If the marketing companies getthere way, I think its only a matter of time before in some election somewhere, the information that one canidate views porn on line is "leaked" to the press. . . which begins an ugly war of internet info leaks. . . Realizing I feel that doubleclicks actions are bout as virtuos as putting a camera in the girls lockeroom, I still cant help but find humor in the possabilities.
Anyway, what the hell is the big deal about porn sites, so longs as the site isnt illeagal? I subscribe to http://www.nakkidnerds.com - I pay by CC. Do you think that your e-financial transaction are private? My grandfather once said, "dont say anything on the phone you wouldnt want to see printed in the local paper." I think the same is true of the internet. If you dont want anyone knowing that you look at naked girls, go to a store in a different town, buy a mag with cash. . . also wear a big hat and park your car several blocks away. I just simply refuse to be ashamed of what I do. hle I dont condone anyone snooping on me, I accept it as a fact of modern life that the possability exists that what I am doing at anytime may be monitored, and act accordingly.
OK, a little History hear. Back in the 70's there was a "power crisis" and by 1990 California was going to need 40 Nukes, and Washington was going to need 8. I dont know how many Nukes there are in CA, but in WA state we have one working and seven DOA power plants that almost sent the states power supply into recievership (ie bankruptcy). We still have plenty of power (more or les, and certainly not the massive blackouts predicted). . . why? because power companies found that it was cheaper to reduce the usage then increase production. Example: It is cheaper to supply natural gas for homes and get them to have gas driyers, stoves and hot water heaters then to build a natural gas plant. It is also more effective to uncrease the effiency of electrical appliances then to create more power plants. Many private utilities want to take over the infrastructure of the existing utilities without aquiring the "stranded costs" (ie mothballed and dead power plants and other ghastly mistakes) of the existing owners. This is akin to buying a car that is still under contract, but not paying off the contract. Who pays "stranded costs?". Why we do! So our elecric bills may go down some (and I doubt much). But our taxes will go up to pay these costs. There is also the matter of "externalized costs" or not cleaning up your messes. Many public utilities are alrady guilty of this (see the Movie erin Brokovich fo an example) do you think that a private company is going to be any more reasponsable for cleaning up its messes? I dont think so. My opinion- The utilities should remain in public hands, and transparency should be increased, not decreased as would be the case with privitization. These utities should start investing not in increased power out put, but in conservation measures, which could be sold to the consumer, who will be happy to buy them once electric costs are increased to cover all the externalized costs. On a final note, the main who orhastrated the power fiasco in WA state (WPPS or "woops") became secratry of the interior after James Watt, proving that if your mistakes are giagantic, there is a job in a repblican administration waiting for you. Any one contemplating more nukes should read the book "Mtn in the Clouds" by Bruce Brown.
"What America needs is to have more privitised utilities - look at the success we've had with our health service, it is the envy of the world with the best equipped hospitals to be found anywhere" If you can afford it. The same is tru of utilities. Out west we have metro areas that supply a market-rich area for utilities, and rural areas where ther are relatively few. The Idea of the BPA (and rural electrifivation is that the cities help pay for the rural eletricity. With privitization or utilities, all the companies want to get the cities and screw the rest.
I agree with william gibson about the window. When recorded music began, musicians were payed for the session, and recieved no royalties form the proceeds. This practiced in Nashville far longer then any other part of the music industry (once again the south lags behind the rest of america in labor laws, go figure) which is where the tradition of country musicians churning out the albums came from. When you get a one time check for your music, you gotta make more music to make money.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of proffessional musicians make less then the poverty level. Some make it big, but most dont. I have met amazing musicians who work as carpenters, waiters, house painters etc. Even when signed, a musician has no garuntee of wealth. The label (like the house) always takes its cut off the top. "always get a cut of the gross, not the net.."
No record companies arnt evil, any more then microsoft, the IRS or any other large entity. They are simply driven to justify and maintain their own existance. I remember reading an article Entitled "Ten ways Record companies screw you" In a musicians 'zine. (sorry no ref. I have it at home and Im on the road presently). Some of the things they do: front a ton of money to an artist, then give him/her/them such a small cut of the proceeds that they can never get out of debt (This is why tom Petty filed for bankruptcy in the 80's while he was selling tons of albums), get the first to albums for the price of one (statitacly the first two albums a musician or band distributes nationaly are the ones to make serious cash$). there are 8 more I cant remeber. I do remember listening to Sheryl Crow testifying before congress, about a recently passed law that reverts music copyrights to the publishers, not the artist. Thats just theft! Lets also talk about what EMI does to small music venues- they charge them by the square foot for there existance! Thats right, if EMI or that other company (names escapes, sorry) Finds out that you have ANY MUSIC at your business (ie a radio over the dishwasher), you owe them, and if you allow someone to come in and play music, even an unsigned artist, you owe more. A small coffee hous in Centralia WA got a bill for 5K$ for that very reason. Now the logic behind this bill is that your local, unsigned atisyt MIGHT play a cover of a copyright protected song, therefore, the venue (which might proffit from this possible live preformance of a coprighted song) should buck up the $. . . Yes its legal. ..really. . . So the next part is even better: where does the money go? Well because they dont know whose copyrighted songs might have gotten played they cant pay out, sooooo, the companies (EMI f'rinstance) keep the dough. What a scam. I dont mind paying musicians for ther preformance (live or reproduced) but the thought of paying some company for the possability of what I might hear, and then not have that monet get back to the artist at all? That just makes me ill.
