Wrong. It's the organizers who are the most valuable, which is why they tend to make the most money.
This got me thinking. Why not get rid of the performers all together since they are unimportant. I am a musician, and I would love to hear my booker do my gigs - really. That the music cartells have monopolized music distribution to the point where unless you kiss their nether sections it's hard to get work says that we have a problem with the music distribution mechanism not that the "Organizers" have anyinherent greater value to the process. Or maybe I'm totally off base and my booker is really hot on stage. I doubt it though.
I will have to make that decision soon. Checked out the new 9-3. No headroom. Rear end looks like a Honda. Plastic headlight lenses. Less legroom than my current 900s. Verry sad day. GM ruined that company IMHO. Considering a BMW and _that_ after a number of Swedes. Yup. Sad day.
Bullshit! A business's responsibility is to its stockholders, not its customers, not its partners or anyone else for that matter.
If anyone wants to know why American Capitalism is failing this view says it all. Customers don't mean shit. The unfortunate thing is so many people believe this bullshit that it's hard to speak otherwise.
Here is an idea. Start a _privately_ owned company and make a product and tell me again why customers don't matter. Seems that the minute the company goes public they are no longer in business to make anyone but Wall Street happy. This kind of idiotic thinking has just got to stop.
Only 10 percent of U.S. households subscribe to high-speed access, lower than the rate in Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong or Canada. You would think this line alone would get some action on this. But the entrenched powers would rather see broad band die on the vine RIAA/MPAA.
An interesting point, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not represent a particularly large segment of the American population or their beliefs.
This is irrelevant, with respect to the argument of separation of church and state. 200 Years ago it was the majority view in the south that blacks were inferior and hence the concept of slavery was valid. We look back on that now with revulsion. So then if the majority view cannot over ride the documents that define the nation. Simply put, the US has a constitution that defines how the church and state interact. The issue of embriotic destruction is a religious one and should not be federally precluded.
Nearly all software creations fail this simple litmus test.
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the patent office is smarter than we give them credit for. It's possible they realize that these patents are all unenforceable and is granting them in the hope that the whole software patent system implodes from the sheer number of bad patents. When it becomes clear that 80% of software patents are bad then they will suggest to the congress that this part of the patent system be scrapped. So in effect they are letting the system fall apart by inaction. Lets try to patent the bubble sort and see what happens:^)
He is not the current president. That he had some flaws does not give the current President the right to do stupid things. The line of logic "They all do it" is flawed and doesn't address the real problem. If a conservative litmus test is required before appointment to a review board that should be objective, why bother to have the board at all. Clinton is not the current president and can't run again so brining him into this debate is pointless. Either the current administrations policy is good or it is, as I believe, flawed. That is the issue.
Posting as an AC on this issue should give a clue
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
as to the real intent of the post. Either trolling or deliberately flame baiting. Your response is dead on though. Im so tired of people who believe that because they are uninformed enough to make an objective decision that all scientists are. Yes scientists are human and have biases but the better ones try real hard to put those biases aside when doing research. The ones like the AC from above simply state all research is biased so research that favours their views is just as good as any.
While you have a right to make copies for personal use, equipment and content companies are not obliged to provide the ability to make copies to you.
This logic is flawed. If you have the right to do something then they can't make laws that completely prevent you from exercising that right. If they make copying of digital materials impossible by technical means and combine this with laws that make the circumvention of these means illegal, then they have by definition taken a right away.
So if I understand you correctly, you agree then, that we should not have fair use rights. If that is your position then the logic becomes consistent.
Fine. They want to sell different versions in different countries, I don't see a problem with that. But the lock that prevents cross-usage is still no justified by a ratings difference. Sorry.
Eventually you're going to get a government almost wholly controlled by these huge corporations with big pockets who just want to protect their own interests
Eventually? From where I sit, it seems like that's already happened. The US needs to do something about who and how much can be contributed to campaigns.
This is to be expected. Whenever you try to plug dissimilar systems together you get the common denominator effect. Recall the old cross-platform applications back when there were legitimately multiple available operating systems:^).
