So piracy is reduced. Big deal. It doesn't matter. The argument has been that RIAA companies are suffering financially because of piracy. I don't see any evidence that music sales are up now that the RIAA has scared people away from download services.
I wouldn't have an issue with people doing this sort of thing in a Robin Hood manner but I'm afraid that isn't going to happen. More likely that theifs will get rich and not give the money to the poor and more likely their victims will be the poor or middle class and not the rich.
So as long as whatever I steal I give to someone has less than whoever I steal if from, that's OK by you? Are you serious?
It could happen. Cities in the US have already attempted to gain extra revenue... um, sue... gun manufacturers just because they made the gun that someone used to hurt someone.
If "regardless" means "without regard", then would "irregardless" mean "without without regard"? Is it a more high-powered regardless, one to be used in special situations? Or is does it really mean "with regard" as the negatives cancel themselves out.
Bzzzt! Wrong. The TIA is about recording the activities of everyone in order to find criminals and potential terrorists. Think about it... if the criminals and terrorists were known, there would be no need to waste time mining all this data would there?
I believe you mean ellipsis. According to my dictionary, ellipse is a geometric figure.
If you're referring to the proliferation of "*" in the post, these are not ellipses. A "*" used as an ellipsis would indicate omission - as in "f*** you!". In the case of this post, the "*" is used for emphasis.
That said, I too find all the "*" annoying. And if anyone can tell me what name is for "*", I'd appreciate it.
The true "cost per eyeball" for television commercials is probably unknown. At the very least, the spammer knows a) exactly who he sent the mail, b) exactly how many addresses were bad, and c) how many individuals opened the mail. OK, he doesn't know exactly how many *opened* the mail, but given how many default installations of Outlook Express are out there, it's a good bet that he knows most of the opened mails.
Contrast that with television commercials. No way to determine: a) how many viewers of the programs the adverstisements are interleaved into, b) no way to determine how many viewers didn't get up to take a sh*t during the commercial.
I know the rating services use sophisticated statistical analyses to extrapolate US viewing habits from a small set of data, but the spammer has a much better idea of the true "cost per eyeball" of his ad.
In court, you'll be judged "guilty" or "not guilty". You're never "proven innocent" in the United States' criminal justice system. I hope you'll agree that there is a big difference between the two.
As far as asset seizure goes, IF a person is found guilty AND assets enabled the crime or are the profit from the crime, then I believe those assets should be forfeited. But to seize on suspicion of guilt is abominable.
But what I'm really wondering is whether they can continue to survive in the long run. Are there enough consumers willing to go along with their program?
You're right. But are these actions really expected to boost sales? Does anyone believe that shutting down P2P networks will increase sales for record companies? Why can't these companies develop products at a price/feature point that can compete with the P2P services?
Uhh, yes. People *do* want free music. Others *do* want easy access to music. But a large number of P2P users want free music. Regardless of whether they can afford the CDs, they want free music.
The question is, will these people *purchase* music if P2P is largely shutdown?
Will the music distributors strive to make easy access to music? Many posts here today suggest ways to offer music to consumers - cheaper CDs, etc.
I'm skeptical. If the business model favors spending money on litigation over spending money developing something consumers want, then I'd expect a continuing series of legal actions until RIAA et al are assured that their existing way of doing business can be milked for a few more years.
Re:USA never had true capitalism
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
Call me an asshole if you like, but you'd have a better time convincing me about what you're saying if you'd punctuate and spell properly.
Or perhaps you believe that would mark you as bourgeois.
Sixty-three percent rated the job the American educational system does in teaching students about First Amendment freedoms as either "fair" or "poor."
So... did the 49% who think the First Amendment goes too far learn about it in the American educational system? If so, would they assess their knowledge of the amendment as "fair" or "poor"?
"T-Mobile is geared toward business people whose employers often foot the bill, he said."
Airlines are having problems because businesses no longer want to pay premium prices for air travel. Their business models depend on these high-priced fares.
Will T-Mobile have the same fate when businesses start asking their employees to take advantage of free and low-cost Wi-Fi providers? Other than ease-of-use, what does the T-Mobile service offer as compared to community networks?
