It's not theft. Theft is depriving another of physical property of value, including data. The RIAA was not deprived of data in any way. They were deprived of their right to be the sole distributor of that data. That's it. And you punish the RIAA by not buying from artists associated with them and their membership. Thus, the artists on that list are the ones to be most blamed, as I'm sure they'd had to have heard of it, and any one of them could have come forward and said "$1.9M? Holy shit, are you people insane?" But they didn't. So they must think it fair, since they're the whole reason the RIAA has any power to begin with.
"She still spilled it." I believe there's a bit about the lids not fitting properly. That sorta negates your in-no-way-parallel example. Especially since your father is unlikely to have made the tea to 180, and I doubt the friend received 3rd degree burns.
Seems to me, you're looking at it from the wrong side. Why should he have to answer a question they have no right asking, just to make his flight and save hassle? If they didn't know whether or not he had to legally answer, they either should have called someone who did, or backed off. As it is, that's blatant intimidation. "We will get the DEA, FBI, and all those." "answer us or we will get you in a world of shit." They chose the intimidation tactic instead of answering his damned question about whether he had to answer or not.
This isn't even the first time the bill's been proposed. As another provided a link to a Michael Geist post, this almost exact bill has been proposed by the Liberals previously. The fact that both the Liberals AND Conservatives have proposed it lends credence to your point.
Further more, even if it WAS a legitimate push, it's only been introduced. The amount of stuff that's introduced and just dies in committee is rather staggering. If this makes it past first vote, I'd be stunned.
Still writing my rep to let them know my thoughts, though.
It's a complete waste of effort. The economy grows because we produce things, not because we dig holes and fill them up.
So when your city raises taxes to fix the roads in the area no one is living in, and spend resources to fix water mains and sewers in those areas, instead of improving services in areas with people actually there, that's a good thing, right? More taxes for maintenance = good thing?
It works with other browsers, you just need to have it running on the machine that's sharing. You don't need to have it on every computer you're using.
I don't have one yet due to budget contraints, but as soon as I can afford one I'm getting it.
This. This is the key phrase.
In order to get the best results, you need one large enough to keep the OS and all your apps on. If you're not doing that, you're not going to see consistent benefits. Now, go price me a 256GB SSD. I found one for $4k. If you can find one for under $3k, I'd be surprised. You might be able to get by with a 128GB on a desktop, if you're very frugal keeping your data on a separate drive. 64GB on a laptop, but you mentions an i7, so that's immaterial. If you're getting an i7, you're doing things which require large installs, which means you need a good-sized drive.
Risk vs. reward. It's like waiting for the walk light at a street corner. If it's noon, and heavy traffic, you've a high risk of being hit, and the reward is only crossing the street sooner.
If it's midnight, and there's no/almost no traffic, crossing the street without the light has low risk, and you're saving some time.
People hedging against a currency crash in a *Sane* fashion are crossing the street against the light at midnight. People who do it recklessly are crossing at noon. Thus, you can have a reasonable fear of something with a low probability by weighing the risks of ignoring the situation (if/until) it becomes critical vs. the situation never happening.
I believe there's been multiple rulings that ISPs are not responsible for the data that flows through their servers, so long as they're not personally hosting it. Even then, it's damned hard to do anything if they ARE hosting it.
First, felony perjury is rarely prosecuted. Secondly, the RIAA has repeatedly said that it's not about the money. It's about the fear. (paraphrasing, of course). They want to make anyone afraid that if they get that letter, they could face years in front of a court, and lose everything to legal fees, judgement of insane proportions or not.
See, you started off so well, and then your argument went to crap.
Yes, they should be able to decide what standard to make their handset for (CDMA, GMS, whatever), but why should that prevent me from using the phone with any carrier who supports it? It's not the handset makers that make the deals, it's the carriers. They know people want certain phones, and those people are willing to change carriers to get them.
It's like ISPs selling cheap computers on signing a contract, and instead of competing on how fast/stable their connections are, they're competing based on one sells computers with Intel chips, and the other AMD. Either one, theoretically, should be able to work on the network, and if you wanted to, you could go get one for more from somewhere else, and it would work on either one. But they're still competing based purely on how you're accessing their network, not on why you should choose them.
