Everyone in that category is just making excuses for not paying for things they value. You don't get to decide to pay for a movie after you walk out of a theater, you decide when you buy the ticket. Same with DVDs. You pay before you watch.
If hollywood wants to make you pay before you watch a movie, shouldn't that be their choice? Even if you refuse to watch any movies if you have to pay in advance, and they deprive themselves of revenue that way, why don't we let them make that choice? Why do people in this group get to impose their preferences on the studios?
That is not true. Please explain how the ivy league schools have the highest SAT scores in the nation if a large portion of their class is unqualified. Some people do get in based on connections/whatever, but it is a tiny minority.
The average SAT at Harvard is approximately 1500, last time I checked. If, as you claim, "most" of the slots are taken by people who don't get in on merit, let's assume that they make up 60% of the class and have an average SAT score of 1400 (which is much higher than what you'd need to be considered qualified for Harvard). If that is true, in order to bring the overall average to 1500, the rest of the class (the "merit" admits) would have to average above 1600 on the SAT, which is impossible.
Why do you continue to make such unsubstantiated claims?
Re:From the UVa Perspective ..
on
Who Needs Harvard?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I go to Harvard law. It is incredibly easy once you're here, that much is true.
But it is entirely untrue that it's hard to get in here (or Harvard College) because of the number of spaces reserved for the rich, legacies, and famous. Yale law has the highest GPAs and LSAT scores of any school in the country. Harvard is #2. You simply could not maintain those averages if you were letting in large numbers of people with sub-par qualifications simply because they are rich, legacies, or famous.
You're not responsible if someone else put porn on your computer. Crimes generally require 2 elements (I'm a law student):
1) Mens Rea, or intent. Clearly no intent there. Sometimes crimes don't require this, but almost all do. Intent might be satisfied by meaning to download a "barely legal" video, though. It's like if you swear she looked 18, you can still go to jail for statutory rape.
2) Actus Reus, or criminal act. Depending on the statute, possession might be a crime. So he could be liable just for that.
It's unlikely he would be found guilty without at least meaning to download something pornographic.
You don'tneed to have a poison pill at thetime of the bid to implement one. Especially since DIS just hired Wachtell, Lipton to defend themselves, who invented the pill, I think they'll be able to use it.
What kind of world do you live in where a budget doesn't have to take into account the current economic situation?
Tax cuts have reduced government revenue -- they haven't paid for jack. And the "stimulus" they've provided (much like the stimulus your lifestyle gets if you max out your credit card debt in a month) has not grown enough to cover the cuts themselves, let alone the drastic increase in spending Bush has overseen.
No. Princeton has world-leading theorists as teachers. Community colleges simply do not. Princeton has some of the brightest 18 year olds in the world. Community colleges do not.
There are better schools than princeton (like some of the elite liberal arts schools, where research and publishing take a back seat to teaching), but none of them is a community college.
You get a lot more out of college than just the facts and words contained in a book. The environment matters tremendously. Don't discount it.
Honestly, it's not that deep. Just because you didn't get it the first time doesn't mean that others can't. If you've taken any intro philosophy courses or even had a conversation with a friend while stoned, you've probably covered 99% of what they blabbed on about in the movies.
It's nice that they opened you up to these things, but they're nothing but B-movies with expensive effects.
Exactly. It's a vicious (or virtuous, if you were a VHX manufacturer) cycle.
Market share matters more than quality when there are positive network effects. More mp3s on the net = more people using mp3 over OGG = more mp3s on the net. Latehr, rinse repeat.
Aren't value and device quality inextricably linked? Only if HD size is the only thing you care about is the Zen a better value.
I'd say the iPod is a better value because I like using it better. And that's worth $150 to me. You can't talk about value without talking about quality.
Your argument is silly. All you are saying is that PCs are sometimes better than macs. Why does tham make macs suck? Why can't it mean that PCs suck, since they get blown out the water every few years, and then play catch up?
