Unfortunately, this was my first thought when I awoke this morning. I suppose we can all only be thankful that Fox now has more room in their schedule for "reality" shows, When Car Chasing High-Speed Animals are Attacked by Couples Married by America, and some other nonsense about objects removed from people in emergency rooms.
I truly am disgusted with television, and really only look forward to The Simpsons and B5 reruns. I can't see anything coming up that remotely appeals to me.
Stallman actively seeks to destroy anyone that wants to get paid for writing software (he spins it as "no one should be forced to pay for software", "information wants to be free", etc.). Stallman will do anything if it means that his vision of free software (his "final solution" if you will) will be realized.
Far be it from me to be confrontational on Slashdot, but this isn't actually true. There is, in fact, an article put out by the Free Software Foundation on this very subject. RMS has stated time and again that he does not care if software is free as in beer-he believes it should be free as in freedom. If I am not horribly mistaken, the FSF themselves sell quite a bit of GPL'd software (and t-shirts and other goodies).
Yes, a bridge maker can be sued for not putting up that sign. Or at least the bridge's "authority" can be.
Not that I think the suit is anything but silly, but there you go.
This "story" was touched on during the radio Wall Street Journal report this morning. My thought after it completed was, "sheesh, that isn't any kind of news-does the Wall Street Journal suddenly have some reason to run down TIVO?"
The radio version managed to not mention Amazon at all, but did link the "pregnant gay man" to TIVO.
I've noticed this on a few new channels-VH1 Country sticks in my mind, as well as all the extra Discovery channels that popped up recently. Commercials seem to only show up every 45 minutes or so (VH1) or are little more than promos for other shows on the channel (the Discovery "set").
So what's the point? I'm afraid it won't last. If these channels get more popular the commercials will undoubtedly increase. Enjoy the 45 minute music sets while they last.
Perhaps this is slightly off topic, but who controls the copyrights for the commercial content within a given television program? If someone illegaly distributes a copy of Friends, will they just be hassled by NBC, or will they also receive love notes from McDonald's, AT&T, and whatever company makes Tampax?
This leads to another question. Is it illegal to distribute commercials without the television program? Can someone be sued for showing a friend an illegaly copied Mastercard commercial? How about a commercial for out-of-market products?
"According to a legend initially popularized by German immigrants, winter will continue for another month and a half if the groundhog sees his shadow on Gobbler's Knob, the site of the annual event. If he does not, there will be an early spring."
Slashdot Mirror
Huntington.
Works fine with Mozilla/Firefox.
Unfortunately, this was my first thought when I awoke this morning. I suppose we can all only be thankful that Fox now has more room in their schedule for "reality" shows, When Car Chasing High-Speed Animals are Attacked by Couples Married by America, and some other nonsense about objects removed from people in emergency rooms.
I truly am disgusted with television, and really only look forward to The Simpsons and B5 reruns. I can't see anything coming up that remotely appeals to me.
Far be it from me to be confrontational on Slashdot, but this isn't actually true. There is, in fact, an article put out by the Free Software Foundation on this very subject.
RMS has stated time and again that he does not care if software is free as in beer-he believes it should be free as in freedom. If I am not horribly mistaken, the FSF themselves sell quite a bit of GPL'd software (and t-shirts and other goodies).
Yes, a bridge maker can be sued for not putting up that sign. Or at least the bridge's "authority" can be. Not that I think the suit is anything but silly, but there you go.
This "story" was touched on during the radio Wall Street Journal report this morning. My thought after it completed was, "sheesh, that isn't any kind of news-does the Wall Street Journal suddenly have some reason to run down TIVO?"
The radio version managed to not mention Amazon at all, but did link the "pregnant gay man" to TIVO.
Assuming I am "recalling correctly."
I've noticed this on a few new channels-VH1 Country sticks in my mind, as well as all the extra Discovery channels that popped up recently. Commercials seem to only show up every 45 minutes or so (VH1) or are little more than promos for other shows on the channel (the Discovery "set").
So what's the point? I'm afraid it won't last. If these channels get more popular the commercials will undoubtedly increase. Enjoy the 45 minute music sets while they last.
You're right, though, VH1-Classic rocks.
Perhaps this is slightly off topic, but who controls the copyrights for the commercial content within a given television program? If someone illegaly distributes a copy of Friends, will they just be hassled by NBC, or will they also receive love notes from McDonald's, AT&T, and whatever company makes Tampax?
This leads to another question. Is it illegal to distribute commercials without the television program? Can someone be sued for showing a friend an illegaly copied Mastercard commercial? How about a commercial for out-of-market products?
Terrifying thoughts.
"According to a legend initially popularized by German immigrants, winter will continue for another month and a half if the groundhog sees his shadow on Gobbler's Knob, the site of the annual event. If he does not, there will be an early spring."
The article can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2 000/US/02/02/groundhog.day.reut/index.html.
Wow, that's the first CNN URL since...errr..earlier this morning...to have all even numbers. Alert the press!
Todd