Let them price themselves to death. There are other ways to produce music that do not involve the RIAA. You should know that there are other ways to produce and deliver music that do not involve the RIAA. Musicians can now deliver direct to customers and there are distribution companies that do not involve the RIAA. If you are still listening to commercial music under this Union then it is your own fault that you are paying outrageous prices that often (usually) benefit the distribution companies at the expense of the artist. The ones who benefit from the RIAA are the mega stars of music. But is there music really that good? Or are you convinced that you like them through a barrage of marketing and advertising? The answer is: they are not that good and you are conditioned to like what you think you naturally like. In reality there is a lot of great music out there and it is totally free. Why? Because the artist is more interested in marketing themselves then making money off every single listener.
The future of music distribution is dead. The reason is that you the consumer pay the bulk of distribution costs already. You pay for bandwidth through your ISP and this is how the music travels from the producer to the listener. Since the cost of physical distribution is approaching $0, the value of the distribution company is also reaching $0. So the distribution companies and the RIAA are working hard to convince you that alternate channels are evil and wrong... such as the illegal closing of MegaUpload.
You should look at http://jamendo.com/ for a large list of free music. Start downloading your own list of free music under the creative commons or similar licenses. Then share your favourite songs with ur friends. Then someday soon, your friends will share new free music with you. When that day arrives, you can forget about RIAA and the distributors marketing attempts to convince you that what you want is what they sell.
Occasionally glancing at your cellphone while getting black out drunk with your idiot friends doesn't sound like work to me...
Having to check my cellphone for work while getting drunk with friends does sound like work to me. Otherwiese, you are a manager and do not understand the perspective of an employee or the concept of free time.
The money is not wasted. The pipeline is almost finished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline). By 2014 we should begin to see significant ROI for this at the expense of Russia and Iran. Also, u r not considering the oil imports already attained from both Afghanistan and Iraq. These investments under the guise of a war will pay dividends over time, but u will never be directly informed of it.
The UK government is bluffing. Does anyone seriously think their government will upset international relations over this? They are simply stating that they could do it in order to see if it gets results. However, if something like this does happen, I will wonder who is really pulling the strings over there.
Thank you for saying that. So many Americans completely ignore how important the French were in achieving independence. The primary reason was their hatred for British rule, and some will say they were "used", but the reality is we owe the French for our freedom. Also Ben Franklin was a great man.
And FB will have cash until the users stop showing up.
I'm curious about how the exodus will happen. I don't see it going to G+, really
My prediction is that facebook will be taken over by Google. At first there will be a lot of debate about what will happen to facebook, but slowly and steadily facebook will get better and better. The name will remain 'facebook' and slowly people will overlook that it is another arm of Google and just use it. G+ will remain in existence, but slowly fall out of favour. Security and privacy on facebook will improve and less will complain about it. G+ will still exist, but just stay in the shadows. Integration between G+ and facebook will improve.
This is what happened with Google Video and Youtube. This is what will happen to facebook. IMO
I actually agree with you on this. Maybe u are kidding, but I think gender should be removed from all competitions. Also, I think all "art" should be removed from the games. If you can't clearly measure the winner, then it is not a real game. In summer games, this means that most gymnastics is out. And in winter games, figure skating is out.
The problem is, how do you enforce the patent when people are printing the devices in their basement. You can't go after someone for releasing plans they drew up themselves, as long as they aren't a copy of your originals, and even if they were, the plans are just downloadable files, and we know how well that's working out for the movie and music industries.
As far as I know, there is no law preventing u from making a patented device on your own. The patent prevents you from making and selling the patented item. I believe you can make ur own iphone if u know how to. But you just cant start a business selling it. Patents are not about preventing you from knowing about how something is made... it is exactly the opposite. It is about pretecting the value of the idea... and that means sales. Patents do not make it illegal to do what you know how on your own time and for your own purposes.
