sure his company has acted douchey, but i don't think the guy can be called a douche. its been a long time since he founded dell in his dorm, and no one has any real dirt on the fellow. sure he's not a saint, but again, not a douche
wozniak is pretty much the anti-douche. the woz is pure awesomeness. even steve jobs: yeah, your average apple cultist is pretty much the definition of upper middle class douchebag, but steve jobs himself seems like just a cold hard terse shrewd businessman, not a douchebag
to expand the realm outside technology and money, you can point to george clooney: not a douche, for every lindsay lohan, clearly a douchebag, literally and figuratively
there are many other examples of nondouchey massive successes at a young age
additionally, the corollary of your argument, that poverty and suffering somehow make you strong of character, is obviously wrong, because there are plenty of broke douchebags out there
no, the truth is, zuckerberg is, and always would have been, a douchebag, whether facebook happened or not. i'm certain you can find me an example of some nice guy who was destroyed by fame/ money, or some asshole who was redeemed by financial hardship, but for the most part, once a douchebag, always a douchebag, regardless of fame and fortune
i think its a pleasant myth people tell themselves (out of self-righteousness, a form of douchebaggery) that fame and fortune is somehow linked with moral terpitude or character pestilence. but its simply not true
when friendster looked like it was going to take over the internet
there once was a time when myspace looked larger than google
and, in a few short years, someone will say something about facebook, probably as a joke, and someone else will say "facebook? what's that?"
the realm of social networking is true to what it is: an endless party, hosted by one rich kid whose parents are on vacation after another, no one claiming the right to say they are truly in control for very long, forever
what i envision is a permanent progression, every 5-10 years, a new friendster/myspace/facebook taking over the mantle of darling of the ball, and then rudely discarded and abandoned, in endless succession, forever
you and stallman fail because you assume trademark is the only weapon we have against the asshole selling bathtub bilge water as pepsi
stallman is entitled to his opinion, but he's not some god you have to obey without thinking the issue out yourself. read his argument again and THINK (tm)
you have no clear understanding of what they mean, because they are not intended to have a clear meaning
error in meaning process #4512: lack of internal logical coherence in statement detected. statement may be ironic, or speaker may be confused. abort, retry, fail?
when intellectual property law was meant to protect the solitary inventor from the predatory conglomerate. now the predatory conglomerate just preemptively carpet bombs their intellectual property territory and backs it up with a legion of lawyers. the solitary inventor doesn't stand a chance
intellectual property law is defunct. it is philosophically bankrupt and must be replaced wholesale, ignored, or at least radically revamped. this applies to trademark, copyright, and patents: the whole lot of it is rotten to the core and betrays any noble principles it was ever meant to uphold
are having intercourse with the teddy ruxpins, while the cabbage patch kids are fellating the my little ponies
the tamagotchi orgy centers on aang the last airbender and spongebob square pants is using the tentacled kate gosselin dildo on adam lambert and dick cheney...
oh i'm sorry, you meant define porn IN GENERAL, not my specific porn, sorry
I'm a single man in my 30s who loves to throw up on my partner during sex, and I love it even more when she (my partner) throws up on me. I have a hard time meeting other refluxophiles in my area. Most people run away screaming when I mention it. What's the best way to meet women into this? Also, I was wondering if you could tell me about some of the health risks of this activity.
Better Coming Up Than Going Down
Let's look at the health risks first, BCUTGD. People who throw up a lot tend to have rotten teeth; there's a certain amount of blood in vomit, so you might want to avoid ingesting someone else's vomit or letting it come into contact with any open cuts or orifices; and playing with the vomit of someone who has a bug or the flu is a good way to get yourself sick. So it's a good refluxophile rule of thumb (or rule of index finger) not to play with the vomit of someone who needs to vomit. Only play with the vomit of someone who has to induce vomiting.
So how does a puke fetishist meet women? Very carefully. A man with a disgusting sexual fetish (shit, blood, puke, extreme acts of consensual violence, etc.) should NOT abuse any woman he might meet through regular dating channels (work, bars, through friends) by subjecting them to a date. The realization that her date sat across the table at dinner fantasizing about being thrown up on is enough to make most women puke, ironically enough, and she'll probably blab to any friends you have in common.
So I would urge you not to date, BCUTGD, but to advertise. While there are women out there who share your fetish (the only other letter I've ever received from a refluxophile was from a woman), they're very rare, and the odds that you will run into one by chance are slim. Before you meet the love of your life, you'll probably have to spend a few years taking out personal ads, maintaining a personal website, and surfing chat rooms. Good luck.
1. yes, there was no quick and easy way to move their work around... and? your point?
