the usa "deserved" 9/11 and 9/11 was an "inside job" just as so far the truth is that the usa paid for al qaeda, everytime a soccer mom filled her SUV
the invasion of iraq, and afghanistan, and ever cia and fbi operation, every rendition, every surveillance tech: it means nothing
you kill al qaeda, by starving al qaeda, and you starve al qaeda by stop feeding wahhabism money via saudi arabia by stop using gasoline. saudi arabia supports a medieval form of islam, builds madrassas all over pakistan, and all those trillions the usa has spent on oil has resulted in one thing: islam became more conservative, and radical
oh sure, there's chemicals, plastics, etc. but these can come from biological sources eventually, and as soon as you take the energy needs out of the equation, the cost of oil goes way down anyways
eventually, the citizens of saudi arabia will have to adapt a society whereby they acquire cash through legitimate means, rather than just sitting on a gold mine. but there is no reason to do that if there is no pressure to do that. they must structure their society in such a way that their society actually works, and the people inside it are actually happy. and if that is to mean anything more than camel trading, it is going to mean the liberalization of saudi arabia. and that will only come, only when you stop giving money to the most conservative political structure on the planet
the argument for electric vehicles is nothing about air quality, or global warming, or economic independence. the strongest argument for adapting electric and rejecting the internal combustion energy, is national security
if every religion in the world disappeared as if by magic, what would happen?
new religions would spring into being and fill the void. not a wild assertion, look at falun gong in china
the point is, you have to get used to the fact that religion is a permanent sociological phenomenon of human existence. its simply never going away, unless you remove free will, which is certainly a crime just as bad as anything in religion. so you need to get used to religion, make peace with the fact it will always exist
and then the real game is to declaw it, defang it, and spay and neuter it. christianity is not that powerful in its home regions. and as long as it never regains power, then your job is to maintain that status quo. your secondary job is: how can we declaw and defang islam? and the fundamentalist jewish religions as well?
the abrahamic religions are a form of evil in this world, i agree with you. but much like other evils like drug addiction, it is something that will never go away, and a constant effort to hold these things in check must always occur, simply a maintenance function of civilization. that's the just the way it is. there is no "winning" the war on religion, just like there is no "winning" the war on drugs. but outright acceptance of either is of course worse, so it is simply a matter of taking out the trash every thursday, forever: the maintenance of civilization must include a constant mopping up of the failures of free will, where people choose with their free will to do things that are harmful to free will
Fear is good. Fear is healthy. Fear keeps you alive. A person without fear would rapidly become dead, as there would be nothing preventing them from taking crazy risks. And if you say someone can make a rational appraisal of risks, I am telling that a person doing such a rational appraisal will wander into traffic in their fearlessness while they are doing their cognitive calculations.
When people identify fear as a negative impulse, they are actually complaining about things that stupid people fear, which are usually artificial constructs, and are usually controlled by fearmongering demagogues spreading propaganda for political purposes. Yes, this is wrong, but fear is only a piece of that puzzle, and not even the lynchpin.
Fear itself is not wrong, only what stupid people fear is wrong. I have fears in my life, and I'm glad I do. It keeps me alive, it even motivates me. It would be a shame to disregard such potent neural circuitry just because of some political hangups that have nothing to do with you.
"That seems to encapsulate the difference you allude to - something instead of nothing, rather than a lot instead of something"
no, more like something instead of nothing, rather than a lot instead of NOTHING. you seem to be making the false assertion that somehow the pre-internet world meant artists made money. no. most artists never make any money, period, in any era, forever. that's just the nature of art: many are called, few are chosen
that's the difference between the binary on/ off state of the pre-internet music business (contract/ no contract= money or nothing), and the free-for-all internet world of music business (you might get nothing, you might get a pittance, you might get ok money, you might make a lot of money, who knows)
in the pre-internet era, you might have 100 musicians, 90 of which will get nothing, 10 of which will get good cash. because they were lucky enough to sign a contract
but in the internet era, you might have 100 musicians, 40 of which will get nothing, 30 of which will get a pittance, 20 of which will get ok cash, 10 of which will get good cash. because there are no contracts. there is no middle man. there is simply the artists, and his or her fans, and the money comes and goes as it pleases. a more direct democratic model of determining artistic quality and how it gets rewarded financially. while the pre-internet world was a sort of command and control authoritarian system where the music exec middlemen determined absolutely everything in terms of "quality" and financial rewarding. no middle man = money flows freely this way and that. its better in my eyes, and more lucrative for the artist, even if less money is in play, because there is no parasitical middle man siphoning off most of the cash regardless
"So it's not a challenge, but rather the natural way of things in this new environment?"
