YOU CAN copy things for non-commercial purposes. Letting somebody else listen to your music collection is a non-commercial purpose.
A dude's gotta make some bread, but the RIAA certainly doesn't. They don't create anything. All they do is make sure that the artists pay through the nose for the privilege of getting their music heard.
If the artist was getting any sort of reasonable compensation for CD sales, I'd feel that "piracy" (their word) is less a legitimate exercise. However, the record labels themselves are pirates on a truly epic scale. I feel no obligation whatsoever to give RIAA money.
Incidentally, I also don't listen to music they publish, so we get along fine.
Yeah, they couldn't possibly just like their computers, or their motorcycles. Must be some sort of cult thing.
Re:Very 1st Walkman Ever Had Dual Headphone Abilit
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 1
Gianormous? I'd love to see a similar capacity MP3 player that's substantially smaller.
You seem to think that any club you're not in shouldn't exist.
Your statements all sound like sour grapes to me. Get used to the idea that you are not a member of communities that you are not a member of. You probably don't drive a Miata or a Jeep. You might not play golf, or tennis, or racquetball. You might not be able to speak a foreign language. All of these activities come with groups of people with similar interests. They might well form a community. What's wrong with that?
With an attitude like yours, I wouldn't be surprised if you were not a member of a lot of communities.
Re:Man, this makes me wanna
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 1
I bought a Miata because it was a great car. The other cool people I met who also drive Miatas were a bonus.
There is no virtue in being a loner. There's also no virtue in following a crowd. Me, I do my thing. Sometimes I meet other people doing similar things. We tend to get along well. Please explain to me why this is somehow bad or offensive to you.
Re:But ya know, you gotta have an iPod
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 1
Miata drivers wave at Miata drivers.
Jeep drivers wave at Jeep drivers.
They're social phenomenon. This iPod thing is the same thing. Thing is, people DIDN'T do this with other music players. At least, not that I've ever heard of or seen. It's a new thang. Why are you bitter about it?
Re:Write About People Pooping With Their iPods Nex
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 1
Gosh, I wonder if anybody else thought of the micro-broadcasting. Like, uh, the author of the article.
How many Neuros-es (well there's an unfortunate plural) have been sold? How many iPods? Why are you surprised that the iPod gets more ink.
The iPod is a device that impacted the American pop culture. That makes it significant.
Many of the Founders explicitly did not want the Bill of Rights, because some idiot might think that those are the only Rights that the people enjoy. If you read carefully, the Bill of Rights does not say "You are allowed to do X". It says "The government shall not impede your right to do X". That is a critical, and intentional, semantic difference.
We have rights, endowed by our creator. Inalienable. Yes, that DOES include using a public resource (bandwidth) for something that you, Tom, disapprove of.
Now, what this person did may well have been against the law, and I'm not arguing that. I certainly WOULD argue that it SHOULDNT'T be against the law, but that's a different discussion. I'm more interested in discussing the issue of fundamental rights, which a lot of people seem to not understand anymore.
Incidentally, I think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you re: civil disobedience. He would say that it is not only our right, but our DUTY, to disobey bad laws.
In most (civilized) nations, the people have the RIGHT to do whatever they damn well please (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) except for certain proscribed activities (murder, stealing, &c). The State does not tell me what I'm permitted to do. It can only tell me what I'm NOT permitted to do. Of course, sometimes it seems like I'm the only person on the damn planet who understands that, so that little detail of the social ontract is being destroyed. Oh goody.
Megan has a right to use a computer, even ignorantly. If she is found by a court to have broken the law, she should be held accountable. However, RIAA's extortion tactics are barratry, pure and simple.
"Of course, the connections to the back bone do not need to be able to deliver a zillion terabits per second to every doorstep, but it makes a lot of sense to go ahead and bury cable that will handle crazy bandwidth, and then upgrade the links as necessary/desireable."
Bury the high capacity media now. Scale the switches later. Does that make sense to you?
Building twice as much road costs more than twice as much money.
Burying a 2x capacity fiber network costs barely more than buryign a 1x network (where x is some metric of bandwidth). The overwhelming majority of the cost is labor, not the cable itself, and that labor cost does not scale with bandwidth.
How do you install a lower-capacity fiber optic cable?