But seriously, The solution to this is a uniform set of laws internationally and a uniform set of constitutional rights. Since national sovereignty isn't going away anytime soon we have an impasse. So common denominator effect rules and there isn't much you can do about it. Hiding behind sovereignty will only last a while since economic dependencies will eventually override this last wall of defense.
Expect things to get allot worse before they get any better since the people who can effect the needed changes have to answer to constituents who won't stand for dilution of their rights or ill-gotten privileges.
The Internet was to bring us all together - what we didn't realise is that we don't really all LIKE each other, but the genie is out of the bottle so hang on it's gonna get rough.
"feeds a growing black economy in which criminal networks use piracy to fund other activities such as drug dealing, arms trading, money laundering and terrorism."
Always add that line if you want sympathy for your intrinsically bad plan.
Other infringers, including companies and individuals who buy the counterfeit material, would be fined an amount equal to the retail value of what has been stolen.
This seems a little onerous. Noting that the people who buy this stuff would ever pay full price anyway, this seems like a guaranteed income handout to the business conglomerates. Money talks...
Keeping the operating system with the PC is not just a great benefit - it is a legal requirement. Isn't it illegal for them to say this if it isn't true?
It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine. If a company or individual donates a machine to your school, it must be donated with the operating system that was installed on the PC.
If I delete the Windows OS from the HD and burn the original disks and install Linux, have I done something illegal? I don't think so. So this seems misleading or worse illegal.
Using the word "Piracy" to imply copyright infringement equates the act with robbery on the high seas, a form of thievery that can include killing of the innocents on the ship targeted by the pirates. While I don't condone copyright infringement, demonizing it as "Piracy" seems a bit much. I can define for myself what I will equate with killing on the high seas. Sharing an MP3 with a friend is NOT one of them. </General service announcement >
Slashdot Mirror
and was instrumental in starting the ball rolling on the extensions to copyright. Thing is, so much of his work was taken from others.
Hypocrite.
This got me thinking. Why not get rid of the performers all together since they are unimportant. I am a musician, and I would love to hear my booker do my gigs - really. That the music cartells have monopolized music distribution to the point where unless you kiss their nether sections it's hard to get work says that we have a problem with the music distribution mechanism not that the "Organizers" have anyinherent greater value to the process. Or maybe I'm totally off base and my booker is really hot on stage. I doubt it though.
I will have to make that decision soon. Checked out the new 9-3.
No headroom. Rear end looks like a Honda. Plastic headlight lenses.
Less legroom than my current 900s. Verry sad day. GM ruined that company IMHO. Considering a BMW and _that_ after a number of Swedes.
Yup. Sad day.
A business's responsibility is to its stockholders, not its customers, not its partners or anyone else for that matter.
If anyone wants to know why American Capitalism is failing this view says it all. Customers don't mean shit. The unfortunate thing is so many people believe this bullshit that it's hard to speak otherwise.
Here is an idea. Start a _privately_ owned company and make a product and tell me again why customers don't matter. Seems that the minute the company goes public they are no longer in business to make anyone but Wall Street happy. This kind of idiotic thinking has just got to stop.
With the downturn in the IT industry this isn't surprising.
Who can even think about looking at new stuff when they
are looking for a job.
Moderat Up Insightfull.
History will show this to be true. I just hope he doesn't do too much
damage while he is there.
It was on FOX last night after the baseball game.
Funny.
Only 10 percent of U.S. households subscribe to high-speed access, lower
than the rate in Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong or Canada.
You would think this line alone would get some action on this. But the
entrenched powers would rather see broad band die on the vine RIAA/MPAA.
particularly large segment of the American population or their beliefs.
This is irrelevant, with respect to the argument of separation of
church and state. 200 Years ago it was the majority view in the south
that blacks were inferior and hence the concept of slavery was valid.
We look back on that now with revulsion. So then if the majority view
cannot over ride the documents that define the nation. Simply put, the US
has a constitution that defines how the church and state interact.
The issue of embriotic destruction is a religious one and should not
be federally precluded.