no, it's the natural way in any environment, forever, in which only a few get fame and the rest get nothing. this is just the nature of art, not the way of art and business. the pre-internet world and the internet world are the same in this regard
"Yeah, the hit big or miss big imbalance is an interesting challenge. Perhaps a less top-heavy industry would be a good idea."
what the hell are you talking about?
#1. the reason only a few make it is the nature of fame. it is not dictated by any one, nor does it need correcting. that's just the natural order of things
#2. less of a top-heavy industry is EXACTLY what we get with the internet and no middleman
and maybe, come to think of it, you DO get some more financial success without the middleman. the long tail theory:
the theory being, that there is money to be made in tiny niches. so, in a pre-internet world of the 80s, a few assholes in the board room snorting coke off hooker's asses decide on which random band gets manna from heaven and earns money. but in the internet world, with no middleman, everyone has the equal potential to make money. not that they will make BIG money, but they'll make something. the theory is, while in the pre internet world most made $0, in the internet world most will make SOMETHING, maybe a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, maybe a few ten thousand or hundred thousand
i went to get lunch for the whole crew and i had to carry those 3 cups as well as the sandwiches and i just had to put the sandwich bag down
yeah, i know i should have looked at the control panel and see if the bag would shift and hit any switches, but i got lunch. you go get lunch next time mr. high and mighty
and so what if i took novosibirsk. whoever heard of that place anyway? i can't even pronounce it. sounds like i did the world a favor
don't look at me like that, i'm outta here. get your damn lunch next time
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 1
100% correct
and thank you for saying what i am saying better, by saying it a heck of lot less verbose;-)
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
then they are idiots, because the internet as it exists today is the most lucrative money making machine ever in existence, precisely because no one controls it
the illusion that control leads to more prosperity is an old illusion that we all have suffered very mightily from many different times throughout history
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 1
and they made profit
from touring
and i think KISS was more motivated to get into chick's pants
which they did, a HELL of a lot
and which any future KISS will too, even if you told them it would only be losing money to make music, there will still be future KISSes, simply on the amount of sex they get
there is no guarantee that you get money from music. but it is pretty much 100% guaranteed that you will get women. chicks love the musicians. even the ugly asocial nasty ones. so that's all the motivation you need: sex. money is not the only prime motivator in play here
and for every KISS, there are 100,000 wannabe KISSes that are starving, and always were, and always will be. being an artist is always like, and always will be like, buying a lottery ticket with low odds
that's not idealism. that's reality. idealism is what you are saying: that just because you try to make music you are somehow guaranteed money. bullshit
"At some point, you've got to get some level of compensation equivalent to the work. Not neccessarily more to any degree, but equivalent."
no, never. if YOU decide to become a musician and invest in recording equipment and instruments and slave away hours of your life that is on YOU, not ME. i owe you nothing
if however, you make that investment, and you get a following, heck even if a local small following, who are willing to pony up for a gig of yours live, or an advertiser wants to use your music on an advert, or whatever, power to you. good for you
but most artists, always and forever more, will starve. it's the nature of being an artist, because it is so easy to love art and so many want to be an artist. there is no shortage of artists. and so economics of supply and demand: large supply, middling demand means your price point is quite low
besides, an artist does it for love. and that is just the way it is, and always will be and should be: art for the sake of loving art. your art is your just rewards, and no greater reward exists
there is nothing that says i have to support you because you wish to write music. you do it on your own time, on your own dime, and you find your own way. if you don't then you have the music you love to keep you company
and probably a chick or two or hundred
chicks always love the starving artist. that's the only dependable return on your investment you can ever get: women. you get to do what you love, and you are guaranteed women
that's the reward you get, and deserve, nothing more. it is complete bullshit that i owe you ANYTHING because YOU chose to become an artist. you may make some money from touring, advertising, etc., you will get in some chick's pants, but you aren't OWED anything from me just because you tried to make some music. that notion is pure bullshit
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
musicians make music because they love music. they do it for that reward alone. any money beyond that fact is just icing on the cake. no one goes into music saying "i have to generate a positive net cash flow in the third quarter." no one writes songs like that, well, no songs you want to listen to anyways. maybe some say "i'm going to write music to impress chicks and get in their pants", but again, that's not money. ego, fame, charisma: that's what makes music. removing money from the equation changes nothing. maybe makes it better
besides, even if you did look at music as only a financial spreadsheet, you are not thinking like a true capitalist. you are thinking like a communist: that we are COERCED to pay for the development of music up front, regardless of quality. a true capitalist says "i think this is a good spot to invest in a restaurant" or "i think we should shovel money into developing this business avenue". risk... and reward. sometimes in capitalism you take risk and there is no reward, you lose money. but there is no such thing as "pay up to support this, you are forced to."