In regard to making items from a 3d printer. I dont see how they (patent holders) will be able to stop people from making replicas of the protected item. Especially if the 3d printer plans are passed around for free. You just wont be able to sell or make a profit from the end result. One limiting factor of current 3d printers is on the materials that can be printed. So this issue will only apply to some products. Also, the cost of materials is much higher when printing yourself over the cost of mass production in a factory. So there is limits on what you can make and duplicate. For example, as far as I know, you cannot print electronics yet.
My personal opinion is that this will effect after market repairs more then anything else. Like when a part breaks in your fridge, car, toilet or dishwasher. I suspect in those cases it would be very useful to just print your own part and replace it yourself. Who know... in the future, some companies may just provide you with the 3d plans for parts that wear out in order to meet customer demand for service and improve loyalty.
No, because you criticized him, not harassed him as he did with Daley.
Can you please explain how u feel this is harassement? Saying offensive things is not the same as harassment, so please tell me exactly how you equate the possible offensive tweet with harassment.
IMO. Being offensive is subjective but harassement is not. Am i wrong?
The swimmer has a twitter account. If Tom Daley does not wish to here open comments from the public, then he should not have a public messaging account. Daley opted to have open input so he is responsible for the consequences if he cannot handle various viewpoints from the public. From the quote, the text hardly seems like harrassment at all and is more in line with being offensive. There is little anyone can say without the possibility of someone being offended by it. It is rediculous to charge this child and I think this has more to do with trying to control public comment then a real legal matter. They are just trying to set a presidence here to put a little fright into the public in order to have them think twice before saying what they really feel. Especially if the message conflicts with the Brittish governments desire to only put a possitive spin on the events they paid so much to host. This is censorship. The real solution is for Daley to cancel his twitter account.
Everyone has the option to remain private and control their surrounds by remaining out of pulic spaces. Daley gave up much of that when he decided to become an Olympian. Nobody forces anyone to go to the Olympics and become a public spectacle (unless you live in 70's USSR). Im sure that all athletes are going to get a range of opinions expressed from the public. If they cannont handle offensive comments, then they must cancel their public Internet accounts. Otherwise, they deserve to recieve the vast array of messages they have requested from the public.
You keep forgetting that somebody in a very nice office in Hollywood payed a helluva lot of money to make certain "His Government" fixed the problem, and he cares not a wit if the pit bull in charge has to bend the law, break the law, or wipe his furry rump on the Constitution. This is business dammit!!!
Its not about money. Everybody knows that it is the media that makes or breaks a candidate in an election. How do u think we get the information we need in order to decide who to vote for? The media companies are not the biggest players as far as cash flow goes. What they are is the controllers of information and so they control the minds of those who consume it.
The example u provided is invalid because "leads to death" and "dies" are not the same thing. Also, ur initial conditional fact contains the word 'if'... and is therefore conditional. Also, u said 'sooner or later' which is hardly factual and more temporal. A different example might have worked better. But still, I reject the concept that 'thinking becomes defective'. I suspect u r referring to the fact that fact that language itself can be illogical and that the English language has lots of examples of it.
Ur final paragraph going on about religion makes me suspect u r losing ur religion. Did u grow up in a very religious setting? I went through this a few years ago, where all arguements over logic seemed to end in a religious discussion. U will find in a couple years that u no longer need to consider religion or argue about it. That is when u will know that u actually believe wat u r saying and r thinking logically and independantly about the world around u. I mean there is no need to debate anything based on faith... this is a topic for speculation outside of logic.
Once u reach this point, I suggest u go back and read the bible. With a clear mind and without anyone telling u how to interpret it... it is an entertaining read. There is little logic contained within it and there is little guidance over what to believe and moral direction. It will be apparent that all christian faiths cherry pick wat they want from the bible in order to justify the way they want the world to be. U will see how they focus on some text and reject others in order to self define the division line between good and evil. Which u will know by now, does not exist. I suspect all religions r like this, but im not wasting my life checking. Anyhow, Good luck.