2. they lived in an era where people had to go someplace to hear their work. again, your point? currently, the mp3 is free, just an advertisement to go see the artist at a concert. same world, better advertising
3. they weren't competing in the same market? again, what is your point? what is this observation supposed to mean? how is that instructive as to why or why not free mp3s are good/ bad? i am not being facetious, i am genuinely interested in why you think that is supposed to mean something
in the end, its not right versus left. the right doesn't want to fund islamic terrorism and gasbags like chavez and wants national security. the left wants a clean environment and livable cities and climate change security. its win win, there's no argument here, its beyond the traditional partisan divides. we can all agree on this one: NO OIL. GET OFF IT
our only enemies are the oil industry, entrenched corporatism warping our media and our regulations and our country's political willpower. this is why we can't fulfill the obvious natural political consensus here
before its too late, we better recognize we are junkies and see our drug dealer boyfriend for what he really is, because we're being put in a stupor and being fucked by someone who is happy to rape us and steal everything about us all the while lying to us: corporatism
corporatism is not capitalism, and is in fact a greater enemy of capitalism than socialism or communism: read your economic history of oligopolies and monopolies, morons. don't believe the corporate funded propaganda that lies to you and says they defend capitalism when they really warp the marketplace by buying off our legislators and defying our regulations and rape our environment and our national security, and leaving us polluted poor propagandized in stupid, and they run off with all the cash
before its too late, recognize the drug dealer who is raping you, and fight for your country BY GETTING OFF OIL
why do believe you need money to make art? why do you confuse a DISTRIBUTION MODEL with an essential passion of mankind?
and how did mozart and shakespeare function? patronage, that's how
and why do you NEED an ancillary dvd market to support crap movies? as you say, avatar made bazillions... in the movie theater! can the world survive without direct-to-dvd crap?! pfffffft
musicians will make millions... at concert gigs
sure, only 0.01% of them
JUST LIKE IN THE PRE-INTERNET ERA
but with the long tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail) greater quantization of the market due to more efficient distribution (the internet) means the world is not a binary existence between signing a contract (and making millions) or making nothing. instead, all those starving musicians... some will make $100s, some $1,000s, %10,000s, $100,000s... where before the capricious opinions of record company execs decided your fate between nothing and millions. and even THEN made you sign contracts where they got the lion share of $ anyways. in fact, artists will be RICHER because even though there is less money in play on just concert gigs and other ancillaries, they get the money DIRECT, not 10% of what some record exec rams down your throat due to holding all the power. now, on the internet, YOU, the audience decides who will make $$$, not some asshole snorting blow off a hooker's ass. its a far more efficient, egalitarian model. the artist is freer, the audience has more cultural riches... and the old school media conglomerate dies. let me find my tiny violin somewhere...
you fail to think the issue through. you only grasp part of the issues you talk about. just think all of your concerns through. you will see for yourself: THERE IS NO PROBLEM (unless you are an old school distributor). the sky is not falling chicken little. the world has survived far greater shocks to social and legal convention due to technological progress. open your brittle mind, see the better future for what it is
every mp3 is completely free and ad-less. because the mp3 IS the advertisement... for the concert gig where you sell tickets, for the musician who will endorse your product, for ALL SORTS OF ANCILLARY REVENUE STREAMS
"Where is that money going to come from?"
gee, i dunno, i didn't know your average guitar and laptop with free software was a major investment. especially considering the teenager holding that guitar and pushing record on that laptop is mainly doing it to get in girl's pants, like very other wannabe musician in history. but gee i'm sorry, i didn't want to brust your bubble: as we all know its IMPOSSIBLE to make art without money first, that moeny is the only motivation. and art motivated by money is always the highest quality that everyone desires, not at all shallow vapid and empty. yup, yup
the world is not ending son. only the distribution model that the internet killed. get used to it
so what is your alternative distribution model? control the internet?
you're reacting to me like i'm really your parent. which was the analogy used in the above post, correct. however the idea was to actually understand the analogy, and use it for enlightenment on the source of bad opinions people have: indolent immature complacency
but instead, you start roll playing your own psychological complexes!
did you have a flashback? are you actually 14 years old? how do you feel about your mother?
"Why don't you let us do what makes sense fiscally? If I can't afford it then I can't afford it. I'm not going to become homeless just so you can feel good about yourself. You really are honest about who you are, too. You want to run all our lives, just like everyone else."