likewise with music: you invest in making a song, and MAYBE someday later you get money for the effort. no guarantee. heck, there was no guarantee before the internet: there were always starving artists, and always will be. you give your songs out for free. if they are liked, you make money touring. THAT'S the new world. and its the same as the old world, before the mid1800s, when corporatism (not capitalism) made music an enforced payment affair
regardless, you are simply putting out the standard middleman distributor troll that filesharing hurts artists. no, it only hurts middleman distributors. fuck them. there will always be music, most of them will be starving artists, as they always have been, and a few will find fame and fortune touring or advertising, same as it always has been. the only thing that changes, is the middleman dies. good riddance
file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
chop off its head, and ten grow back
the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet. since that's not going to happen, and because you would need more money controlling and monitoring traffic (effectively) than any money you profit off of media, guess what: game over
simple economics 101 have spoken: filesharing is here to stay, and the only thing that will die is distributors who make money off of distributing content. boo hoo
economics is about supply and demand. the internet is disruptive media. it is disruptive, because it changes the basic technology, and therefore the basic economics, of media distribution: one teenager in 2010 has more global reach and distribution power than bertelsmann, time warner, sony, etc., in 1985
so when the cost associated with supply = $0, demand follows to that natural economically determined price point, and no other price is possible. you can't enforce a marketplace form a dead technological era on us
people will still make money off of music, movies, etc.: ancillary real world revenues. like concerts, like cinema houses. avatar is the most profitable movie ever made... all in movie houses. concerts reap millions for artists. but DVDs, CDs... it's all going away. artistry is not dying, only the useless middleman. do not weep for him and do not believe his trollish pronouncements about hurting the artist. sure it will take time, and the death throes will be mighty, but the writing is on the wall. game over
there is nothing for you to do, dear old school media distributors, save one thing: just hurry up and die already
We live in a representative democratic republic. The united states is a republic of state representatives: it's individual states (meaning "countries") under one larger governing body, just like the European Union. The de-facto meaning of "democracy" is "direct democracy," where individuals represent their opinions; instead, we elect representatives to govern our states and to present our political stance to the federal governing body.
please point out to me exactly where in there there exists a point that nullifies anything i have said about democracy or is of any value whatsoever to the larger point at hand. since you are so fond of focusing on the bigger picture
it is both a democracy and a republic. people who point out the "difference" are about as annoying as "correlation is not causation" knuckeleheads: yes, we know. do you have anything useful to add to the discussion, or you only think you do?
pointing out that the usa is a republic, not a democracy, is like saying a chicken is a bird, not a two legged animal. pffffft
yes, a republic not a democracy. right up there with "correlation is not causation" among the all time useless comments on slashdot some asshole always seems to have to make
we live in a democracy moron. and a republic. try to understand someday that the concepts are not mutually exclusive, then open your ignorant mouth
what exactly is that statement supposed to mean? other than that you are a moron?