It doesn't cost substantially more to bury high-capacity fiber than low-capacity fiber. Of course, the connections to the back bone do not need to be able to deliver a zillion terabits per second to every doorstep, but it makes a lot of sense to go ahead and bury cable that will handle crazy bandwidth, and then upgrade the links as necessary/desireable.
I was at a party tonight with a bunch of ppl I didn't know. I thought it was very courteous of them to ask me "Hey dude, are you cool with pot?" I said "No worries, go ahead" and ignored the joint when it came my way.
It's not my thing, but I appreciated the consideration they showed me when they asked if it would make me feel unwelcome. Cool people.
I'm not sure, but I don't believe UCI is the governing body for mountain biking.
This thing weighs almost three times what the Tour bikes weigh, so no, you're not going to be seeing it on Alpe D'Huez. Hummers are also conspicuously absent from F1 races. : )
Downhill bicycle racing is a pretty different sport than cross country racing, and the bicycles used are RADICALLY different from one another (at least when you decide to get competitive about it).
Saying "x raises the question" illustrates to an educated audience that you are aware of the impropriety of misusing "x begs the question". That audience will appreciate your word selection. An uneducated audience won't care either way.
The educated audience probably has more money, and they are more likely to give you some of that money if you speak well.
Anybody who'd call me a pompous git for knowing what the hell I'm talking about is not worthy of my attention. And I DO have a really good answer for why one phrase is better than the other.
It's poor writing, and that's all there is to it. You can make it mean anything you want it to, but any educated person is still going to cringe when they read it.
It's the same principle as spelling properly. Sure, your meaning gets across if you mangle every other word, but your point is less strongly stated than if you spelled properly.
People voted for Kennedy because he was pretty, and people judge you by the way you write. That's the way of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
YOU CAN copy things for non-commercial purposes. Letting somebody else listen to your music collection is a non-commercial purpose.
A dude's gotta make some bread, but the RIAA certainly doesn't. They don't create anything. All they do is make sure that the artists pay through the nose for the privilege of getting their music heard.
If the artist was getting any sort of reasonable compensation for CD sales, I'd feel that "piracy" (their word) is less a legitimate exercise. However, the record labels themselves are pirates on a truly epic scale. I feel no obligation whatsoever to give RIAA money.
Incidentally, I also don't listen to music they publish, so we get along fine.
It's clearly a perjorative term, particulary in the context you used it. You shouldn't be surprised if people react negatively to it.
Yeah, they couldn't possibly just like their computers, or their motorcycles. Must be some sort of cult thing.
Gianormous? I'd love to see a similar capacity MP3 player that's substantially smaller.
You seem to think that any club you're not in shouldn't exist.
Your statements all sound like sour grapes to me. Get used to the idea that you are not a member of communities that you are not a member of. You probably don't drive a Miata or a Jeep. You might not play golf, or tennis, or racquetball. You might not be able to speak a foreign language. All of these activities come with groups of people with similar interests. They might well form a community. What's wrong with that?
With an attitude like yours, I wouldn't be surprised if you were not a member of a lot of communities.
I bought a Miata because it was a great car. The other cool people I met who also drive Miatas were a bonus.
There is no virtue in being a loner. There's also no virtue in following a crowd. Me, I do my thing. Sometimes I meet other people doing similar things. We tend to get along well. Please explain to me why this is somehow bad or offensive to you.
Miata drivers wave at Miata drivers.
Jeep drivers wave at Jeep drivers.
They're social phenomenon. This iPod thing is the same thing. Thing is, people DIDN'T do this with other music players. At least, not that I've ever heard of or seen. It's a new thang. Why are you bitter about it?
Gosh, I wonder if anybody else thought of the micro-broadcasting. Like, uh, the author of the article.
How many Neuros-es (well there's an unfortunate plural) have been sold? How many iPods? Why are you surprised that the iPod gets more ink.
The iPod is a device that impacted the American pop culture. That makes it significant.
At the end of the day, we must agree to disagree. I believe she was within her fair use rights.
1-4 are subsumed under "inalienable rights".
Many of the Founders explicitly did not want the Bill of Rights, because some idiot might think that those are the only Rights that the people enjoy. If you read carefully, the Bill of Rights does not say "You are allowed to do X". It says "The government shall not impede your right to do X". That is a critical, and intentional, semantic difference.
