Downplayed? How so? One of the major points of Revolutionary War history that I remember from school is the role that the French Fleet played. One of the folksy quotes that you learn about WWI is how Blackjack Pershing uttered the words "Lafayette, we are here.".. or something along those lines, upon landing in France, in homage to the French contribution to America gaining its independence. I learned all this stuff in a school with total attendence in grades 9-12 of 250 people in the middle of Bum Fuck North Dakota.
Were you sick that day or something? Homeschooled maybe?
Just where is the quote from Jonathan that states his dream is to sell machines at Walmart?... I see a lot of journalists pulling crap out of their asses lately, "Green quits in disgust" for example, with no attibutable quotes from any of the principles involved.
Sun isn't going to make money putting JDS on cheap PCs at Walmart. They know that. It's a "show an alternative" sort of move. Nothing more.
Why would you be proud to be a Canadian in regards to something like this? It's not like yourgovernment has ever tried this I suppose. Hmmm how very interesting.
You may be able to glean some smug satisfaction that it was eventually scrapped, but the point is the same...your government tries the exact same shitty crap in your country as certain goverment agencies try in the US. And you can bet there are governments in Europe looking at this and thinking , "Hmm, that sounds like a good idea. Let's put it to a vote at the next EU meeting." Ditto their counterparts in Australia, Asia, Africa and South America. If the bastards don't succeed this time, you can bet they'll try again somewhere else. Or maybe there is already another push underway in Canada, odds are there is. These fascists are like cockroaches, they may flee the light and hide for awhile, but they are damn hard to kill and will just wait for their next opportunity to come scuttling back from the filth.
About the only thing I can see that Canadians can be proud about is the fact that they seem to be 4 years ahead of the US in attempting to implement police-state tactics. Bravo Canada.
What on earth makes you think you can't be convicted of something based only on circumstantial evidence? Happens all the time. For that matter, circumstantial evidence is in many cases thought to be better evidence than even eyewitness testimony according to various legal experts.
Exactly. Everytime someone posts a comment to the effect that "The RIAA controls all music! We have no choice!", some fat executive in New York City lights up an expensive cigar and goes "Excellent", ala Montgomery Burns, while looking down on the huddled masses in the street.
You people were beat before you even knew that you needed to fight.
..and 10 years ago, No Annual Fee credit cards were unheard of as well. Doesn't mean things can't change or the artist couldn't simply walk away without signing and go to a smaller label that will allow them more flexibility. Or go to no label and put their music on the Net.
I'm sorry, maybe 10-15 years ago your argument would carry more weight with me. In this day and age there are just too many choices for me to feel sorry for artists.
As a recording musician, I'm interested in your opinion as to the culpability of the people who *sign* these contracts in this whole sordid mess.
Let's take a poll and see how many people don't know that signing a record contract is basically signing a deal with the devil. Sooner or later, he's coming to collect. Given that, at what point do the artists themselves begin to share some blame in their own predicament?
Obviously, no one *needs* the RIAA labels right? If you can do it yourself why can't, U2 for example? And even when we find a name musician who has "gone it alone", Prince is a good example, why don't we find them offering their works for substantially less money? For that matter, why don't more artists at least take the first step and go independent after any contracts they may have initially signed,"to get noticed", are up?
Sincerely interested in your, or any other musician's reply.
Then why do the artists continue to sign up with the RIAA labels? Are you telling me there is a person on this planet that doesn't know that record companies screw artists? So are they stupid, or what? Even if we grant that new/unknown artists may need (and I'll get into that in a sec.) the RIAA backed labels for exposure, what's the excuse for acts with a successful record or two under their belt? It seems to me, many artists could simply sign a one or two record deal, take the pittance in exchange for some exposure and then set up shop for themselves, independently. Do you think a band like U2 needs their RIAA label to promote themselves now? Why is Phish signed up with Electra? None of these guys have figured out that by dealing directly with their fans, they might do better? Artists are in it for the love of the music right? At least the one's *you* listen to I'm sure.
And about that exposure thing I mentioned earlier...why do bands need the exposure that the siren-song of the Big Record Label offers? What's wrong with staying small, playing the local clubs, printing a few CDs and Tshirts and basically staying in control? Touching thousands with your music isn't enough, you just have to be on MTv's TRL with Carson Daley? What? It's a Bling Bling world I guess.
But, if that's what they want...go for it. I don't begrudge them one bit. It's a free country and they can do what they want with their music, even if that includes selling out all control to the Labels. But I won't feel sorry for them when the machine eats them up and spits them out not owning the shirt on their back. Not one bit. There's a lot of people getting screwed in this whole mess, the artists are the last ones I'll shed a tear for. THEY perpetuate this whole thing. Fuck them.