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the patent office is smarter than
we give them credit for. It's possible they realize that these patents
are all unenforceable and is granting them in the hope that the whole
software patent system implodes from the sheer number of bad patents.
When it becomes clear that 80% of software patents are bad then they
will suggest to the congress that this part of the patent system be
scrapped. So in effect they are letting the system fall apart by
inaction. Lets try to patent the bubble sort and see what happens:^)
He is not the current president. That he had some flaws does not give
the current President the right to do stupid things. The line of logic
"They all do it" is flawed and doesn't address the real problem. If
a conservative litmus test is required before appointment to a review
board that should be objective, why bother to have the board at all.
Clinton is not the current president and can't run again so brining
him into this debate is pointless. Either the current administrations
policy is good or it is, as I believe, flawed. That is the issue.
as to the real intent of the post. Either trolling or deliberately flame
baiting. Your response is dead on though. Im so tired of people who believe
that because they are uninformed enough to make an objective decision that
all scientists are. Yes scientists are human and have biases but the better
ones try real hard to put those biases aside when doing research. The ones
like the AC from above simply state all research is biased so research that
favours their views is just as good as any.
content companies are not obliged to provide the ability to make copies to
you.
This logic is flawed. If you have the right to do something then they
can't make laws that completely prevent you from exercising that right.
If they make copying of digital materials impossible by technical means
and combine this with laws that make the circumvention of these means
illegal, then they have by definition taken a right away.
So if I understand you correctly, you agree then, that we should not
have fair use rights. If that is your position then the logic becomes
consistent.
Fine. They want to sell different versions in different countries, I don't
see a problem with that. But the lock that prevents cross-usage is still
no justified by a ratings difference. Sorry.
Eventually you're going to get a government almost wholly controlled by
these huge corporations with big pockets who just want to protect their own
interests
Eventually? From where I sit, it seems like that's already happened. The
US needs to do something about who and how much can be contributed to
campaigns.
Whatever happened to campaign finance reform?
This is to be expected. Whenever you try to plug dissimilar systems :^).
together you get the common denominator effect. Recall the old
cross-platform applications back when there were legitimately
multiple available operating systems
But seriously, The solution to this is a uniform set of laws
internationally and a uniform set of constitutional rights.
Since national sovereignty isn't going away anytime soon we have
an impasse. So common denominator effect rules and there isn't
much you can do about it. Hiding behind sovereignty will only
last a while since economic dependencies will eventually
override this last wall of defense.
Expect things to get allot worse before they get any better since
the people who can effect the needed changes have to answer to
constituents who won't stand for dilution of their rights or
ill-gotten privileges.
The Internet was to bring us all together - what we didn't realise
is that we don't really all LIKE each other, but the genie is out of
the bottle so hang on it's gonna get rough.
piracy to fund other activities such as drug dealing, arms trading,
money laundering and terrorism."
Always add that line if you want sympathy for your intrinsically bad plan.
Other infringers, including companies and individuals who buy the
counterfeit material, would be fined an amount equal to the retail value of
what has been stolen.
This seems a little onerous. Noting that the people who buy this stuff ...
would ever pay full price anyway, this seems like a guaranteed income
handout to the business conglomerates. Money talks
At least you are honnest! :^)
Keeping the operating system with the PC is not just a great benefit - it is a legal requirement.
Isn't it illegal for them to say this if it isn't true?
Since you can throw away the original disks if you install say, Linux, wouldn't this document be misleading in a legal sense and thus be illegal?
If I delete the Windows OS from the HD and burn the original disks and install Linux, have I done something illegal? I don't think so. So this seems misleading or worse illegal.
Let's not buy into the propaganda!
Using the word "Piracy" to imply copyright infringement equates the act with robbery
on the high seas, a form of thievery that can include killing of the innocents on the
ship targeted by the pirates. While I don't condone copyright infringement, demonizing
it as "Piracy" seems a bit much. I can define for myself what I will equate with killing
on the high seas. Sharing an MP3 with a friend is NOT one of them.
</General service announcement >
I was wondering about the numbers myself.
Great Post.