but we haven't even solved the problem of email spam. filters don't work 100%. and most of it is up to the user to mark messages as spam, not the email providers to go after email campaign toolmakers. i agree with adjacent AC who says go after spammers. we threw a few of the email spammers in jail, now for the twitter spammers. but toolmakers? get real.
the hell i'm talking about is the hell people go through fighting RIAA litigation and discussing moot topics like the obsolescence of the recording industry. have some coffee first. jesus christ
sure, ok, but you can solve that problem yourself by pulling your business away. my original comment was mainly an attempt to nip the sue-first-think-later mentality we have too much of in this country. solve your own problem and if that's not possible, then worry about whether they do it to someone else. by making a formal complaint (don't read as lawsuit) and not giving them any more of your money, the company has the free agency to either do the right thing next time or screw someone else over. again, speaking to this particular case, the provider wasn't out to screw over anyone in the first place. the issue is that the compensation they offered wasn't adequate.
haha you beat me (beat meat?) to it. they should combine this bacteria killing tech with the fleshlight so these football players can share in safety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a60c2k6JP94
the music labels have a different business model than the pirate bay, and therefore treat the artists differently. if the music labels started behaving like the pirate bay, they would cease to be music labels, and we could all finally get on with our lives. there's so many DIY alternatives to music labels that they have become obsolete -- that's what they are fighting tooth and nail to stop. not even distribution is a concern anymore. royalties were paid after useful services were rendered to the artists, but now the RIAA is just the MAFIAA skimming profits off others' works. music labels are no longer useful.
i've said this many times in many different forums: music labels used to nurture artists and sign (arguably) good ones due to one simple fact: the technology to produce and edit recordings was very expensive. the high quality recording tape was expensive, and editing it (like old school film editing: chop and paste) took expertise. labels nurtured artists because they wanted high quality output, which in turn reduced the number of takes it took to lay down a track. then things went digital. no more expensive tape. no more high-skilled labor to edit (and by that i mean surgeon-like precision with the cutting, as opposed to learning a program).
now labels can churn and burn any sucker off the street, slap autotune on it and call it a day. 50,000 takes? whatevs. and that itself has saturated the market with more artist choices than people can afford in the old model, with the majority of them not being worth the cost of the cd/download. there's only X amount of total dollars among every listener to be spent. the more artists, the less each of them can make in this environment.
artists no longer nurtured are no longer artists, they are revolving door employees. they get hired and fired like mcdonald's mcjob-ers. in this kind of environment where the recording process itself has little value, it makes more sense to give away the music and nurture the live performance -- the only thing left you can point to and say, that's a real artist. labels are just simply obsolete. the recorded music itself has really just become an ad for the performance. the only other money left to be made is from licensing for things like movies and commercials, and that leaves out the average consumer and focuses on big businesses who can afford the licensing. as it should be.
i'm referring to when people say, "i'm going to sue you if i don't get my way!" a cease-and-desist letter is the first step in actually getting the ball rolling in litigation -- you have to give them a chance to stop. people often send out these letters without angry fist-shaking. and some lawsuits aren't about ceasing and desisting anything. in this situation we're discussing there's nothing for the cloud host to cease. there's no ongoing bad behavior.
agree with all except that, in general, when someone makes threats to sue they are usually full of hot air. the ones who actually sue don't tell you until you're being served. companies know this. just spam as much negative publicity as you can and pull your business.
Here's what Mark Liberman actually said in that reference:
If you use the phrase to mean "raise the question", some pedants will silently dismiss you as a dunce, while others will complain loudly, thus distracting everyone else from whatever you wanted to say. If you complain about others' "misuse", you come across as an annoying pedant.
it might interest pedants such as yourself to know the phrase "make love" originally meant to woo, or court someone, not have sex. language evolves, don't get left behind. too much prescriptivism is unhealthy. the "logical fallacy" definition of the phrase is pretty much useless as it is. the modern usage makes more sense, so why not? (rhetorical)
stored as memories in your neural net! everyone is illegal!!! lock everyone up, including the lawmakers. they can't disprove they've never seen kiddie porn.