Are you trying to compare a library, which when you borrow something from it, a physical object is checked out then returned after a set time, to mass copying and distributing of digital media without the consent of the owner? Are you really trying to do that? Are you trying to imply that Copyright Infringement is comparable to a library? Do you think everyone on kazaa or bittorrent returns the stuff they download after 2 weeks?
It's funny how people like you (not necessarily YOU, but people like you) have 10-20GB of music sitting around that they don't find "worth purchasing". They have HDs loaded with entire albums that they just can't stand. This music that they don't find "worth purchasing" gets burned onto CDs to be listened to in the car, put on portable players to be listened to on the bus, in the gym...etc, etc.
Amazing. People seem to really hang on to that crap don't they?
Way late in the game, but maybe someone will read this.
This is why I propose that the first trimester-last trimester is the only feasable compromise until we have those artificial wombs. Unfortunatly its not too likely to happen.
Really, we're not arguing the State's right to tell a women what she can do with her body now are we? You just choose a different point in time. 3rd Trimester and beyond. Nothing that you've written indicates you'd support abortion for a women one day before she was to give birth. Obviously you're comfortable with telling a women she has to carry a baby to term at least the last 3 months of her pregnancy..and for the next 18 years. I've just chosen an earlier point. Conception.
Again, for me, it all boils down to when we can say *for sure* the blob of cells becomes a human.
My position is basically this. First trimester, anybody can have an abortion for any reason. Third trimester, no way no how unless the mothers health is going to be adversely affected, or severe deformities are discovered in the fetus. The second trimester is a big grey area.
That big grey area is the crux of the matter. You don't know, no one knows, just at what point a fetus becomes "human". To arbitrarily circle dates on the calendar may seem clean and sensible to you...but what if you're wrong?
And yes, life support is needed to support premature births. I didn't think that needed to be mentioned. But really, can a healthy, full term baby live on its own? Set it on the floor and walk away...see how long it lasts. Can your 90 year old neighbor live without her heart pills?...examples of modern medicine or outside influences supporting life where the natural course of events would be for the person to die are too numerous to mention. Again, the crux of the matter is when do we decide a blob becomes a human? I put forth that we cannot know for sure, so the only sane course of action in my mind is to err on the side of caution and not allow abortions except for maybe the extreme circumstances that you have already put forth.
Your last paragraph, while I agree with it totally, is offtopic.
This isn't some sort of revelation. There are multitudes of stories on this site alone about doing this. Major backup software vendors (Veritas, Legato) all support writing their archives to disk/file locations. The homegrown solutions using tar/cpio/gzip are too numerous to mention.
Many, many companies do their daily/incremental backups to a disk location, only sending their weekly/monthly archives to tape and offsite vaulting. Another method is to have backup software writing almost continuous backups to a disk or near-line storage medium (think HSM) only to have a tape backup solution come along during off-peak hours. Yet another method is to use filesystem snapshots to create a temporary backup copy of your dataset, allowing the backup software to work against that, removing the load that a backup places on the primary dataset (such as a high volume database).
At exactly what point, which day exactly, does a fetus go from a blob of cells to a viable human being?
Can you say for sure? Do you know of any doctor that can say for sure? No? Then it seems to me that your arbitrary first trimester, second trimester lines could, in fact, be wrong.
Given advances in today's medicine who can actually say with 100% certainty when life (or humaness) begins? 8 months of pregnancy? 7? 6 months and 15 days? 5? Every year it seems that some new miracle baby survives premature birth at an earlier and earlier point in the pregnancy.
Reminds of the argument against the 21 year old drinking age...what's the difference between a 21 year old and a 20 year old 1 month before his 21st b-day? Why the arbitrary line? And that's just for the right to drink a beer in the US, just think of if the stakes were life itself.
For consistency sake, I'm also anti-death penalty for similar reasons. The chance for errors mean that the innocent could be mistakenly deprived of their life. This is unacceptable in my view.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with liberty. It's a cash replacement right? The main point of it is, like cash, it is supposed to be anonymous.
Newsflash: The US and Canada still have cash.
You could argue convenience, or coolness factors, but they really don't meet the smell test for liberty now do they?
Hell, at night, when 850 KOA out of Denver gets to jack up their signal, we could get it in north-central North Dakota on the Canadian border (Bottineau to be exact).
Ah..late nights with George Webber on KOA, those were the days.
Also, when you get that far north, you start getting all sorts of other FM stations out of Canada.
