The problem with comparing Napster to other subscription services is that it's not an apples to apples comparison. Sattelite radio and TV are broadcast - if you don't watch it or tape it, you miss it. With Netflix you know you have to return the dvd's if you want new rentals.
With Napster, you get the songs in a permanent form (compared to broadcast anyway) and don't have to return them. The most direct comparison I can think of is leasing a car, but no one has ever leased music before, and I don't think consumers will take to it very well.
Did they drop you on your head when you were born? What does "artists/copyright holders get 0 cents" mean to you? How is this different than paying membership fees for an illegal P2P or pirate site?
And how is that different from buying a used cd? Either way, the artist sees nothing.
That was painful to read. Not just because of how law enforcement acted, but also in that they guy didn't have a clue about his rights. His responce should have ben, in order:
Do you have a warrant? Am I under arrest? Neither? Fuck off, then.
Remember that episode of The Simpsons, where Homer went around labeling EVERYTHING? Grass, trees, roads, signs, cats, hamsters, cars, mailboxes, windows and picnic tables?
The democrats were fools for getting behind gay marriage since the country is not yet ready for it.
Hasn't this turd been put to rest yet? News flash: the courts made gay marriage legal, not Democrats. In fact, name me a single prominent Democratic politician who strongly supported gay marriage, aside from the mayor of San Fancisco.
No, where the Dems fell down was in not challenging the Republicans over this invented social crisis. It's easy to do:
First, marriage is not the "bedrock of civilization" or a "sacred institution". In cultures around the world, as often as not marriage was not for love, not for children, but a business deal between two families. Arranged marriages put the big lie to the "sacred institution" crap. A marriage is and always has been as good or as bad as the couple makes it, which brings me to point two...
Second, divorce puts the big lie to the bullshit that this is about protecting marriage. Even if every homosexual couple got married and that marriage was a failure, there would still be far more failed heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones. That these "marriage protection" amendments do nothing to lower the divorce rate proves they aren't about protecting marriage, they're about hating homosexuals. So, go ahead and vote for these laws, but have the balls to be honest about what you're doing and just call it the "I hate fags" amendment. Speaking of divorce, guess which states have the highest divorce rate? Red states. The lowest? Blue states. In fact the state with the lowest divorce rate is...drum roll...Massachusetts. That's right, the state that had the first legal gay marriages also the one with the lowest rate of divorce.
Third, point out that Republicans have been saying for decades that government should stay out of people's private lives, and deciding who can marry reveals them to be two-faced hypocritical fucks.
Lastly, point out that this is nothing but the latest chapter in America's dirty history of xenophobia. People who pushed and voted for gay marriage bans have the privledge of standing in history with those who passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, and banned inter-racial marriages. Congradufuckinglations.
- Has allowed Hollywood and the RIAA to continue it's twisting and warping of copyright law. Surely those folks aren't all conservative types?
Worst. Assumption. Ever. 1) the only Democrats who push this are the ones in Congress and 2) the Democratic party on a national level is *not* liberal.
If the city government paid for the sculpture, it was a work for hire and the sculptor shouldn't own the copyright. If the government paid for it, it should be under the public domain a la photos from NASA.
Last time I checked, the XBOX division is profitable.
Really? So it's made more money than it's lost? No? You're going by quarters you say? How many *years* did it take for Microsoft to stop losing money? How long will this profitability last once they release the XBox 2 and start losing large amounts on the hardware again?
Democratic Senators and the editorial board of The New York Times all said that the Soviet Union was a permenant fixture on the world stage
Blah blah blah. As others have pointed out, so did Nixon, and Reagan didn't have a clue that the USSR was going to collapse. And it wasn't the arms race that caused the collapse, either: glasnost did. For that matter, all sabre rattling does is increase solidarity in your opponent, so all he accomplished was DELAYING the end of communism in the Soviet Union, not speeding its demise.
and that Ronald Reagan was a fool for building up our military and seeking to fight it.