Tobacco is in fact an addictive poison that kills almost all its users with no beneficial effects at all, while marijuana is benign if eaten (if smoked can contribute to emphesyma), can be helpful for some medical problems, is not addictive, is not carcinogenic, and in fact has no bad side effects at all (although the main effect is unpleasant for some people).
Marijuana is addictive like sugar and caffeine. I know people who wanted to stop smoking marijuana and it took some time and effort. Marijuana is not as addictive as tobacco or other hard to kick drugs. My personal experience has revealed this to be true. Marijuana is easily given up just as sugar. Its a pain for a few days and boring for a few weeks. Thats all. I just want to point out that you are either not a regular user of marijuana or have never tried to stop taking it for a full month if u believe it is not adictive at all. I know it makes sleeping difficult for regular users who quit.
Tobacco does not kill almost all of its users. Smoking cigarettes is a bad idea because it does increase ur risk of various health problems. It is not a 100% killer. Many smokers die of other reasons and quiters live to die of other things.
You can list the pros and cons of marijuana all you want, but in reality you are probably better off without it. I mean I could list out the benefits of nicotine, but Im not going to tell anyone to smoke for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Therapeutic_uses
After a really quick Google search, I couldn't find the ad, but I remember when Clint Eastwood was running for office, the networks wouldn't show his movies because they were scared the other candidates would ask for equal time, and since Eastwood didn't pay to have the movies run, they'd have to do it for free.
Imagine TNT having to let each candidate pontificate for two hours. I can't even stand the thirty second ads.
Maybe u woulnt mind so much after seeing the 2 hour sex party
Yep this is what's gonna happen until autonomous cars are ubiquitous. The real question is, once they are, will the speed limits be bumped up significantly and will traffic lights be phased out for synchronized high-speed dodging, or will we continue to tool around like grannies? In other words, will speed limits ruin the greatest potential improvement that autonomous cars have to offer?
You're thinking incorrectly. You are obsessed with driving faster because you cant do anything while driving. You are constantly concentrating on your surroundings and forced to engage in manipulating the vehicle. Therefore you measure all time in a car as wasted. Once you are freed from this you can do anything you want while in your car. You can fix your makeup or place a call or work on your laptop or eat your breakfast or sleep. The time spent travelling will be less important to you because it will not consume you with just one actvity. Perhaps speeds will decrease when autonomous cars are mainstream. I think speed will simply be a factor of safety should a malfunction occur. And the future issue facing the world is energy consumption and you are not even thinking about efficiency. Besides I dont think you ever sat down to do the calculation on how much time it really "saves" to speed. You are talking about mere minutes. The actual issue is conjestion that slows u down. You dont realize this now because it is so difficult to judge and you are given the false sense of "saving time" when you go 5 or 10 mph faster. But if you stop and calculate it... speeding does little but make you feel as though you saved a lot of time. The real issue that is consuming time during ur travel is congestion and traffic maintenance (traffic lights). Once your vehicle is driving for you and you are chauffeured around by it... you will find that you seem to have a lot more time on your hands no matter what the speed.
And finally, speed limits will go up because robot drivers will be much safer.
Also, because the "driver" no longer has to concern himself with "driving", this person will be able to do other things like work on a computer or make phone calls or engage with others in the vehicle. So even if it takes "longer" to get to the destination, the driver will have more free time on their hands.
Never forget that McDonalds employees did tear up a note and Mann said this note was from a doctor. Unless McDonalds answers to this action, they are guilty in my book. Please sue McDonalds Mr.Mann!!
Slashdot Mirror
Let them price themselves to death. There are other ways to produce music that do not involve the RIAA. You should know that there are other ways to produce and deliver music that do not involve the RIAA. Musicians can now deliver direct to customers and there are distribution companies that do not involve the RIAA. If you are still listening to commercial music under this Union then it is your own fault that you are paying outrageous prices that often (usually) benefit the distribution companies at the expense of the artist. The ones who benefit from the RIAA are the mega stars of music. But is there music really that good? Or are you convinced that you like them through a barrage of marketing and advertising? The answer is: they are not that good and you are conditioned to like what you think you naturally like. In reality there is a lot of great music out there and it is totally free. Why? Because the artist is more interested in marketing themselves then making money off every single listener.