Macs are better in $/performance now. In 12 months, all they'll have is superior OS. move along.
Not the same thing. The fire department was already there, when the man saved the dog. So it wasn't that he entered the building, it was that he interfered with them and endangered everyone. Had he been the only one on the scene, I believe he would have been fine (although the law wouldn't really want to encourage people to enter burning buildings, because then they'll go in and firefighters will have to come in and pull them ouit when they get trapped).
I don't know the facts of the second case, but if the fire department is already there, "heros" just make it mmore dangerous for everyone.
I am a law student, and that post is missing some important facts. The police would have to have a warrant to search your HD, no matter if Zonelabs let them or not. As for the other two scenarios, they can happen right now. It's a matter of contract law and whether or not the EULA allows it and will stand up in court.
Be realistic. They're not hijacking your computer. They're removing a virus.
Don't rely on this advice, though. I am just a student.
SATs are useless, people should be judged by their grades, their merit, not some score on a test which could be a fluke, or which they could have used their money to train themselves for.
Grades are a fucking joke. There are a ton of people that can get great grades in HS just by working hard that then show up in college and can't handle the increased difficulty of the material and amount of work. These people do poorly on the SATs because they aren't allowed to spend 3x as long as everyone else working on the material.
Also, grades are incredibly unstandardized. Someone and Bedford-Stuyvesant or Philips Academy might be only average in their HS class and have a B average, but will do at least that well at a good school. The valedictorian from Hickville, Wyoming might be a drooling moron who's just better than his peers. SATs help correct for that.
Alot of people train hard for the SATs, get into Harvard or Yale, and drop out, mainly because they dont know how to work hard, they just know how to pass tests.
Harvard and Yale have incredibly high graduation rates. 97%+ when I was looking at colleges. Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just make shit up as you go along? Also, if someone is able to work hard for the SATs, why can't they work hard in college?
You seem bitter about your disadvantaged upbringing. Both my parents work for the government. Not fabulous pay. I got a great SAT and LSAT score without a tutor. Suck it up and do the work necessary to give yourself the opportunities you want.
It all depends on your definition of the minimum... completing all your work isn't really the minimum, especially if you get all A's, but to someone who doesn't work very hard, it does feel like they're doing the bare minimum they can. I'd imagine this guy is skimming the reading, turning in his papers as first drafts, and not studying too much for exams. Thus 'the minimum.' But he stillg ets good grades ont he work he completes.
I was the same way in college and got roughly the same grades. I went to one of the toughest colleges in the US. I did well because I can play the academic game better than almost anyone else I know, not because I'm the smartest person ever. Once you can figure out what the teacher really wants to hear, your scores will skyrocket.
Well, i128-bit AAC is not low-quality to me. I've actually listened to the songs and they sound just fine. YMMV. Have you purchased and listened to the music yet? If not, you might be surprised.
Secondly, the albums are priced at $10! How the hell can you people not know this yet? There are hundreds of posts pointing out that you can buy albums as a whole for less than the cost of buying all 10+ tracks individually! Learn the facts before you criticize!
The files are a copy of a copy? Actually, they're digitally remastered versions of the songs, specially made for ITunes MS. Besides, even if they were a copy of a copy, a digital copy is perfect and suffers no degradation in recopying, so I could have a 1000th generation copy that's as good as the first.
As far as the restrictions go, there are none that I actually notice. I can burn as many CDs as I want, listen to my collection on my computer, my ipod, and my girlfriend's computer and ipod. Since I think p2ping music is immoral, I don't care that these are useless to kazaa users.
My ideal is also cheaper and higher quality, but that doesn't make this a great service. It's worth it to me. The only thing I find really troublesome is that if you haven't backed up your computer and it crashes, you (apparently, I'm not sure on this) can't re-download purchased tracks for free.
The artist is still getting their cut, and since the presence of an online alternative to physical sales can only increase the number of purchases, this means the artist will get more money in the end. Don't blame apple for the sins of the RIAA. Their presence is democratizing music distribution, and will hopefully be part of a movement that gives more rights to artists.