If by established you mean a guest spot on MTV's TRL, a chance to perform on the Video Music Award show right after Eminem and ultimately a triumphant testament to the human spirit type expose' on VH1's Behind the Music, after the "pressure" of being a rock star got to you and you flamed out only to come full circle and get back to your "roots", I suspect it would be hard without the RIAA.
If by established you mean a respected artist with considerably less than 1 million, but nevertheless still loyal, fans that follow your career, I would suspect one could do that without the RIAA.
How many VH1 "Behind the Music" episodes will it take before the ignorant teens get the message that signing with the Devil (RIAA labels) earns you a trip to hell? (Crappy contract, no control)
There are thousands of good musicians, just as good as any big label group, that seem to get by in life just fine with their touring and limited record sales. Why should we feel sorry for groups that go for broke and sign these get rich quick contracts, only to be burned in the end? Stop being so freakin greedy. Stay small, stay in control.
Re:American Culture Not That Bad
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 2
Commonplace?? Killing abortion doctors is commonplace? Abortion clinic bombings are commonplace? Do you have your VCR set on repeat or something?
These events, while tragic, are definitely NOT commonplace. The famous Nuremburg Files website case was declared a "true threat" and not protected by the First Amendment in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists. The last documented case of an abortion doctor being murdered was in 1998, the last attempted murder was in 1999. There have been three bombings or bombing attempts since 1999. Hardly qualifying as "commonplace".
But you do have a choice...don't buy the music. There are plenty of musicians out there who have not sold their souls to the RIAA machine. They are quite willing to offer reasonable prices for quality works. The fact that you are on the Net, posting on this forum virtually guarantees that you could find them quite easily if you wanted to.
Why do people insist on supporting artists who are clearly in it for the money? The argument "The artists are getting screwed too!" has no merit in my mind. Why should I feel sorry for them now that their deal with the devil turned sour? Also, people whining about "$18 for a CD where 90% of the songs suck is too much!" really should be asking themselves why they listen to and support such crap musicians. If I had a business where I found that my supplier was giving me 90% crap I'd get a new supplier, not rationalize my choice to continue getting crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Were you sick that day or something? Homeschooled maybe?
Oh is that all you have to do? How convenient.
What if the Toyota was actually made in America?
On the outrage meter, where should I be on this one? 1? 10? .... 11?
Just where is the quote from Jonathan that states his dream is to sell machines at Walmart? ... I see a lot of journalists pulling crap out of their asses lately, "Green quits in disgust" for example, with no attibutable quotes from any of the principles involved.
Sun isn't going to make money putting JDS on cheap PCs at Walmart. They know that. It's a "show an alternative" sort of move. Nothing more.
Frankly I expect more from the Economist.
You may be able to glean some smug satisfaction that it was eventually scrapped, but the point is the same...your government tries the exact same shitty crap in your country as certain goverment agencies try in the US. And you can bet there are governments in Europe looking at this and thinking , "Hmm, that sounds like a good idea. Let's put it to a vote at the next EU meeting." Ditto their counterparts in Australia, Asia, Africa and South America. If the bastards don't succeed this time, you can bet they'll try again somewhere else. Or maybe there is already another push underway in Canada, odds are there is. These fascists are like cockroaches, they may flee the light and hide for awhile, but they are damn hard to kill and will just wait for their next opportunity to come scuttling back from the filth.
About the only thing I can see that Canadians can be proud about is the fact that they seem to be 4 years ahead of the US in attempting to implement police-state tactics. Bravo Canada.
What on earth makes you think you can't be convicted of something based only on circumstantial evidence? Happens all the time. For that matter, circumstantial evidence is in many cases thought to be better evidence than even eyewitness testimony according to various legal experts.
Exactly. Everytime someone posts a comment to the effect that "The RIAA controls all music! We have no choice!", some fat executive in New York City lights up an expensive cigar and goes "Excellent", ala Montgomery Burns, while looking down on the huddled masses in the street.
You people were beat before you even knew that you needed to fight.
..and 10 years ago, No Annual Fee credit cards were unheard of as well. Doesn't mean things can't change or the artist couldn't simply walk away without signing and go to a smaller label that will allow them more flexibility. Or go to no label and put their music on the Net.
I'm sorry, maybe 10-15 years ago your argument would carry more weight with me. In this day and age there are just too many choices for me to feel sorry for artists.
As a recording musician, I'm interested in your opinion as to the culpability of the people who *sign* these contracts in this whole sordid mess.