Considering that any conflict between the U.S. and the USSR would have ended with mutually assured destruction, yes Reagan was a total fool to spend hundreds of billions more on the military. The only thing Reagan accomplished with his arms was make us start measuring our national debt in the trillions rather than in billions.
Oh, and just as many Democratic politicians have served in the military, and the Democrats have a far better record on national security over the last century than Republicans do. So you can take all your jingoistic posturing and shove it.
No, he wouldn't have been. Under Jobs, Apple was posting regular profits long before the introduction of the iPod. Which was no small feat, during the bursting of the bubble. However, they wouldn't have had profits to write home about like they do now.
I remember when people said the exact same thing about a little something called "cable TV".
Then you should also remember that cable comes with commercials, too. Unless you're talking about "premium" channels such as HBO. So commercial free satellite radio might have a dedicated, but limited audience.
I think this would be the perfect thing to do to prove that. Microsoft seems to be doing just fine living off of the OS market, why couldn't Apple?
Because Apple is not a monopoly and Microsoft is? You can't come into a market that's been commoditized to the extreme, and compete against a player in that market that made about $10 billion last quarter alone. It's just not going to happen.
The root of the problem is that most people don't even know it's possible to not log in as administrator.
The real root problem is that Microsoft makes it a pain not to run as administrator, the first user created is an administrator, and there is no equivilant to sudo. Somebody even posted a list of a few dozen titles, from Microsoft, that require Administrator access to run. Many of them games.
So what? A server farm is going to have a lot of - servers. It is entirely fair to count those individualy, just as its fair to count the 100+ machines running IIS for microsoft.com.
When it comes to working Web sites, the gap between IIS and Apache narrows considerably -- which the boys at Netcraft admit when pressed.
Oh, yes. Let's remove a spyware infection by "wiping out the home directory" because that "would usually fix you right up."
You don't have to "wipe out the home directory". You copy out the files you need and erase everything else - mp3's, pron whatever. As opposed to Windows, where you have to try and salvage your stuff AND generally reinstall the entire system.
Right. And that's why one of the leaders of the insurgents in Iraq declared his opposition to the elections by telling people that anyone who supported democracy was an enemy of Islam. Nope, they don't hate freedom or liberty. No way!
Right, because that's exactly what they said, and they speak for everyone!
Why don't you ask the French, who supplied his nuclear hardware, and the Germans, who supplied many of his now-missing biological agents, and the Soviets and Russians, who supplied anything he wanted to buy? It wasn't F16s in the Iraqi airforce, it was Mirages.
Right, because those damn frenchies were the only ones to cozy up to Saddam.
They are fighting to establish a worldwide caliphate under Islamic law, through coercive force, using asymmetrical tactics that target civilians with the intent of scaring them into compliance.
Right, that's why they've targeted peacefull democracies around the world for decades. Just look at all the thousands of civilians killed in terrorist attacks on Australia and Candada. Not.
Your grasp of asymmetrical warfare is staggering in its naivete.
You shouldn't throw stones in a glass house. Blowing off terrorists as wanting to establish an Islamic theorcracy is just blowing off the fact that our foreign policy is the reason why we get attacked and other countries don't.
Slashdot Mirror
That must have hurt in '97. Which is of course when I wish I had bought it, when it was going for $13 a share, a few splits ago. :)
The problem with comparing Napster to other subscription services is that it's not an apples to apples comparison. Sattelite radio and TV are broadcast - if you don't watch it or tape it, you miss it. With Netflix you know you have to return the dvd's if you want new rentals.
With Napster, you get the songs in a permanent form (compared to broadcast anyway) and don't have to return them. The most direct comparison I can think of is leasing a car, but no one has ever leased music before, and I don't think consumers will take to it very well.
Did they drop you on your head when you were born? What does "artists/copyright holders get 0 cents" mean to you? How is this different than paying membership fees for an illegal P2P or pirate site?
And how is that different from buying a used cd? Either way, the artist sees nothing.