if you cease to believe in the only redeeming qualities we have, you are worse than the avowed enemies of democracy. because they at least have something resembling beliefs and principles. you're just an empty sack of shit
our democracy is compromised by a number of factors. always was. always will be. democracy requires constant maintenance. but if you are going to just throw up your hands and abandon the notion of democracy, then you apparently prefer the chains of slavery. in which case, go be a slave in some other country, because i certainly won't be one, and i resent the fact i have to carry your dead weight as well as my own
the vote in 2000 was so close, that it was well within the margin of the number of people who think helplessly like you and therefore don't vote, when they actually could have made a difference and gave us al gore instead of gw bush... if they actually voted
you tell me with a straight face that al gore would have invaded iraq, or given us an asshole chief justice who was the deciding vote earlier this year that corporations get to spend unimpeded in elections. in other words, yeah, your vote matters less than it should: because assholes who think like you made sure that is the way things are. self-fulfilling prophecy
they don't mess around with a silly vote in other countries. they just treat like a slave straight up. you prefer that? your vote is so precious in this world, and you are so ignorant as to its real value. your vote is cheapened by your ignorance
corporations, evil scehming senator palpatine types, dumb rednecks... all pretty much constants in life in any time period and any society. but people who are ignorant like you about the value of their vote: you are the real enemy, and the real source of the problems in our world. if we are slaves, and not free men, it is because of you, more than anything else
you aren't part of the problem. you ARE the problem. you cheapen our democracy with your self-fulfilling prophecy of the worthlessness of a vote, by not voting. you don't deserve to vote. and with enough assholes like you in society, none of us will have a vote that matters. congratulations, asshole, you made the world in your image
this is a nuclear powered brand new stealth submarine, giving away its secret propulsion system as the tide lowers, because someone drove it into the beach. stealth beach? (slaps forehead)
but in the end, you overtax the neurons, burn them out, killing them, lower their potential, etc
take care of your body, you're only given one, you can't improve upon the performance of your brain and your body without longterm tradeoffs that are larger than any benefit you receive in the short term
stop trying to improve on what you have. just use it, and take care of it
"a candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned very brightly..." -bladerunner
the bad guy is basically rupert murdoch (played by jonathan pryce)
he brings china and the uk to the brink of war by hacking the gps satellite's signals, making a british warship think it is in international territory when it has actually strayed into chinese waters. launch a few missiles... china thinks the uk is firing on them, the uk thinks china is firing on them: all in a plot to sell more newspapers (well, it is 1997, when newspapers were still relevant)
reality is beginning to resemble the plots of bond movies
Slashdot Mirror
the usa "deserved" 9/11 and 9/11 was an "inside job" just as so far the truth is that the usa paid for al qaeda, everytime a soccer mom filled her SUV
the invasion of iraq, and afghanistan, and ever cia and fbi operation, every rendition, every surveillance tech: it means nothing
you kill al qaeda, by starving al qaeda, and you starve al qaeda by stop feeding wahhabism money via saudi arabia by stop using gasoline. saudi arabia supports a medieval form of islam, builds madrassas all over pakistan, and all those trillions the usa has spent on oil has resulted in one thing: islam became more conservative, and radical
oh sure, there's chemicals, plastics, etc. but these can come from biological sources eventually, and as soon as you take the energy needs out of the equation, the cost of oil goes way down anyways
eventually, the citizens of saudi arabia will have to adapt a society whereby they acquire cash through legitimate means, rather than just sitting on a gold mine. but there is no reason to do that if there is no pressure to do that. they must structure their society in such a way that their society actually works, and the people inside it are actually happy. and if that is to mean anything more than camel trading, it is going to mean the liberalization of saudi arabia. and that will only come, only when you stop giving money to the most conservative political structure on the planet
the argument for electric vehicles is nothing about air quality, or global warming, or economic independence. the strongest argument for adapting electric and rejecting the internal combustion energy, is national security
if every religion in the world disappeared as if by magic, what would happen?
new religions would spring into being and fill the void. not a wild assertion, look at falun gong in china
the point is, you have to get used to the fact that religion is a permanent sociological phenomenon of human existence. its simply never going away, unless you remove free will, which is certainly a crime just as bad as anything in religion. so you need to get used to religion, make peace with the fact it will always exist
and then the real game is to declaw it, defang it, and spay and neuter it. christianity is not that powerful in its home regions. and as long as it never regains power, then your job is to maintain that status quo. your secondary job is: how can we declaw and defang islam? and the fundamentalist jewish religions as well?
the abrahamic religions are a form of evil in this world, i agree with you. but much like other evils like drug addiction, it is something that will never go away, and a constant effort to hold these things in check must always occur, simply a maintenance function of civilization. that's the just the way it is. there is no "winning" the war on religion, just like there is no "winning" the war on drugs. but outright acceptance of either is of course worse, so it is simply a matter of taking out the trash every thursday, forever: the maintenance of civilization must include a constant mopping up of the failures of free will, where people choose with their free will to do things that are harmful to free will
Fear is good. Fear is healthy. Fear keeps you alive. A person without fear would rapidly become dead, as there would be nothing preventing them from taking crazy risks. And if you say someone can make a rational appraisal of risks, I am telling that a person doing such a rational appraisal will wander into traffic in their fearlessness while they are doing their cognitive calculations.