People with old computers have their hardware already. They probably won't buy new stuff. We want to target the people buying new stuff. We will now devote our power to making our new stuff work with other new stuff. If someone with old stuff wants our new stuff, they can go get an old version of our stuff, or get all new stuff.
I'll like OS X as soon as I can resize windows from any point, not just the bottom corner. Do I have other issues with it? Fuck yeah. But that's bar none the one that pisses me off the most every time I run against it.
AMEN! Anyone who thinks Vista worse than ME obviously never used one of them, and possibly both. ME was a steaming pile of crap. Doesn't get any worse than that. I'd rather use the most obscure, niggly *nix distro than ME.
If it's anything like my machine, the RC for Win7 installed fine, and grabbed drivers for what it needed during install.
Installed on my desktop, took less than an hour to be on the internet. Installed on my laptop, took a bit longer, since it's not as powerful, but still, didn't need to modify or get anything manually.
It may not be infinitely better, but it's sure as heck not worse. Oh dear, you mean Vista uses more resources? Well, considering even playing fucking CRYSIS, I've got a GB of RAM idle, and some cores on my CPU not maxed, I'd say the overhead on Vista is hardly crippling to anyone with a machine made after 2005.
I'm not going to go in to the reasons why people viewing it as worse are wrong, besides to point out that a friend of mine almost had a damned fit when I suggested she go from her Macbook, which was having insane amounts of compatability issues, to a Vista laptop, despite the fact she'd never even seen it, simply because her other friends had bitched about it, and not a single one of them was even a "moderate" user.
Well, most physicists would consider it "creating" energy, as you're destroying mass, not just converting bonds/states. But otherwise, if you believe Sci-Fi, to "create" energy, we'd have to tap subspace, or alternate universes.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not theft. Theft is depriving another of physical property of value, including data. The RIAA was not deprived of data in any way. They were deprived of their right to be the sole distributor of that data. That's it. And you punish the RIAA by not buying from artists associated with them and their membership. Thus, the artists on that list are the ones to be most blamed, as I'm sure they'd had to have heard of it, and any one of them could have come forward and said "$1.9M? Holy shit, are you people insane?" But they didn't. So they must think it fair, since they're the whole reason the RIAA has any power to begin with.
That is two days of her profits from the pirated music,
So... nothing? She had no profits off it.
Depends on the type of bankruptcy. Sometimes, they can garnish your earnings for years.
"She still spilled it." I believe there's a bit about the lids not fitting properly. That sorta negates your in-no-way-parallel example. Especially since your father is unlikely to have made the tea to 180, and I doubt the friend received 3rd degree burns.
I dunno, I've seen funnier stuff on CollegeHumor.
Seems to me, you're looking at it from the wrong side. Why should he have to answer a question they have no right asking, just to make his flight and save hassle? If they didn't know whether or not he had to legally answer, they either should have called someone who did, or backed off. As it is, that's blatant intimidation. "We will get the DEA, FBI, and all those." "answer us or we will get you in a world of shit." They chose the intimidation tactic instead of answering his damned question about whether he had to answer or not.
This isn't even the first time the bill's been proposed. As another provided a link to a Michael Geist post, this almost exact bill has been proposed by the Liberals previously. The fact that both the Liberals AND Conservatives have proposed it lends credence to your point.
Further more, even if it WAS a legitimate push, it's only been introduced. The amount of stuff that's introduced and just dies in committee is rather staggering. If this makes it past first vote, I'd be stunned.
Still writing my rep to let them know my thoughts, though.
Better not google "bukkake" then.
It's a complete waste of effort. The economy grows because we produce things, not because we dig holes and fill them up.
So when your city raises taxes to fix the roads in the area no one is living in, and spend resources to fix water mains and sewers in those areas, instead of improving services in areas with people actually there, that's a good thing, right? More taxes for maintenance = good thing?
http://www.cracked.com/article_15130_reasons-george-w-bush-isnt-as-stupid-as-you-think.html
It works with other browsers, you just need to have it running on the machine that's sharing. You don't need to have it on every computer you're using.
Wow, I dunno what the fuck I found before. $4k? Disregard, I'm a fuck-up apparently.