We have rights, endowed by our creator. Inalienable. Yes, that DOES include using a public resource (bandwidth) for something that you, Tom, disapprove of.
Now, what this person did may well have been against the law, and I'm not arguing that. I certainly WOULD argue that it SHOULDNT'T be against the law, but that's a different discussion. I'm more interested in discussing the issue of fundamental rights, which a lot of people seem to not understand anymore.
Incidentally, I think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you re: civil disobedience. He would say that it is not only our right, but our DUTY, to disobey bad laws.
You can be deprived of your rights by due process of law. That doesn't mean that they are not rights.
You should not lose your rights by due process of the RIAA's saber-rattling.
Spoken like a true robber baron.
In most (civilized) nations, the people have the RIGHT to do whatever they damn well please (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) except for certain proscribed activities (murder, stealing, &c). The State does not tell me what I'm permitted to do. It can only tell me what I'm NOT permitted to do. Of course, sometimes it seems like I'm the only person on the damn planet who understands that, so that little detail of the social ontract is being destroyed. Oh goody.
Megan has a right to use a computer, even ignorantly. If she is found by a court to have broken the law, she should be held accountable. However, RIAA's extortion tactics are barratry, pure and simple.
So go buy one. What's stopping you?
So please, please, please don't buy one. Really. Just don't buy one.
Try to keep in mind that other peoples' needs might differ from yours. Get over it.
I think you meant discreet.
So, you've never heard of the guy who stood in front of the tank in Tienamen Square?
Peaceful resistance works great against a relatively civilized power (like Great Britain).
Uh, let me restate the second half of my post.
"Of course, the connections to the back bone do not need to be able to deliver a zillion terabits per second to every doorstep, but it makes a lot of sense to go ahead and bury cable that will handle crazy bandwidth, and then upgrade the links as necessary/desireable."
Bury the high capacity media now. Scale the switches later. Does that make sense to you?
Building twice as much road costs more than twice as much money.
Burying a 2x capacity fiber network costs barely more than buryign a 1x network (where x is some metric of bandwidth). The overwhelming majority of the cost is labor, not the cable itself, and that labor cost does not scale with bandwidth.
How do you install a lower-capacity fiber optic cable?
It doesn't cost substantially more to bury high-capacity fiber than low-capacity fiber. Of course, the connections to the back bone do not need to be able to deliver a zillion terabits per second to every doorstep, but it makes a lot of sense to go ahead and bury cable that will handle crazy bandwidth, and then upgrade the links as necessary/desireable.
What difference does that make?
I don't care if everybody drives Mazdas. I like mine.
I was at a party tonight with a bunch of ppl I didn't know. I thought it was very courteous of them to ask me "Hey dude, are you cool with pot?" I said "No worries, go ahead" and ignored the joint when it came my way.
It's not my thing, but I appreciated the consideration they showed me when they asked if it would make me feel unwelcome. Cool people.
I'm not sure, but I don't believe UCI is the governing body for mountain biking.
This thing weighs almost three times what the Tour bikes weigh, so no, you're not going to be seeing it on Alpe D'Huez. Hummers are also conspicuously absent from F1 races. : )
The uphill part, you do with a ski-lift.
Downhill bicycle racing is a pretty different sport than cross country racing, and the bicycles used are RADICALLY different from one another (at least when you decide to get competitive about it).
Stupid free speech.
I'd rather not vote, than have my vote hijacked. If I can't trust the system, I will not use it.
Saying "x raises the question" illustrates to an educated audience that you are aware of the impropriety of misusing "x begs the question". That audience will appreciate your word selection. An uneducated audience won't care either way.
The educated audience probably has more money, and they are more likely to give you some of that money if you speak well.
Anybody who'd call me a pompous git for knowing what the hell I'm talking about is not worthy of my attention. And I DO have a really good answer for why one phrase is better than the other.
It's poor writing, and that's all there is to it. You can make it mean anything you want it to, but any educated person is still going to cringe when they read it.
It's the same principle as spelling properly. Sure, your meaning gets across if you mangle every other word, but your point is less strongly stated than if you spelled properly.
People voted for Kennedy because he was pretty, and people judge you by the way you write. That's the way of the world.