The future of music distribution is dead. The reason is that you the consumer pay the bulk of distribution costs already. You pay for bandwidth through your ISP and this is how the music travels from the producer to the listener. Since the cost of physical distribution is approaching $0, the value of the distribution company is also reaching $0. So the distribution companies and the RIAA are working hard to convince you that alternate channels are evil and wrong... such as the illegal closing of MegaUpload.
You should look at http://jamendo.com/ for a large list of free music. Start downloading your own list of free music under the creative commons or similar licenses. Then share your favourite songs with ur friends. Then someday soon, your friends will share new free music with you. When that day arrives, you can forget about RIAA and the distributors marketing attempts to convince you that what you want is what they sell.
Occasionally glancing at your cellphone while getting black out drunk with your idiot friends doesn't sound like work to me...
Having to check my cellphone for work while getting drunk with friends does sound like work to me. Otherwiese, you are a manager and do not understand the perspective of an employee or the concept of free time.
The money is not wasted. The pipeline is almost finished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline). By 2014 we should begin to see significant ROI for this at the expense of Russia and Iran. Also, u r not considering the oil imports already attained from both Afghanistan and Iraq. These investments under the guise of a war will pay dividends over time, but u will never be directly informed of it.
Perhaps this video might represent a different view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBv2qHx02s&feature=em-subs_digest and that's not me, although I'd likely bear a resemblance.
This is an interesting take on the situation. Thanks for the link
Yes... "we only DID it 3 times... therefore we are inoccent of all charges"
Can someone please post a link to the list of witnesses Apple has requested? Im sure there is a link above, but I cannot find it.
The UK government is bluffing. Does anyone seriously think their government will upset international relations over this? They are simply stating that they could do it in order to see if it gets results. However, if something like this does happen, I will wonder who is really pulling the strings over there.
Thank you for saying that. So many Americans completely ignore how important the French were in achieving independence. The primary reason was their hatred for British rule, and some will say they were "used", but the reality is we owe the French for our freedom. Also Ben Franklin was a great man.
And FB will have cash until the users stop showing up.
I'm curious about how the exodus will happen. I don't see it going to G+, really
My prediction is that facebook will be taken over by Google. At first there will be a lot of debate about what will happen to facebook, but slowly and steadily facebook will get better and better. The name will remain 'facebook' and slowly people will overlook that it is another arm of Google and just use it. G+ will remain in existence, but slowly fall out of favour. Security and privacy on facebook will improve and less will complain about it. G+ will still exist, but just stay in the shadows. Integration between G+ and facebook will improve.
This is what happened with Google Video and Youtube. This is what will happen to facebook. IMO
Yes and every once in a while a revolution comes along that burns the old ways and chops heads or worse.
But somehow fails to effect any change at all.
Except some people did lose their heads... so we have that to look forward to.
I'm assuming he only tracked internal strife, not external. WWI didn't make it in, but post-WWI tensions did.
Tell that to the Japanese US citizens of 1942. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
I actually agree with you on this. Maybe u are kidding, but I think gender should be removed from all competitions. Also, I think all "art" should be removed from the games. If you can't clearly measure the winner, then it is not a real game. In summer games, this means that most gymnastics is out. And in winter games, figure skating is out.
Yet another reason to take up cycling.
The problem is, how do you enforce the patent when people are printing the devices in their basement. You can't go after someone for releasing plans they drew up themselves, as long as they aren't a copy of your originals, and even if they were, the plans are just downloadable files, and we know how well that's working out for the movie and music industries.
As far as I know, there is no law preventing u from making a patented device on your own. The patent prevents you from making and selling the patented item. I believe you can make ur own iphone if u know how to. But you just cant start a business selling it. Patents are not about preventing you from knowing about how something is made... it is exactly the opposite. It is about pretecting the value of the idea... and that means sales. Patents do not make it illegal to do what you know how on your own time and for your own purposes.