When people identify fear as a negative impulse, they are actually complaining about things that stupid people fear, which are usually artificial constructs, and are usually controlled by fearmongering demagogues spreading propaganda for political purposes. Yes, this is wrong, but fear is only a piece of that puzzle, and not even the lynchpin.
Fear itself is not wrong, only what stupid people fear is wrong. I have fears in my life, and I'm glad I do. It keeps me alive, it even motivates me. It would be a shame to disregard such potent neural circuitry just because of some political hangups that have nothing to do with you.
"That seems to encapsulate the difference you allude to - something instead of nothing, rather than a lot instead of something"
no, more like something instead of nothing, rather than a lot instead of NOTHING. you seem to be making the false assertion that somehow the pre-internet world meant artists made money. no. most artists never make any money, period, in any era, forever. that's just the nature of art: many are called, few are chosen
that's the difference between the binary on/ off state of the pre-internet music business (contract/ no contract= money or nothing), and the free-for-all internet world of music business (you might get nothing, you might get a pittance, you might get ok money, you might make a lot of money, who knows)
in the pre-internet era, you might have 100 musicians, 90 of which will get nothing, 10 of which will get good cash. because they were lucky enough to sign a contract
but in the internet era, you might have 100 musicians, 40 of which will get nothing, 30 of which will get a pittance, 20 of which will get ok cash, 10 of which will get good cash. because there are no contracts. there is no middle man. there is simply the artists, and his or her fans, and the money comes and goes as it pleases. a more direct democratic model of determining artistic quality and how it gets rewarded financially. while the pre-internet world was a sort of command and control authoritarian system where the music exec middlemen determined absolutely everything in terms of "quality" and financial rewarding. no middle man = money flows freely this way and that. its better in my eyes, and more lucrative for the artist, even if less money is in play, because there is no parasitical middle man siphoning off most of the cash regardless
"So it's not a challenge, but rather the natural way of things in this new environment?"
no, it's the natural way in any environment, forever, in which only a few get fame and the rest get nothing. this is just the nature of art, not the way of art and business. the pre-internet world and the internet world are the same in this regard
"Yeah, the hit big or miss big imbalance is an interesting challenge. Perhaps a less top-heavy industry would be a good idea."
what the hell are you talking about?
#1. the reason only a few make it is the nature of fame. it is not dictated by any one, nor does it need correcting. that's just the natural order of things
#2. less of a top-heavy industry is EXACTLY what we get with the internet and no middleman
and maybe, come to think of it, you DO get some more financial success without the middleman. the long tail theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail
the theory being, that there is money to be made in tiny niches. so, in a pre-internet world of the 80s, a few assholes in the board room snorting coke off hooker's asses decide on which random band gets manna from heaven and earns money. but in the internet world, with no middleman, everyone has the equal potential to make money. not that they will make BIG money, but they'll make something. the theory is, while in the pre internet world most made $0, in the internet world most will make SOMETHING, maybe a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, maybe a few ten thousand or hundred thousand
i went to get lunch for the whole crew and i had to carry those 3 cups as well as the sandwiches and i just had to put the sandwich bag down
yeah, i know i should have looked at the control panel and see if the bag would shift and hit any switches, but i got lunch. you go get lunch next time mr. high and mighty
and so what if i took novosibirsk. whoever heard of that place anyway? i can't even pronounce it. sounds like i did the world a favor
don't look at me like that, i'm outta here. get your damn lunch next time
100% correct
and thank you for saying what i am saying better, by saying it a heck of lot less verbose ;-)
then they are idiots, because the internet as it exists today is the most lucrative money making machine ever in existence, precisely because no one controls it
the illusion that control leads to more prosperity is an old illusion that we all have suffered very mightily from many different times throughout history
and they made profit
from touring
and i think KISS was more motivated to get into chick's pants
which they did, a HELL of a lot
and which any future KISS will too, even if you told them it would only be losing money to make music, there will still be future KISSes, simply on the amount of sex they get
there is no guarantee that you get money from music. but it is pretty much 100% guaranteed that you will get women. chicks love the musicians. even the ugly asocial nasty ones. so that's all the motivation you need: sex. money is not the only prime motivator in play here
and for every KISS, there are 100,000 wannabe KISSes that are starving, and always were, and always will be. being an artist is always like, and always will be like, buying a lottery ticket with low odds
that's not idealism. that's reality. idealism is what you are saying: that just because you try to make music you are somehow guaranteed money. bullshit
"At some point, you've got to get some level of compensation equivalent to the work. Not neccessarily more to any degree, but equivalent."