That was painful to read. Not just because of how law enforcement acted, but also in that they guy didn't have a clue about his rights. His responce should have ben, in order:
Do you have a warrant?
Am I under arrest?
Neither? Fuck off, then.
Your analogy sucks
No, it doesn't.
They DID attack because they were Muslim extremists.
No, they attacked because they are pissed, rightly or wrongly, at our foreign policy. That they happen to be Muslim is largly irrelevant.
Remember that episode of The Simpsons, where Homer went around labeling EVERYTHING? Grass, trees, roads, signs, cats, hamsters, cars, mailboxes, windows and picnic tables?
Wasn't that Timmy O'Tool, aka Bart?
The democrats were fools for getting behind gay marriage since the country is not yet ready for it.
Hasn't this turd been put to rest yet? News flash: the courts made gay marriage legal, not Democrats. In fact, name me a single prominent Democratic politician who strongly supported gay marriage, aside from the mayor of San Fancisco.
No, where the Dems fell down was in not challenging the Republicans over this invented social crisis. It's easy to do:
First, marriage is not the "bedrock of civilization" or a "sacred institution". In cultures around the world, as often as not marriage was not for love, not for children, but a business deal between two families. Arranged marriages put the big lie to the "sacred institution" crap. A marriage is and always has been as good or as bad as the couple makes it, which brings me to point two...
Second, divorce puts the big lie to the bullshit that this is about protecting marriage. Even if every homosexual couple got married and that marriage was a failure, there would still be far more failed heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones. That these "marriage protection" amendments do nothing to lower the divorce rate proves they aren't about protecting marriage, they're about hating homosexuals. So, go ahead and vote for these laws, but have the balls to be honest about what you're doing and just call it the "I hate fags" amendment. Speaking of divorce, guess which states have the highest divorce rate? Red states. The lowest? Blue states. In fact the state with the lowest divorce rate is...drum roll...Massachusetts. That's right, the state that had the first legal gay marriages also the one with the lowest rate of divorce.
Third, point out that Republicans have been saying for decades that government should stay out of people's private lives, and deciding who can marry reveals them to be two-faced hypocritical fucks.
Lastly, point out that this is nothing but the latest chapter in America's dirty history of xenophobia. People who pushed and voted for gay marriage bans have the privledge of standing in history with those who passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, and banned inter-racial marriages. Congradufuckinglations.
So? Every president since Washington has done likewise.
Oh? Just which ones, exactly, have thought god selected them, personally?
dvice to Democrats: Please, please, please keep sneering at "magical men in the sky".
Democrats have no problem with religion. We do have a problem with rightwing fucktards who use Christ as a political football.
that it's those of the liberal mindset that:
- Has allowed Hollywood and the RIAA to continue it's twisting and warping of copyright law. Surely those folks aren't all conservative types?
Worst. Assumption. Ever. 1) the only Democrats who push this are the ones in Congress and 2) the Democratic party on a national level is *not* liberal.
If the city government paid for the sculpture, it was a work for hire and the sculptor shouldn't own the copyright. If the government paid for it, it should be under the public domain a la photos from NASA.
I really want to take a piss on the Alamo. I'm not a heavy metal musician so I don't care if they ban me from the city or not. :)
Your estimate of 6 to 8 billion/quarter looks about right.
Based on what? Even though that is insanely high, they could easily dump R&D and money losing projects.
but this is Slashdot, where bullshit gets modded up
Yeah, like your's.
And promptly get themselves a shareholder lawsuit for failing to practice due diligence?
Not when the MS/Jackson trial wasn't the first time they'd gotten in trouble for having a monopoly.
Last time I checked, the XBOX division is profitable.
Really? So it's made more money than it's lost? No? You're going by quarters you say? How many *years* did it take for Microsoft to stop losing money? How long will this profitability last once they release the XBox 2 and start losing large amounts on the hardware again?