In regard to making items from a 3d printer. I dont see how they (patent holders) will be able to stop people from making replicas of the protected item. Especially if the 3d printer plans are passed around for free. You just wont be able to sell or make a profit from the end result. One limiting factor of current 3d printers is on the materials that can be printed. So this issue will only apply to some products. Also, the cost of materials is much higher when printing yourself over the cost of mass production in a factory. So there is limits on what you can make and duplicate. For example, as far as I know, you cannot print electronics yet.
My personal opinion is that this will effect after market repairs more then anything else. Like when a part breaks in your fridge, car, toilet or dishwasher. I suspect in those cases it would be very useful to just print your own part and replace it yourself. Who know... in the future, some companies may just provide you with the 3d plans for parts that wear out in order to meet customer demand for service and improve loyalty.
No, because you criticized him, not harassed him as he did with Daley.
Can you please explain how u feel this is harassement? Saying offensive things is not the same as harassment, so please tell me exactly how you equate the possible offensive tweet with harassment.
IMO. Being offensive is subjective but harassement is not. Am i wrong?
The swimmer has a twitter account. If Tom Daley does not wish to here open comments from the public, then he should not have a public messaging account. Daley opted to have open input so he is responsible for the consequences if he cannot handle various viewpoints from the public. From the quote, the text hardly seems like harrassment at all and is more in line with being offensive. There is little anyone can say without the possibility of someone being offended by it. It is rediculous to charge this child and I think this has more to do with trying to control public comment then a real legal matter. They are just trying to set a presidence here to put a little fright into the public in order to have them think twice before saying what they really feel. Especially if the message conflicts with the Brittish governments desire to only put a possitive spin on the events they paid so much to host. This is censorship. The real solution is for Daley to cancel his twitter account.
Everyone has the option to remain private and control their surrounds by remaining out of pulic spaces. Daley gave up much of that when he decided to become an Olympian. Nobody forces anyone to go to the Olympics and become a public spectacle (unless you live in 70's USSR). Im sure that all athletes are going to get a range of opinions expressed from the public. If they cannont handle offensive comments, then they must cancel their public Internet accounts. Otherwise, they deserve to recieve the vast array of messages they have requested from the public.
You keep forgetting that somebody in a very nice office in Hollywood payed a helluva lot of money to make certain "His Government" fixed the problem, and he cares not a wit if the pit bull in charge has to bend the law, break the law, or wipe his furry rump on the Constitution. This is business dammit!!!
Its not about money. Everybody knows that it is the media that makes or breaks a candidate in an election. How do u think we get the information we need in order to decide who to vote for? The media companies are not the biggest players as far as cash flow goes. What they are is the controllers of information and so they control the minds of those who consume it.
Fat chance. Lock up expiration is coming. Watch it going to single digits like ZNGA. Short it while you can.
Is "Lock up Expiration" the day that Google buys a majority share in Facebook, and decides to move all the accounts over to G+ for free?
The example u provided is invalid because "leads to death" and "dies" are not the same thing. Also, ur initial conditional fact contains the word 'if'... and is therefore conditional. Also, u said 'sooner or later' which is hardly factual and more temporal. A different example might have worked better. But still, I reject the concept that 'thinking becomes defective'. I suspect u r referring to the fact that fact that language itself can be illogical and that the English language has lots of examples of it.
Ur final paragraph going on about religion makes me suspect u r losing ur religion. Did u grow up in a very religious setting? I went through this a few years ago, where all arguements over logic seemed to end in a religious discussion. U will find in a couple years that u no longer need to consider religion or argue about it. That is when u will know that u actually believe wat u r saying and r thinking logically and independantly about the world around u. I mean there is no need to debate anything based on faith... this is a topic for speculation outside of logic.