Re:Spread the message, brothers
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
I agree. I am buying a new computer this year, and there is no way that I am "liscencing" a MS application to run it. I'll either continue to run my 6-year old copy of windows 95 (hey I still have the origanal disk and the old computer is going to be a doorstop !) or look into a new OS. I am no technical wizard (far from it), but this whole liscencing restriction things has gone too far. On the other hand, I have to admit that I think OS's are worth spending some money on. I cant think of another item that I have had for six years, used for K's of hours, that cost (I believe) 90-110 $. Thats no big deal. But I avoid upgrades, in order to minimize bloat (I still use word 6.0). Its just that I dont want to spend a 100$ and not get a complete copy on CD. I think a lot of MS power comes from the consumer mentality in America. I know a lot of people who laugh at my computer, as well as my car. I believe this items are tools, but it appears that in America we define ourselves, to a great extent, by what we own. Gotta have a new car every three years, new computer every year, etc. This gotta have the latest and greatest mentality gives the sellers a lot of leverage; "you want the latest OS? then sit boy! beg!". Now dont get me wrong, If you work in the technology sector, there is no doubt that you need the a "big box". But the vast majority of people who have computers can do everything hey want (save power gaming) on an old 486 (I have a P133.... ok are y'all done laughing? good.). We (as a society) have to start buying smarter, otherwise the race to the bottom will continue, and we will all pay for it. . . both figuratively and litteraly. Any suggestions for a decent GUI OS thats non windows feel free to email me. D
Slashdot Mirror
If the marketing companies getthere way, I think its only a matter of time before in some election somewhere, the information that one canidate views porn on line is "leaked" to the press. . . which begins an ugly war of internet info leaks. . . Realizing I feel that doubleclicks actions are bout as virtuos as putting a camera in the girls lockeroom, I still cant help but find humor in the possabilities.
Anyway, what the hell is the big deal about porn sites, so longs as the site isnt illeagal? I subscribe to http://www.nakkidnerds.com - I pay by CC. Do you think that your e-financial transaction are private? My grandfather once said, "dont say anything on the phone you wouldnt want to see printed in the local paper." I think the same is true of the internet. If you dont want anyone knowing that you look at naked girls, go to a store in a different town, buy a mag with cash. . . also wear a big hat and park your car several blocks away. I just simply refuse to be ashamed of what I do. hle I dont condone anyone snooping on me, I accept it as a fact of modern life that the possability exists that what I am doing at anytime may be monitored, and act accordingly.
I dont know if I want music to be free- I just want more of the 12$ I lay down to go to the artist.
OK, a little History hear. Back in the 70's there was a "power crisis" and by 1990 California was going to need 40 Nukes, and Washington was going to need 8. I dont know how many Nukes there are in CA, but in WA state we have one working and seven DOA power plants that almost sent the states power supply into recievership (ie bankruptcy). We still have plenty of power (more or les, and certainly not the massive blackouts predicted). . . why? because power companies found that it was cheaper to reduce the usage then increase production. Example: It is cheaper to supply natural gas for homes and get them to have gas driyers, stoves and hot water heaters then to build a natural gas plant. It is also more effective to uncrease the effiency of electrical appliances then to create more power plants. Many private utilities want to take over the infrastructure of the existing utilities without aquiring the "stranded costs" (ie mothballed and dead power plants and other ghastly mistakes) of the existing owners. This is akin to buying a car that is still under contract, but not paying off the contract. Who pays "stranded costs?". Why we do! So our elecric bills may go down some (and I doubt much). But our taxes will go up to pay these costs. There is also the matter of "externalized costs" or not cleaning up your messes. Many public utilities are alrady guilty of this (see the Movie erin Brokovich fo an example) do you think that a private company is going to be any more reasponsable for cleaning up its messes? I dont think so. My opinion- The utilities should remain in public hands, and transparency should be increased, not decreased as would be the case with privitization. These utities should start investing not in increased power out put, but in conservation measures, which could be sold to the consumer, who will be happy to buy them once electric costs are increased to cover all the externalized costs. On a final note, the main who orhastrated the power fiasco in WA state (WPPS or "woops") became secratry of the interior after James Watt, proving that if your mistakes are giagantic, there is a job in a repblican administration waiting for you. Any one contemplating more nukes should read the book "Mtn in the Clouds" by Bruce Brown.