Perhaps you shouldn't be such a blatant fanboy.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Democratic Senators and the editorial board of The New York Times all said that the Soviet Union was a permenant fixture on the world stage
Blah blah blah. As others have pointed out, so did Nixon, and Reagan didn't have a clue that the USSR was going to collapse. And it wasn't the arms race that caused the collapse, either: glasnost did. For that matter, all sabre rattling does is increase solidarity in your opponent, so all he accomplished was DELAYING the end of communism in the Soviet Union, not speeding its demise.
and that Ronald Reagan was a fool for building up our military and seeking to fight it.
Considering that any conflict between the U.S. and the USSR would have ended with mutually assured destruction, yes Reagan was a total fool to spend hundreds of billions more on the military. The only thing Reagan accomplished with his arms was make us start measuring our national debt in the trillions rather than in billions.
Oh, and just as many Democratic politicians have served in the military, and the Democrats have a far better record on national security over the last century than Republicans do. So you can take all your jingoistic posturing and shove it.
he would have been right on the money.
No, he wouldn't have been. Under Jobs, Apple was posting regular profits long before the introduction of the iPod. Which was no small feat, during the bursting of the bubble. However, they wouldn't have had profits to write home about like they do now.
I think it will become known that the smartest decision Bill Gates ever made was to bail out Apple Computer.
Too bad that's a myth. Buying $150 million worth of stock in a company that had 2 BILLION in liquid assets (at the time) does not a bail out make.
I remember when people said the exact same thing about a little something called "cable TV".
Then you should also remember that cable comes with commercials, too. Unless you're talking about "premium" channels such as HBO. So commercial free satellite radio might have a dedicated, but limited audience.
I think this would be the perfect thing to do to prove that. Microsoft seems to be doing just fine living off of the OS market, why couldn't Apple?
Because Apple is not a monopoly and Microsoft is? You can't come into a market that's been commoditized to the extreme, and compete against a player in that market that made about $10 billion last quarter alone. It's just not going to happen.
Yeah, but most of the difference is made up of iPods. No, iPods aren't computers, but they are hardware.
The root of the problem is that most people don't even know it's possible to not log in as administrator.
The real root problem is that Microsoft makes it a pain not to run as administrator, the first user created is an administrator, and there is no equivilant to sudo. Somebody even posted a list of a few dozen titles, from Microsoft, that require Administrator access to run. Many of them games.
So what? A server farm is going to have a lot of - servers. It is entirely fair to count those individualy, just as its fair to count the 100+ machines running IIS for microsoft.com.
When it comes to working Web sites, the gap between IIS and Apache narrows considerably -- which the boys at Netcraft admit when pressed.
Too bad that's a red herring, see above.
Oh, yes. Let's remove a spyware infection by "wiping out the home directory" because that "would usually fix you right up."
You don't have to "wipe out the home directory". You copy out the files you need and erase everything else - mp3's, pron whatever. As opposed to Windows, where you have to try and salvage your stuff AND generally reinstall the entire system.
Right. And that's why one of the leaders of the insurgents in Iraq declared his opposition to the elections by telling people that anyone who supported democracy was an enemy of Islam. Nope, they don't hate freedom or liberty. No way!
Right, because that's exactly what they said, and they speak for everyone!
Why don't you ask the French, who supplied his nuclear hardware, and the Germans, who supplied many of his now-missing biological agents, and the Soviets and Russians, who supplied anything he wanted to buy? It wasn't F16s in the Iraqi airforce, it was Mirages.
Right, because those damn frenchies were the only ones to cozy up to Saddam.
They are fighting to establish a worldwide caliphate under Islamic law, through coercive force, using asymmetrical tactics that target civilians with the intent of scaring them into compliance.
Right, that's why they've targeted peacefull democracies around the world for decades. Just look at all the thousands of civilians killed in terrorist attacks on Australia and Candada. Not.
Your grasp of asymmetrical warfare is staggering in its naivete.
You shouldn't throw stones in a glass house. Blowing off terrorists as wanting to establish an Islamic theorcracy is just blowing off the fact that our foreign policy is the reason why we get attacked and other countries don't.