Once u reach this point, I suggest u go back and read the bible. With a clear mind and without anyone telling u how to interpret it... it is an entertaining read. There is little logic contained within it and there is little guidance over what to believe and moral direction. It will be apparent that all christian faiths cherry pick wat they want from the bible in order to justify the way they want the world to be. U will see how they focus on some text and reject others in order to self define the division line between good and evil. Which u will know by now, does not exist. I suspect all religions r like this, but im not wasting my life checking. Anyhow, Good luck.
Tobacco is in fact an addictive poison that kills almost all its users with no beneficial effects at all, while marijuana is benign if eaten (if smoked can contribute to emphesyma), can be helpful for some medical problems, is not addictive, is not carcinogenic, and in fact has no bad side effects at all (although the main effect is unpleasant for some people).
Marijuana is addictive like sugar and caffeine. I know people who wanted to stop smoking marijuana and it took some time and effort. Marijuana is not as addictive as tobacco or other hard to kick drugs. My personal experience has revealed this to be true. Marijuana is easily given up just as sugar. Its a pain for a few days and boring for a few weeks. Thats all. I just want to point out that you are either not a regular user of marijuana or have never tried to stop taking it for a full month if u believe it is not adictive at all. I know it makes sleeping difficult for regular users who quit.
Tobacco does not kill almost all of its users. Smoking cigarettes is a bad idea because it does increase ur risk of various health problems. It is not a 100% killer. Many smokers die of other reasons and quiters live to die of other things.
You can list the pros and cons of marijuana all you want, but in reality you are probably better off without it. I mean I could list out the benefits of nicotine, but Im not going to tell anyone to smoke for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Therapeutic_uses
Can someone please link to the sex party ad? I mean is it impossible to find something online without using google these days?
After a really quick Google search, I couldn't find the ad, but I remember when Clint Eastwood was running for office, the networks wouldn't show his movies because they were scared the other candidates would ask for equal time, and since Eastwood didn't pay to have the movies run, they'd have to do it for free.
Imagine TNT having to let each candidate pontificate for two hours. I can't even stand the thirty second ads.
Maybe u woulnt mind so much after seeing the 2 hour sex party
Yep this is what's gonna happen until autonomous cars are ubiquitous. The real question is, once they are, will the speed limits be bumped up significantly and will traffic lights be phased out for synchronized high-speed dodging, or will we continue to tool around like grannies? In other words, will speed limits ruin the greatest potential improvement that autonomous cars have to offer?
You're thinking incorrectly. You are obsessed with driving faster because you cant do anything while driving. You are constantly concentrating on your surroundings and forced to engage in manipulating the vehicle. Therefore you measure all time in a car as wasted. Once you are freed from this you can do anything you want while in your car. You can fix your makeup or place a call or work on your laptop or eat your breakfast or sleep. The time spent travelling will be less important to you because it will not consume you with just one actvity. Perhaps speeds will decrease when autonomous cars are mainstream. I think speed will simply be a factor of safety should a malfunction occur. And the future issue facing the world is energy consumption and you are not even thinking about efficiency. Besides I dont think you ever sat down to do the calculation on how much time it really "saves" to speed. You are talking about mere minutes. The actual issue is conjestion that slows u down. You dont realize this now because it is so difficult to judge and you are given the false sense of "saving time" when you go 5 or 10 mph faster. But if you stop and calculate it... speeding does little but make you feel as though you saved a lot of time. The real issue that is consuming time during ur travel is congestion and traffic maintenance (traffic lights). Once your vehicle is driving for you and you are chauffeured around by it... you will find that you seem to have a lot more time on your hands no matter what the speed.
And finally, speed limits will go up because robot drivers will be much safer.
Also, because the "driver" no longer has to concern himself with "driving", this person will be able to do other things like work on a computer or make phone calls or engage with others in the vehicle. So even if it takes "longer" to get to the destination, the driver will have more free time on their hands.
Never forget that McDonalds employees did tear up a note and Mann said this note was from a doctor. Unless McDonalds answers to this action, they are guilty in my book. Please sue McDonalds Mr.Mann!!