Television - in the US - is supported by advertising revenue and subscription fees. If enough viewers skip the commercials, I would expect one of two things to happen. One would be that subscription fees increase to cover the lost advertising revenue. The other would be increased use of product placement. Would either of these possibilities be more palatable for viewers? The irony is that there would be fewer "commercials" but the product placement might be more obvious that the commercials.
One thing I've wondered is how these viewers are accounted for in the rating systems that advertisers and broadcasters use to determine ad rates. Another thing I've wondered: is product placement more or less effective than commercials?
That makes sense. I was taking issue with the direct comparison. And I'm not sure that the majority of users "misused" the Thompson gun, although clearly the most visible users were those who used the gun in nefarious schemes. Actually, that compares well with CD burning. People who use the burners as intended (backup, etc) get very little visibility compared with the visiblity of illegal use.
Uh... he never said that machine guns were comparable in any way to cd copying. He argues that the situation was similar. And it is. Legal use of a device (cd burner, Thompson sub machine gun - your choice) is being offset by illegal use of the device. If you don't grasp the concept of a simile, I hope you don't try to read poetry. Or maybe you just have a thing about firearms.
What I'm trying to say about "separation of Church and State" versus "make no laws respecting the establishment of a religion" is that, to me, one has to do with how narrowly secular a government is, while the other regards how the government reacts to religion around it. The first concept is internal; the second is external.
That said, I do agree that adding "Under God" to the pledge was not correct. The pledge was just fine - and constitutional - as an oath of patriotic allegience before it was altered.
There are many in the United States who believe that, because the majority of the population is marginally Christian, others who are not Christian should be silent when asked to pray or otherwise endorse beliefs that are not of their religion. They want to return the nation to times when - they belive - things were right, when "Christian values" were the law of the land.
I believe that good is good, whether that good is practiced by an animist or a Baptist. In the same vein, shouldn't what matters be that one pledges allegiance to one's country - regardless of whther one invokes the name of a higher power as part of the pledge? And the "God is on *my* country's side" thing has been over-used anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, the papers are full of articles about the latest layoffs at Walmart.
Find a more relevant argument. Agreeing to restrictions on your use of computers is not equivalent to slavery.
So piracy is reduced. Big deal. It doesn't matter. The argument has been that RIAA companies are suffering financially because of piracy. I don't see any evidence that music sales are up now that the RIAA has scared people away from download services.
I wouldn't have an issue with people doing this sort of thing in a Robin Hood manner but I'm afraid that isn't going to happen. More likely that theifs will get rich and not give the money to the poor and more likely their victims will be the poor or middle class and not the rich.
So as long as whatever I steal I give to someone has less than whoever I steal if from, that's OK by you? Are you serious?
It could happen. Cities in the US have already attempted to gain extra revenue ... um, sue ... gun manufacturers just because they made the gun that someone used to hurt someone.
My library has a coffee shop inside! http://www.ramsey.lib.mn.us/detrv.htm
Ironic that one who derides another for lack of "cojones" will post anonymously.
is easier.
Immutable CD-ROMS? Not mine. They change in a real cool way when I expose them to a propane torch.
If "regardless" means "without regard", then would "irregardless" mean "without without regard"? Is it a more high-powered regardless, one to be used in special situations? Or is does it really mean "with regard" as the negatives cancel themselves out.
Can someone explain this?
Bzzzt! Wrong. The TIA is about recording the activities of everyone in order to find criminals and potential terrorists. Think about it ... if the criminals and terrorists were known, there would be no need to waste time mining all this data would there?
I would suggest not using the ellipse so often ...
I believe you mean ellipsis. According to my dictionary, ellipse is a geometric figure.
If you're referring to the proliferation of "*" in the post, these are not ellipses. A "*" used as an ellipsis would indicate omission - as in "f*** you!". In the case of this post, the "*" is used for emphasis.
That said, I too find all the "*" annoying. And if anyone can tell me what name is for "*", I'd appreciate it.
The true "cost per eyeball" for television commercials is probably unknown. At the very least, the spammer knows a) exactly who he sent the mail, b) exactly how many addresses were bad, and c) how many individuals opened the mail. OK, he doesn't know exactly how many *opened* the mail, but given how many default installations of Outlook Express are out there, it's a good bet that he knows most of the opened mails.
Contrast that with television commercials. No way to determine: a) how many viewers of the programs the adverstisements are interleaved into, b) no way to determine how many viewers didn't get up to take a sh*t during the commercial.