no, never. if YOU decide to become a musician and invest in recording equipment and instruments and slave away hours of your life that is on YOU, not ME. i owe you nothing
if however, you make that investment, and you get a following, heck even if a local small following, who are willing to pony up for a gig of yours live, or an advertiser wants to use your music on an advert, or whatever, power to you. good for you
but most artists, always and forever more, will starve. it's the nature of being an artist, because it is so easy to love art and so many want to be an artist. there is no shortage of artists. and so economics of supply and demand: large supply, middling demand means your price point is quite low
besides, an artist does it for love. and that is just the way it is, and always will be and should be: art for the sake of loving art. your art is your just rewards, and no greater reward exists
there is nothing that says i have to support you because you wish to write music. you do it on your own time, on your own dime, and you find your own way. if you don't then you have the music you love to keep you company
and probably a chick or two or hundred
chicks always love the starving artist. that's the only dependable return on your investment you can ever get: women. you get to do what you love, and you are guaranteed women
that's the reward you get, and deserve, nothing more. it is complete bullshit that i owe you ANYTHING because YOU chose to become an artist. you may make some money from touring, advertising, etc., you will get in some chick's pants, but you aren't OWED anything from me just because you tried to make some music. that notion is pure bullshit
musicians make music because they love music. they do it for that reward alone. any money beyond that fact is just icing on the cake. no one goes into music saying "i have to generate a positive net cash flow in the third quarter." no one writes songs like that, well, no songs you want to listen to anyways. maybe some say "i'm going to write music to impress chicks and get in their pants", but again, that's not money. ego, fame, charisma: that's what makes music. removing money from the equation changes nothing. maybe makes it better
besides, even if you did look at music as only a financial spreadsheet, you are not thinking like a true capitalist. you are thinking like a communist: that we are COERCED to pay for the development of music up front, regardless of quality. a true capitalist says "i think this is a good spot to invest in a restaurant" or "i think we should shovel money into developing this business avenue". risk... and reward. sometimes in capitalism you take risk and there is no reward, you lose money. but there is no such thing as "pay up to support this, you are forced to."
likewise with music: you invest in making a song, and MAYBE someday later you get money for the effort. no guarantee. heck, there was no guarantee before the internet: there were always starving artists, and always will be. you give your songs out for free. if they are liked, you make money touring. THAT'S the new world. and its the same as the old world, before the mid1800s, when corporatism (not capitalism) made music an enforced payment affair
regardless, you are simply putting out the standard middleman distributor troll that filesharing hurts artists. no, it only hurts middleman distributors. fuck them. there will always be music, most of them will be starving artists, as they always have been, and a few will find fame and fortune touring or advertising, same as it always has been. the only thing that changes, is the middleman dies. good riddance
chop off its head, and ten grow back
the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet. since that's not going to happen, and because you would need more money controlling and monitoring traffic (effectively) than any money you profit off of media, guess what: game over
simple economics 101 have spoken: filesharing is here to stay, and the only thing that will die is distributors who make money off of distributing content. boo hoo
economics is about supply and demand. the internet is disruptive media. it is disruptive, because it changes the basic technology, and therefore the basic economics, of media distribution: one teenager in 2010 has more global reach and distribution power than bertelsmann, time warner, sony, etc., in 1985
so when the cost associated with supply = $0, demand follows to that natural economically determined price point, and no other price is possible. you can't enforce a marketplace form a dead technological era on us
people will still make money off of music, movies, etc.: ancillary real world revenues. like concerts, like cinema houses. avatar is the most profitable movie ever made... all in movie houses. concerts reap millions for artists. but DVDs, CDs... it's all going away. artistry is not dying, only the useless middleman. do not weep for him and do not believe his trollish pronouncements about hurting the artist. sure it will take time, and the death throes will be mighty, but the writing is on the wall. game over
there is nothing for you to do, dear old school media distributors, save one thing: just hurry up and die already
darling friend
please point out to me exactly where in there there exists a point that nullifies anything i have said about democracy or is of any value whatsoever to the larger point at hand. since you are so fond of focusing on the bigger picture
gee thanks!