I don't have one yet due to budget contraints, but as soon as I can afford one I'm getting it.
This. This is the key phrase.
In order to get the best results, you need one large enough to keep the OS and all your apps on. If you're not doing that, you're not going to see consistent benefits. Now, go price me a 256GB SSD. I found one for $4k. If you can find one for under $3k, I'd be surprised. You might be able to get by with a 128GB on a desktop, if you're very frugal keeping your data on a separate drive. 64GB on a laptop, but you mentions an i7, so that's immaterial. If you're getting an i7, you're doing things which require large installs, which means you need a good-sized drive.
Risk vs. reward. It's like waiting for the walk light at a street corner. If it's noon, and heavy traffic, you've a high risk of being hit, and the reward is only crossing the street sooner.
If it's midnight, and there's no/almost no traffic, crossing the street without the light has low risk, and you're saving some time.
People hedging against a currency crash in a *Sane* fashion are crossing the street against the light at midnight. People who do it recklessly are crossing at noon. Thus, you can have a reasonable fear of something with a low probability by weighing the risks of ignoring the situation (if/until) it becomes critical vs. the situation never happening.
I believe there's been multiple rulings that ISPs are not responsible for the data that flows through their servers, so long as they're not personally hosting it. Even then, it's damned hard to do anything if they ARE hosting it.
First, felony perjury is rarely prosecuted. Secondly, the RIAA has repeatedly said that it's not about the money. It's about the fear. (paraphrasing, of course). They want to make anyone afraid that if they get that letter, they could face years in front of a court, and lose everything to legal fees, judgement of insane proportions or not.
You don't need a grand jury for a civil case.
See, you started off so well, and then your argument went to crap.
Yes, they should be able to decide what standard to make their handset for (CDMA, GMS, whatever), but why should that prevent me from using the phone with any carrier who supports it? It's not the handset makers that make the deals, it's the carriers. They know people want certain phones, and those people are willing to change carriers to get them.
It's like ISPs selling cheap computers on signing a contract, and instead of competing on how fast/stable their connections are, they're competing based on one sells computers with Intel chips, and the other AMD. Either one, theoretically, should be able to work on the network, and if you wanted to, you could go get one for more from somewhere else, and it would work on either one. But they're still competing based purely on how you're accessing their network, not on why you should choose them.
Hardware manufacturers look at it like this:
People with old computers have their hardware already. They probably won't buy new stuff. We want to target the people buying new stuff. We will now devote our power to making our new stuff work with other new stuff. If someone with old stuff wants our new stuff, they can go get an old version of our stuff, or get all new stuff.
Thus: Anyone with XP doesn't need their support.
I'll like OS X as soon as I can resize windows from any point, not just the bottom corner. Do I have other issues with it? Fuck yeah. But that's bar none the one that pisses me off the most every time I run against it.
AMEN! Anyone who thinks Vista worse than ME obviously never used one of them, and possibly both. ME was a steaming pile of crap. Doesn't get any worse than that. I'd rather use the most obscure, niggly *nix distro than ME.
If it's anything like my machine, the RC for Win7 installed fine, and grabbed drivers for what it needed during install.
Installed on my desktop, took less than an hour to be on the internet. Installed on my laptop, took a bit longer, since it's not as powerful, but still, didn't need to modify or get anything manually.
It may not be infinitely better, but it's sure as heck not worse. Oh dear, you mean Vista uses more resources? Well, considering even playing fucking CRYSIS, I've got a GB of RAM idle, and some cores on my CPU not maxed, I'd say the overhead on Vista is hardly crippling to anyone with a machine made after 2005.
I'm not going to go in to the reasons why people viewing it as worse are wrong, besides to point out that a friend of mine almost had a damned fit when I suggested she go from her Macbook, which was having insane amounts of compatability issues, to a Vista laptop, despite the fact she'd never even seen it, simply because her other friends had bitched about it, and not a single one of them was even a "moderate" user.
Well, most physicists would consider it "creating" energy, as you're destroying mass, not just converting bonds/states. But otherwise, if you believe Sci-Fi, to "create" energy, we'd have to tap subspace, or alternate universes.