Let's take a poll and see how many people don't know that signing a record contract is basically signing a deal with the devil. Sooner or later, he's coming to collect. Given that, at what point do the artists themselves begin to share some blame in their own predicament?
Obviously, no one *needs* the RIAA labels right? If you can do it yourself why can't, U2 for example? And even when we find a name musician who has "gone it alone", Prince is a good example, why don't we find them offering their works for substantially less money? For that matter, why don't more artists at least take the first step and go independent after any contracts they may have initially signed ,"to get noticed", are up?
Sincerely interested in your, or any other musician's reply.
Then why do the artists continue to sign up with the RIAA labels? Are you telling me there is a person on this planet that doesn't know that record companies screw artists? So are they stupid, or what? Even if we grant that new/unknown artists may need (and I'll get into that in a sec.) the RIAA backed labels for exposure, what's the excuse for acts with a successful record or two under their belt? It seems to me, many artists could simply sign a one or two record deal, take the pittance in exchange for some exposure and then set up shop for themselves, independently. Do you think a band like U2 needs their RIAA label to promote themselves now? Why is Phish signed up with Electra? None of these guys have figured out that by dealing directly with their fans, they might do better? Artists are in it for the love of the music right? At least the one's *you* listen to I'm sure.
And about that exposure thing I mentioned earlier...why do bands need the exposure that the siren-song of the Big Record Label offers? What's wrong with staying small, playing the local clubs, printing a few CDs and Tshirts and basically staying in control? Touching thousands with your music isn't enough, you just have to be on MTv's TRL with Carson Daley? What? It's a Bling Bling world I guess.
But, if that's what they want...go for it. I don't begrudge them one bit. It's a free country and they can do what they want with their music, even if that includes selling out all control to the Labels. But I won't feel sorry for them when the machine eats them up and spits them out not owning the shirt on their back. Not one bit. There's a lot of people getting screwed in this whole mess, the artists are the last ones I'll shed a tear for. THEY perpetuate this whole thing. Fuck them.
Are you trying to compare a library, which when you borrow something from it, a physical object is checked out then returned after a set time, to mass copying and distributing of digital media without the consent of the owner? Are you really trying to do that? Are you trying to imply that Copyright Infringement is comparable to a library? Do you think everyone on kazaa or bittorrent returns the stuff they download after 2 weeks?
It's funny how people like you (not necessarily YOU, but people like you) have 10-20GB of music sitting around that they don't find "worth purchasing". They have HDs loaded with entire albums that they just can't stand. This music that they don't find "worth purchasing" gets burned onto CDs to be listened to in the car, put on portable players to be listened to on the bus, in the gym...etc, etc.
Amazing. People seem to really hang on to that crap don't they?
A "bunch of citizens" don't have guns and don't have the power to put you in jail if you decline to contribute to their collective.
Statists just don't get it.
Way late in the game, but maybe someone will read this.
This is why I propose that the first trimester-last trimester is the only feasable compromise until we have those artificial wombs. Unfortunatly its not too likely to happen.
Really, we're not arguing the State's right to tell a women what she can do with her body now are we? You just choose a different point in time. 3rd Trimester and beyond. Nothing that you've written indicates you'd support abortion for a women one day before she was to give birth. Obviously you're comfortable with telling a women she has to carry a baby to term at least the last 3 months of her pregnancy..and for the next 18 years. I've just chosen an earlier point. Conception.
Again, for me, it all boils down to when we can say *for sure* the blob of cells becomes a human.
My position is basically this. First trimester, anybody can have an abortion for any reason. Third trimester, no way no how unless the mothers health is going to be adversely affected, or severe deformities are discovered in the fetus. The second trimester is a big grey area.
That big grey area is the crux of the matter. You don't know, no one knows, just at what point a fetus becomes "human". To arbitrarily circle dates on the calendar may seem clean and sensible to you...but what if you're wrong?
And yes, life support is needed to support premature births. I didn't think that needed to be mentioned. But really, can a healthy, full term baby live on its own? Set it on the floor and walk away...see how long it lasts. Can your 90 year old neighbor live without her heart pills? ...examples of modern medicine or outside influences supporting life where the natural course of events would be for the person to die are too numerous to mention. Again, the crux of the matter is when do we decide a blob becomes a human? I put forth that we cannot know for sure, so the only sane course of action in my mind is to err on the side of caution and not allow abortions except for maybe the extreme circumstances that you have already put forth.
Your last paragraph, while I agree with it totally, is offtopic.
This isn't some sort of revelation. There are multitudes of stories on this site alone about doing this. Major backup software vendors (Veritas, Legato) all support writing their archives to disk/file locations. The homegrown solutions using tar/cpio/gzip are too numerous to mention.