xoxoxoxoxox
do you know what a venn diagram is? you do? oh goody goody. draw one. then grow a fucking brain. seriously
it is both a democracy and a republic. people who point out the "difference" are about as annoying as "correlation is not causation" knuckeleheads: yes, we know. do you have anything useful to add to the discussion, or you only think you do?
pointing out that the usa is a republic, not a democracy, is like saying a chicken is a bird, not a two legged animal. pffffft
yes, a republic not a democracy. right up there with "correlation is not causation" among the all time useless comments on slashdot some asshole always seems to have to make
we live in a democracy moron. and a republic. try to understand someday that the concepts are not mutually exclusive, then open your ignorant mouth
how can i deny someone their opinion of something they don't even believe in?
what exactly is that statement supposed to mean? other than that you are a moron?
if you cease to believe in the only redeeming qualities we have, you are worse than the avowed enemies of democracy. because they at least have something resembling beliefs and principles. you're just an empty sack of shit
our democracy is compromised by a number of factors. always was. always will be. democracy requires constant maintenance. but if you are going to just throw up your hands and abandon the notion of democracy, then you apparently prefer the chains of slavery. in which case, go be a slave in some other country, because i certainly won't be one, and i resent the fact i have to carry your dead weight as well as my own
believe, or fuck off
the vote in 2000 was so close, that it was well within the margin of the number of people who think helplessly like you and therefore don't vote, when they actually could have made a difference and gave us al gore instead of gw bush... if they actually voted
you tell me with a straight face that al gore would have invaded iraq, or given us an asshole chief justice who was the deciding vote earlier this year that corporations get to spend unimpeded in elections. in other words, yeah, your vote matters less than it should: because assholes who think like you made sure that is the way things are. self-fulfilling prophecy
they don't mess around with a silly vote in other countries. they just treat like a slave straight up. you prefer that? your vote is so precious in this world, and you are so ignorant as to its real value. your vote is cheapened by your ignorance
corporations, evil scehming senator palpatine types, dumb rednecks... all pretty much constants in life in any time period and any society. but people who are ignorant like you about the value of their vote: you are the real enemy, and the real source of the problems in our world. if we are slaves, and not free men, it is because of you, more than anything else
you aren't part of the problem. you ARE the problem. you cheapen our democracy with your self-fulfilling prophecy of the worthlessness of a vote, by not voting. you don't deserve to vote. and with enough assholes like you in society, none of us will have a vote that matters. congratulations, asshole, you made the world in your image
it's an unimportant website
now THIS is technically embarrassing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11605365
this is a nuclear powered brand new stealth submarine, giving away its secret propulsion system as the tide lowers, because someone drove it into the beach. stealth beach? (slaps forehead)
and aeon flux
and there is leela in futurama
and we also forgot erin gray's skin tight outfit in buck rogers
"biddi-biddi-biddi. you morons"
story: skin tight astronaut suits
guys born 1940-1960: snarky barbarella jokes
guys born 1960-1980: snarky seven of nine jokes
guys born 1980-2000: what's an astronaut? what's NASA? we landed on the moon? really?
but in the end, you overtax the neurons, burn them out, killing them, lower their potential, etc
take care of your body, you're only given one, you can't improve upon the performance of your brain and your body without longterm tradeoffs that are larger than any benefit you receive in the short term
stop trying to improve on what you have. just use it, and take care of it
"a candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned very brightly..." -bladerunner
the bond film?
the bad guy is basically rupert murdoch (played by jonathan pryce)
he brings china and the uk to the brink of war by hacking the gps satellite's signals, making a british warship think it is in international territory when it has actually strayed into chinese waters. launch a few missiles... china thinks the uk is firing on them, the uk thinks china is firing on them: all in a plot to sell more newspapers (well, it is 1997, when newspapers were still relevant)
reality is beginning to resemble the plots of bond movies
i'm waiting for dr. no to become reality