If it's crap, then why are you breaking the law to download it?
Either you like it, and want it, and recognize the value in its production and distribution, and should pay for it, or you find the music valueless and should not want to spend any of your time/effort/bandwidth downloading it.
If it's on your computer, and you put it there on purpose, you should pay for it.
Well, tough shit that you can't sample. There is absolutely no right to try before you buy.
When you go to the movies, do you pay on the way in or on the way out? On the way in. You ask friends, read reviews, and watch ads/trailers before you buy your $10 ticket. And if you don't like it, don't make that mistake again.
If you want a book, you can either get it at the library or buy it. Didn't like it? Sell it to a used book store, because the food-smeared pages of your LoTR aren't going back on the new bookstore's shelf.
It's nice to try before you buy, and if you really do that, congrats, you're more honest than 99% of the population. But just because you like doing it doesn't mean you get to do it. No matter how big or small, the record company paid to make that record, and you have no right to deprive them of the ability to get a return on their investment. It's not that hard to figure out what you aren't going to like before buying, and you don't have to p2p to do it.
I don't download, and I'm generally quite happy with the music I buy, and it sure as hell isn't because I can hear it on Clear Channel 1000 times before I make my purchase. I read reviews and do my homework. You should try that before whining that people don't want you to have unlimited free, perfect samples of everything you've ever wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone in that category is just making excuses for not paying for things they value. You don't get to decide to pay for a movie after you walk out of a theater, you decide when you buy the ticket. Same with DVDs. You pay before you watch.
If hollywood wants to make you pay before you watch a movie, shouldn't that be their choice? Even if you refuse to watch any movies if you have to pay in advance, and they deprive themselves of revenue that way, why don't we let them make that choice? Why do people in this group get to impose their preferences on the studios?
That is not true. Please explain how the ivy league schools have the highest SAT scores in the nation if a large portion of their class is unqualified. Some people do get in based on connections/whatever, but it is a tiny minority.
The average SAT at Harvard is approximately 1500, last time I checked. If, as you claim, "most" of the slots are taken by people who don't get in on merit, let's assume that they make up 60% of the class and have an average SAT score of 1400 (which is much higher than what you'd need to be considered qualified for Harvard). If that is true, in order to bring the overall average to 1500, the rest of the class (the "merit" admits) would have to average above 1600 on the SAT, which is impossible.
Why do you continue to make such unsubstantiated claims?
I go to Harvard law. It is incredibly easy once you're here, that much is true.
But it is entirely untrue that it's hard to get in here (or Harvard College) because of the number of spaces reserved for the rich, legacies, and famous. Yale law has the highest GPAs and LSAT scores of any school in the country. Harvard is #2. You simply could not maintain those averages if you were letting in large numbers of people with sub-par qualifications simply because they are rich, legacies, or famous.
That is a fantastic idea. One small point: it's already on the list. And was mentioned in the summary on the main page. Hooray for reading!
You're not responsible if someone else put porn on your computer. Crimes generally require 2 elements (I'm a law student):
1) Mens Rea, or intent. Clearly no intent there. Sometimes crimes don't require this, but almost all do. Intent might be satisfied by meaning to download a "barely legal" video, though. It's like if you swear she looked 18, you can still go to jail for statutory rape.
2) Actus Reus, or criminal act. Depending on the statute, possession might be a crime. So he could be liable just for that.
It's unlikely he would be found guilty without at least meaning to download something pornographic.
You don'tneed to have a poison pill at thetime of the bid to implement one. Especially since DIS just hired Wachtell, Lipton to defend themselves, who invented the pill, I think they'll be able to use it.
What kind of world do you live in where a budget doesn't have to take into account the current economic situation?
Tax cuts have reduced government revenue -- they haven't paid for jack. And the "stimulus" they've provided (much like the stimulus your lifestyle gets if you max out your credit card debt in a month) has not grown enough to cover the cuts themselves, let alone the drastic increase in spending Bush has overseen.