I know the rating services use sophisticated statistical analyses to extrapolate US viewing habits from a small set of data, but the spammer has a much better idea of the true "cost per eyeball" of his ad.
My 2c.
In court, you'll be judged "guilty" or "not guilty". You're never "proven innocent" in the United States' criminal justice system. I hope you'll agree that there is a big difference between the two.
As far as asset seizure goes, IF a person is found guilty AND assets enabled the crime or are the profit from the crime, then I believe those assets should be forfeited. But to seize on suspicion of guilt is abominable.
Sorry for being a smartass
I don't really believe you're sorry.
I like to see myself as a group of people. But that's another story entirely.
But what I'm really wondering is whether they can continue to survive in the long run. Are there enough consumers willing to go along with their program?
You're right. But are these actions really expected to boost sales? Does anyone believe that shutting down P2P networks will increase sales for record companies? Why can't these companies develop products at a price/feature point that can compete with the P2P services?
Uhh, yes. People *do* want free music. Others *do* want easy access to music. But a large number of P2P users want free music. Regardless of whether they can afford the CDs, they want free music.
The question is, will these people *purchase* music if P2P is largely shutdown?
Will the music distributors strive to make easy access to music? Many posts here today suggest ways to offer music to consumers - cheaper CDs, etc.
I'm skeptical. If the business model favors spending money on litigation over spending money developing something consumers want, then I'd expect a continuing series of legal actions until RIAA et al are assured that their existing way of doing business can be milked for a few more years.
Call me an asshole if you like, but you'd have a better time convincing me about what you're saying if you'd punctuate and spell properly.
Or perhaps you believe that would mark you as bourgeois.
Sixty-three percent rated the job the American educational system does in teaching students about First Amendment freedoms as either "fair" or "poor."
... did the 49% who think the First Amendment goes too far learn about it in the American educational system? If so, would they assess their knowledge of the amendment as "fair" or "poor"?
So
"T-Mobile is geared toward business people whose employers often foot the bill, he said."
Airlines are having problems because businesses no longer want to pay premium prices for air travel. Their business models depend on these high-priced fares.
Will T-Mobile have the same fate when businesses start asking their employees to take advantage of free and low-cost Wi-Fi providers? Other than ease-of-use, what does the T-Mobile service offer as compared to community networks?
Television - in the US - is supported by advertising revenue and subscription fees. If enough viewers skip the commercials, I would expect one of two things to happen. One would be that subscription fees increase to cover the lost advertising revenue. The other would be increased use of product placement. Would either of these possibilities be more palatable for viewers? The irony is that there would be fewer "commercials" but the product placement might be more obvious that the commercials.
One thing I've wondered is how these viewers are accounted for in the rating systems that advertisers and broadcasters use to determine ad rates. Another thing I've wondered: is product placement more or less effective than commercials?
That makes sense. I was taking issue with the direct comparison. And I'm not sure that the majority of users "misused" the Thompson gun, although clearly the most visible users were those who used the gun in nefarious schemes. Actually, that compares well with CD burning. People who use the burners as intended (backup, etc) get very little visibility compared with the visiblity of illegal use.
Uh ... he never said that machine guns were comparable in any way to cd copying. He argues that the situation was similar. And it is. Legal use of a device (cd burner, Thompson sub machine gun - your choice) is being offset by illegal use of the device. If you don't grasp the concept of a simile, I hope you don't try to read poetry. Or maybe you just have a thing about firearms.
What I'm trying to say about "separation of Church and State" versus "make no laws respecting the establishment of a religion" is that, to me, one has to do with how narrowly secular a government is, while the other regards how the government reacts to religion around it. The first concept is internal; the second is external.
That said, I do agree that adding "Under God" to the pledge was not correct. The pledge was just fine - and constitutional - as an oath of patriotic allegience before it was altered.
There are many in the United States who believe that, because the majority of the population is marginally Christian, others who are not Christian should be silent when asked to pray or otherwise endorse beliefs that are not of their religion. They want to return the nation to times when - they belive - things were right, when "Christian values" were the law of the land.
I believe that good is good, whether that good is practiced by an animist or a Baptist. In the same vein, shouldn't what matters be that one pledges allegiance to one's country - regardless of whther one invokes the name of a higher power as part of the pledge? And the "God is on *my* country's side" thing has been over-used anyway.