Many, many companies do their daily/incremental backups to a disk location, only sending their weekly/monthly archives to tape and offsite vaulting. Another method is to have backup software writing almost continuous backups to a disk or near-line storage medium (think HSM) only to have a tape backup solution come along during off-peak hours. Yet another method is to use filesystem snapshots to create a temporary backup copy of your dataset, allowing the backup software to work against that, removing the load that a backup places on the primary dataset (such as a high volume database).
Smart IT managers have figured this out long ago.
At exactly what point, which day exactly, does a fetus go from a blob of cells to a viable human being?
Can you say for sure? Do you know of any doctor that can say for sure? No? Then it seems to me that your arbitrary first trimester, second trimester lines could, in fact, be wrong.
Given advances in today's medicine who can actually say with 100% certainty when life (or humaness) begins? 8 months of pregnancy? 7? 6 months and 15 days? 5? Every year it seems that some new miracle baby survives premature birth at an earlier and earlier point in the pregnancy.
Reminds of the argument against the 21 year old drinking age...what's the difference between a 21 year old and a 20 year old 1 month before his 21st b-day? Why the arbitrary line? And that's just for the right to drink a beer in the US, just think of if the stakes were life itself.
For consistency sake, I'm also anti-death penalty for similar reasons. The chance for errors mean that the innocent could be mistakenly deprived of their life. This is unacceptable in my view.
"Just following orders" didn't work for many Germans in WWII, I don't see why it would work now.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with liberty. It's a cash replacement right? The main point of it is, like cash, it is supposed to be anonymous.
Newsflash: The US and Canada still have cash.
You could argue convenience, or coolness factors, but they really don't meet the smell test for liberty now do they?
Hell, at night, when 850 KOA out of Denver gets to jack up their signal, we could get it in north-central North Dakota on the Canadian border (Bottineau to be exact).
Ah..late nights with George Webber on KOA, those were the days.
Also, when you get that far north, you start getting all sorts of other FM stations out of Canada.
If by established you mean a guest spot on MTV's TRL, a chance to perform on the Video Music Award show right after Eminem and ultimately a triumphant testament to the human spirit type expose' on VH1's Behind the Music, after the "pressure" of being a rock star got to you and you flamed out only to come full circle and get back to your "roots", I suspect it would be hard without the RIAA.
If by established you mean a respected artist with considerably less than 1 million, but nevertheless still loyal, fans that follow your career, I would suspect one could do that without the RIAA.
How many VH1 "Behind the Music" episodes will it take before the ignorant teens get the message that signing with the Devil (RIAA labels) earns you a trip to hell? (Crappy contract, no control)
There are thousands of good musicians, just as good as any big label group, that seem to get by in life just fine with their touring and limited record sales. Why should we feel sorry for groups that go for broke and sign these get rich quick contracts, only to be burned in the end? Stop being so freakin greedy. Stay small, stay in control.
Commonplace?? Killing abortion doctors is commonplace? Abortion clinic bombings are commonplace? Do you have your VCR set on repeat or something?
These events, while tragic, are definitely NOT commonplace. The famous Nuremburg Files website case was declared a "true threat" and not protected by the First Amendment in Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists. The last documented case of an abortion doctor being murdered was in 1998, the last attempted murder was in 1999. There have been three bombings or bombing attempts since 1999. Hardly qualifying as "commonplace".
Info
You should look into ratcheting down the rhetoric.
For god's sakes people, Blade did a WWF-style suplex as one of his fighting moves!! And the the other guy did a flying elbow..OFF THE CEILING!!
Even the gay ass Anne Rice vampires are better than this WWF-Smackdown version. Blade II is an insult to good vampire movies. And good action movies.
Oh, and Kris Kristopherson should try finding roles that have less gratuitous use of the word "cunt-hair", it doesn't suit him.
But you do have a choice...don't buy the music. There are plenty of musicians out there who have not sold their souls to the RIAA machine. They are quite willing to offer reasonable prices for quality works. The fact that you are on the Net, posting on this forum virtually guarantees that you could find them quite easily if you wanted to.
Why do people insist on supporting artists who are clearly in it for the money? The argument "The artists are getting screwed too!" has no merit in my mind. Why should I feel sorry for them now that their deal with the devil turned sour? Also, people whining about "$18 for a CD where 90% of the songs suck is too much!" really should be asking themselves why they listen to and support such crap musicians. If I had a business where I found that my supplier was giving me 90% crap I'd get a new supplier, not rationalize my choice to continue getting crap.