sundae.
OR, what sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist for a presidential candidate to submit to an inevitable humbling at the hands of people who actually know things? I'm thinking at least 6000 psi, and they're all on fire. In fact, what better way to attract the interest of ordinary Americans than a cadre of jackasses all aflame? Now that's edutainment.
I would really love to hide my content from the government, simply based on the fact that I hate the government. But
a) I don't really know how
and
b) apparently my isp blocks encrypted traffic: http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs scroll down to Canada, and then Rogers.
What can I do?