"What America needs is to have more privitised utilities - look at the success we've had with our health service, it is the envy of the world with the best equipped hospitals to be found anywhere" If you can afford it. The same is tru of utilities. Out west we have metro areas that supply a market-rich area for utilities, and rural areas where ther are relatively few. The Idea of the BPA (and rural electrifivation is that the cities help pay for the rural eletricity. With privitization or utilities, all the companies want to get the cities and screw the rest.
I agree with william gibson about the window. When recorded music began, musicians were payed for the session, and recieved no royalties form the proceeds. This practiced in Nashville far longer then any other part of the music industry (once again the south lags behind the rest of america in labor laws, go figure) which is where the tradition of country musicians churning out the albums came from. When you get a one time check for your music, you gotta make more music to make money.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of proffessional musicians make less then the poverty level. Some make it big, but most dont. I have met amazing musicians who work as carpenters, waiters, house painters etc. Even when signed, a musician has no garuntee of wealth. The label (like the house) always takes its cut off the top. "always get a cut of the gross, not the net. ."
No record companies arnt evil, any more then microsoft, the IRS or any other large entity. They are simply driven to justify and maintain their own existance. I remember reading an article Entitled "Ten ways Record companies screw you" In a musicians 'zine. (sorry no ref. I have it at home and Im on the road presently). Some of the things they do: front a ton of money to an artist, then give him/her/them such a small cut of the proceeds that they can never get out of debt (This is why tom Petty filed for bankruptcy in the 80's while he was selling tons of albums), get the first to albums for the price of one (statitacly the first two albums a musician or band distributes nationaly are the ones to make serious cash$). there are 8 more I cant remeber. I do remember listening to Sheryl Crow testifying before congress, about a recently passed law that reverts music copyrights to the publishers, not the artist. Thats just theft! Lets also talk about what EMI does to small music venues- they charge them by the square foot for there existance! Thats right, if EMI or that other company (names escapes, sorry) Finds out that you have ANY MUSIC at your business (ie a radio over the dishwasher), you owe them, and if you allow someone to come in and play music, even an unsigned artist, you owe more. A small coffee hous in Centralia WA got a bill for 5K$ for that very reason. Now the logic behind this bill is that your local, unsigned atisyt MIGHT play a cover of a copyright protected song, therefore, the venue (which might proffit from this possible live preformance of a coprighted song) should buck up the $. . . Yes its legal. . .really. . . So the next part is even better: where does the money go? Well because they dont know whose copyrighted songs might have gotten played they cant pay out, sooooo, the companies (EMI f'rinstance) keep the dough. What a scam. I dont mind paying musicians for ther preformance (live or reproduced) but the thought of paying some company for the possability of what I might hear, and then not have that monet get back to the artist at all? That just makes me ill.
I agree. I am buying a new computer this year, and there is no way that I am "liscencing" a MS application to run it. I'll either continue to run my 6-year old copy of windows 95 (hey I still have the origanal disk and the old computer is going to be a doorstop !) or look into a new OS. I am no technical wizard (far from it), but this whole liscencing restriction things has gone too far. On the other hand, I have to admit that I think OS's are worth spending some money on. I cant think of another item that I have had for six years, used for K's of hours, that cost (I believe) 90-110 $. Thats no big deal. But I avoid upgrades, in order to minimize bloat (I still use word 6.0). Its just that I dont want to spend a 100$ and not get a complete copy on CD. I think a lot of MS power comes from the consumer mentality in America. I know a lot of people who laugh at my computer, as well as my car. I believe this items are tools, but it appears that in America we define ourselves, to a great extent, by what we own. Gotta have a new car every three years, new computer every year, etc. This gotta have the latest and greatest mentality gives the sellers a lot of leverage; "you want the latest OS? then sit boy! beg!". Now dont get me wrong, If you work in the technology sector, there is no doubt that you need the a "big box". But the vast majority of people who have computers can do everything hey want (save power gaming) on an old 486 (I have a P133.... ok are y'all done laughing? good.). We (as a society) have to start buying smarter, otherwise the race to the bottom will continue, and we will all pay for it. . . both figuratively and litteraly. Any suggestions for a decent GUI OS thats non windows feel free to email me. D