See this article for starters.
What are you talking about? California tuition is $3k per semester. Where did you get this notion of a minimum $25k cost?
No. Princeton has world-leading theorists as teachers. Community colleges simply do not. Princeton has some of the brightest 18 year olds in the world. Community colleges do not.
There are better schools than princeton (like some of the elite liberal arts schools, where research and publishing take a back seat to teaching), but none of them is a community college.
You get a lot more out of college than just the facts and words contained in a book. The environment matters tremendously. Don't discount it.
Honestly, it's not that deep. Just because you didn't get it the first time doesn't mean that others can't. If you've taken any intro philosophy courses or even had a conversation with a friend while stoned, you've probably covered 99% of what they blabbed on about in the movies.
It's nice that they opened you up to these things, but they're nothing but B-movies with expensive effects.
Exactly. It's a vicious (or virtuous, if you were a VHX manufacturer) cycle.
Market share matters more than quality when there are positive network effects. More mp3s on the net = more people using mp3 over OGG = more mp3s on the net. Latehr, rinse repeat.
Aren't value and device quality inextricably linked? Only if HD size is the only thing you care about is the Zen a better value.
I'd say the iPod is a better value because I like using it better. And that's worth $150 to me. You can't talk about value without talking about quality.
I'm not sure how Apple is f*cking up your ability to enjoy your entertainment.
1)You can listen to the songs you buy anywhere you want. Home PC? No prob. ipod? No prob. Burn them to a CD? Basically unrestricted.
2) You can listen on multiple computers -- either by sharing or by authorizing multiple computers.
What can't you do? Give music away to millions of people you don't know. Is that really why you buy entertainment products? I doubt it.
There aren't any real hurdles placed in your way to use these files as you see fit. Please define the problem again.
Your argument is silly. All you are saying is that PCs are sometimes better than macs. Why does tham make macs suck? Why can't it mean that PCs suck, since they get blown out the water every few years, and then play catch up?
Macs are better in $/performance now. In 12 months, all they'll have is superior OS. move along.
"That's mainly why i still rip to mp3."
Why? Self-ripped AAC files have no restrictions on them and store no information about you. As far as I know, it's the same with OGG, etc.
Do you call economics 'econ' or 'econs' when referring to it informally?
Although we call statistics 'stats' here.
As another pointed out, mathematics isn't plural, so you're just hearing a difference in diction, not a bastardization of the language.
Not the same thing. The fire department was already there, when the man saved the dog. So it wasn't that he entered the building, it was that he interfered with them and endangered everyone. Had he been the only one on the scene, I believe he would have been fine (although the law wouldn't really want to encourage people to enter burning buildings, because then they'll go in and firefighters will have to come in and pull them ouit when they get trapped).
I don't know the facts of the second case, but if the fire department is already there, "heros" just make it mmore dangerous for everyone.
I am a law student, and that post is missing some important facts. The police would have to have a warrant to search your HD, no matter if Zonelabs let them or not. As for the other two scenarios, they can happen right now. It's a matter of contract law and whether or not the EULA allows it and will stand up in court.
Be realistic. They're not hijacking your computer. They're removing a virus.
Don't rely on this advice, though. I am just a student.
SATs are useless, people should be judged by their grades, their merit, not some score on a test which could be a fluke, or which they could have used their money to train themselves for.
Grades are a fucking joke. There are a ton of people that can get great grades in HS just by working hard that then show up in college and can't handle the increased difficulty of the material and amount of work. These people do poorly on the SATs because they aren't allowed to spend 3x as long as everyone else working on the material.
Also, grades are incredibly unstandardized. Someone and Bedford-Stuyvesant or Philips Academy might be only average in their HS class and have a B average, but will do at least that well at a good school. The valedictorian from Hickville, Wyoming might be a drooling moron who's just better than his peers. SATs help correct for that.