Slashdot Mirror
the character limit won't let me include them all, or i could go three lines and end it with a "tl;dr"
but we haven't even solved the problem of email spam. filters don't work 100%. and most of it is up to the user to mark messages as spam, not the email providers to go after email campaign toolmakers. i agree with adjacent AC who says go after spammers. we threw a few of the email spammers in jail, now for the twitter spammers. but toolmakers? get real.
they can't enjoy the porn like the men.
the hell i'm talking about is the hell people go through fighting RIAA litigation and discussing moot topics like the obsolescence of the recording industry. have some coffee first. jesus christ
apologies for assuming the readership was american. hopefully we're the only ones suffering from lawsuit frenzy.
sure, ok, but you can solve that problem yourself by pulling your business away. my original comment was mainly an attempt to nip the sue-first-think-later mentality we have too much of in this country. solve your own problem and if that's not possible, then worry about whether they do it to someone else. by making a formal complaint (don't read as lawsuit) and not giving them any more of your money, the company has the free agency to either do the right thing next time or screw someone else over. again, speaking to this particular case, the provider wasn't out to screw over anyone in the first place. the issue is that the compensation they offered wasn't adequate.
haha you beat me (beat meat?) to it. they should combine this bacteria killing tech with the fleshlight so these football players can share in safety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a60c2k6JP94
the music labels have a different business model than the pirate bay, and therefore treat the artists differently. if the music labels started behaving like the pirate bay, they would cease to be music labels, and we could all finally get on with our lives. there's so many DIY alternatives to music labels that they have become obsolete -- that's what they are fighting tooth and nail to stop. not even distribution is a concern anymore. royalties were paid after useful services were rendered to the artists, but now the RIAA is just the MAFIAA skimming profits off others' works. music labels are no longer useful.
i've said this many times in many different forums: music labels used to nurture artists and sign (arguably) good ones due to one simple fact: the technology to produce and edit recordings was very expensive. the high quality recording tape was expensive, and editing it (like old school film editing: chop and paste) took expertise. labels nurtured artists because they wanted high quality output, which in turn reduced the number of takes it took to lay down a track. then things went digital. no more expensive tape. no more high-skilled labor to edit (and by that i mean surgeon-like precision with the cutting, as opposed to learning a program).
now labels can churn and burn any sucker off the street, slap autotune on it and call it a day. 50,000 takes? whatevs. and that itself has saturated the market with more artist choices than people can afford in the old model, with the majority of them not being worth the cost of the cd/download. there's only X amount of total dollars among every listener to be spent. the more artists, the less each of them can make in this environment.
artists no longer nurtured are no longer artists, they are revolving door employees. they get hired and fired like mcdonald's mcjob-ers. in this kind of environment where the recording process itself has little value, it makes more sense to give away the music and nurture the live performance -- the only thing left you can point to and say, that's a real artist. labels are just simply obsolete. the recorded music itself has really just become an ad for the performance. the only other money left to be made is from licensing for things like movies and commercials, and that leaves out the average consumer and focuses on big businesses who can afford the licensing. as it should be.
i was moderating with positive karma. and it's funny (both ha ha and strange) how much trolling you can get away with and maintain it.
QED
those PSAs are ridiculously awesome. i love #7, She Has A Name. yeah, it's Sasha Grey.
obviously the depravity of both can be traced back to masturbation
... who, ironically, has no clitoris due to female circumcision.
that episode of south park is one of my favorites
ever heard of body language?
spoken like a true repub
i make more than the average nurse and i can't afford to pay $40k cash for a car. i'm saving my money for a house (a liiiiiiittle bit more important).
http://www1.salary.com/registered-nurse-Salary.html
i'm referring to when people say, "i'm going to sue you if i don't get my way!" a cease-and-desist letter is the first step in actually getting the ball rolling in litigation -- you have to give them a chance to stop. people often send out these letters without angry fist-shaking. and some lawsuits aren't about ceasing and desisting anything. in this situation we're discussing there's nothing for the cloud host to cease. there's no ongoing bad behavior.
April 3rd: Facebook countersues Yahoo over 10 disputed patents
April 4th: Yahoo lays off 2,000 people.
agree with all except that, in general, when someone makes threats to sue they are usually full of hot air. the ones who actually sue don't tell you until you're being served. companies know this. just spam as much negative publicity as you can and pull your business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Modern_usage
Here's what Mark Liberman actually said in that reference:
If you use the phrase to mean "raise the question", some pedants will silently dismiss you as a dunce, while others will complain loudly, thus distracting everyone else from whatever you wanted to say. If you complain about others' "misuse", you come across as an annoying pedant.
it might interest pedants such as yourself to know the phrase "make love" originally meant to woo, or court someone, not have sex. language evolves, don't get left behind. too much prescriptivism is unhealthy. the "logical fallacy" definition of the phrase is pretty much useless as it is. the modern usage makes more sense, so why not? (rhetorical)
the crucial moment i was referring to in the summary occurs toward the end of viewing porn, but you've been spared the reference :)
pretty much anything google puts out, apparently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/women-more-likely-to-date_n_549176.html
you ain't kidding, have you seen them drive? fuck me in the goat ass!
and look at the racist assholes who run education out there
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/apr/03/arizona-considers-expanded-ban-daily-show-lampoons/
stored as memories in your neural net! everyone is illegal!!! lock everyone up, including the lawmakers. they can't disprove they've never seen kiddie porn.