Alot of people train hard for the SATs, get into Harvard or Yale, and drop out, mainly because they dont know how to work hard, they just know how to pass tests.
Harvard and Yale have incredibly high graduation rates. 97%+ when I was looking at colleges. Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just make shit up as you go along? Also, if someone is able to work hard for the SATs, why can't they work hard in college?
You seem bitter about your disadvantaged upbringing. Both my parents work for the government. Not fabulous pay. I got a great SAT and LSAT score without a tutor. Suck it up and do the work necessary to give yourself the opportunities you want.
It all depends on your definition of the minimum... completing all your work isn't really the minimum, especially if you get all A's, but to someone who doesn't work very hard, it does feel like they're doing the bare minimum they can. I'd imagine this guy is skimming the reading, turning in his papers as first drafts, and not studying too much for exams. Thus 'the minimum.' But he stillg ets good grades ont he work he completes.
I was the same way in college and got roughly the same grades. I went to one of the toughest colleges in the US. I did well because I can play the academic game better than almost anyone else I know, not because I'm the smartest person ever. Once you can figure out what the teacher really wants to hear, your scores will skyrocket.
Well, i128-bit AAC is not low-quality to me. I've actually listened to the songs and they sound just fine. YMMV. Have you purchased and listened to the music yet? If not, you might be surprised.
Secondly, the albums are priced at $10! How the hell can you people not know this yet? There are hundreds of posts pointing out that you can buy albums as a whole for less than the cost of buying all 10+ tracks individually! Learn the facts before you criticize!
The files are a copy of a copy? Actually, they're digitally remastered versions of the songs, specially made for ITunes MS. Besides, even if they were a copy of a copy, a digital copy is perfect and suffers no degradation in recopying, so I could have a 1000th generation copy that's as good as the first.
As far as the restrictions go, there are none that I actually notice. I can burn as many CDs as I want, listen to my collection on my computer, my ipod, and my girlfriend's computer and ipod. Since I think p2ping music is immoral, I don't care that these are useless to kazaa users.
My ideal is also cheaper and higher quality, but that doesn't make this a great service. It's worth it to me. The only thing I find really troublesome is that if you haven't backed up your computer and it crashes, you (apparently, I'm not sure on this) can't re-download purchased tracks for free.
The artist is still getting their cut, and since the presence of an online alternative to physical sales can only increase the number of purchases, this means the artist will get more money in the end. Don't blame apple for the sins of the RIAA. Their presence is democratizing music distribution, and will hopefully be part of a movement that gives more rights to artists.
If it's crap, then why are you breaking the law to download it?
Either you like it, and want it, and recognize the value in its production and distribution, and should pay for it, or you find the music valueless and should not want to spend any of your time/effort/bandwidth downloading it.
If it's on your computer, and you put it there on purpose, you should pay for it.
How is that a killer, except to sales of the new iPod? Nobody has FW800 right now. And it won't make iPods any faster, as the HD is the bottleneck.
Well, tough shit that you can't sample. There is absolutely no right to try before you buy.
When you go to the movies, do you pay on the way in or on the way out? On the way in. You ask friends, read reviews, and watch ads/trailers before you buy your $10 ticket. And if you don't like it, don't make that mistake again.
If you want a book, you can either get it at the library or buy it. Didn't like it? Sell it to a used book store, because the food-smeared pages of your LoTR aren't going back on the new bookstore's shelf.
It's nice to try before you buy, and if you really do that, congrats, you're more honest than 99% of the population. But just because you like doing it doesn't mean you get to do it. No matter how big or small, the record company paid to make that record, and you have no right to deprive them of the ability to get a return on their investment. It's not that hard to figure out what you aren't going to like before buying, and you don't have to p2p to do it.
I don't download, and I'm generally quite happy with the music I buy, and it sure as hell isn't because I can hear it on Clear Channel 1000 times before I make my purchase. I read reviews and do my homework. You should try that before whining that people don't want you to have unlimited free, perfect samples of everything you've ever wanted.