LOL! i can't read that without hearing it in the voice of a pouty valley girl. the teenage psychology is like an overwhelming stink. talk about a massive chip on an immature mind's shoulder
dude: i'm not your father. really. YOU inserted the condescending psychology, i didn't supply it. you really have issues: you can't look at the underlying concepts, you can only mentally process the issues as one of parental authoritarian force
here's an amazing fucking concept for you: maybe the issue here is PROPER ENERGY POLICY. not PARENTAL AUTHORITY
why don't you try processing the FORMER issue and leave the LATTER issue to immature low iq dimwits
what they believe is what the future of society believes. if you don't understand that this is a fight over the habits and beliefs of teenagers, you don't understand the fight at all
because of the pervasive censorship, and announces a strong anti-censorship stance, even in engaging in a hopeful (although a little hamstrung) effort to show themselves as friends of transparency:
but on the other hand it engages in a strange, fossil pre-'The Graduate' sort of hysterical moral panic that doesn't even exist (as a compelling widely believed opinion) in western countries anymore:
even if you are so cynical as to say google has no real allegiance to transparency and truly fights censorship, that it's just a pr campaign, the contrast here is so galling as to nullify even the pr campaign on a surface level
therefore, this has to be a case of google losing some coherence in internal corporate guidelines. there's going to be some meetings, some people are going to get a stern email, and this decision will be reversed by higher ups
as to say this decision is hypocritical of google is putting it mildly
but luckily pecos bill and jesus, fresh from writing the us constitution, stopped the evil science-believing mexicans from raping white women and illegally occupying manifest destiny lands
they were building dense cities 4,000 years ago on the nile
whatever $ is lost for moving food into the city is gained and then some by everyone not needing to drive 2 hours and sit in gridlock every day just to do their business
dense cities are the norm for humanity. dense cities make sense even when all you have is sailing ships and mules. when oil goes to $15 a gallon, the cities will contract in size and normalcy will return after 50 years of cheap oil fueled insanity
meanwhile, suburban sprawl is an artificial endangered idiocy
if that "smugness" bothers you, why doesn't the traditional tea party/ republican low iq smugness and complacency about there being no problem in energy bother you?
they gave songs away for free for decades: the radio
they gave shows away for free for decades: broadcast television
and before either, there WAS no recorded music or images. yet we still had shakespeare and mozart
art is not dying, creativity will never die, in fact, those who truly love art are not motivated by the almighty buck, they are motivated by love of the art. they'll waste millions to make art, and we'll benefit from it. meanwhile, art made for profit, the usual mindless pop movies and music, will we miss them?
and finally, if you give away your songs for free, what really happens? well, for 0.01% (the rest stay poor, JUST LIKE BEFORE THE INTERNET) you get famous. then you make millions from concert gigs, advertising endorsements, personalized content... in other words, you'll still make $ from art, only via ANCILLARY REVENUES
i want you to listen to reason: we need to get off oil now, or we will suffer
and you react like i'm trying to run your life?
no, i'm trying to wake you up from your ignorant complacency, and you are reacting like a teenager told by his mom he needs to stop playing videogames and start studying. that indolent sloth of a teenager would then say 'Look on the bright side. Now you have an outlet for all your self-righteous indignation. Nothing feels quite as good to someone trying to run other people's lives as saying "I told you so!"'
so you are basically saying that american energy policy is akin to a fat lazy useless teenager with a sense of spoiled entitlement... but i'm in the wrong because i'm pointing out the simple obvious truth that we're on the wrong path? is that your message to me?
Slashdot Mirror
if i hear one more asshole talk about cloud computing, a renamed concept from the 1980s, i'll punch the douchebag in the face
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dell
sure his company has acted douchey, but i don't think the guy can be called a douche. its been a long time since he founded dell in his dorm, and no one has any real dirt on the fellow. sure he's not a saint, but again, not a douche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak
wozniak is pretty much the anti-douche. the woz is pure awesomeness. even steve jobs: yeah, your average apple cultist is pretty much the definition of upper middle class douchebag, but steve jobs himself seems like just a cold hard terse shrewd businessman, not a douchebag
to expand the realm outside technology and money, you can point to george clooney: not a douche, for every lindsay lohan, clearly a douchebag, literally and figuratively
there are many other examples of nondouchey massive successes at a young age
additionally, the corollary of your argument, that poverty and suffering somehow make you strong of character, is obviously wrong, because there are plenty of broke douchebags out there
no, the truth is, zuckerberg is, and always would have been, a douchebag, whether facebook happened or not. i'm certain you can find me an example of some nice guy who was destroyed by fame/ money, or some asshole who was redeemed by financial hardship, but for the most part, once a douchebag, always a douchebag, regardless of fame and fortune
i think its a pleasant myth people tell themselves (out of self-righteousness, a form of douchebaggery) that fame and fortune is somehow linked with moral terpitude or character pestilence. but its simply not true
when friendster looked like it was going to take over the internet
there once was a time when myspace looked larger than google
and, in a few short years, someone will say something about facebook, probably as a joke, and someone else will say "facebook? what's that?"
the realm of social networking is true to what it is: an endless party, hosted by one rich kid whose parents are on vacation after another, no one claiming the right to say they are truly in control for very long, forever
what i envision is a permanent progression, every 5-10 years, a new friendster/myspace/facebook taking over the mantle of darling of the ball, and then rudely discarded and abandoned, in endless succession, forever
thank you for making my argument for me
"trivial to circumvent"
and i'm glad that you also conclude like me that intellectual property law is defunct
(rolls eyes)
thanks
http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/20/1310248
2 stories before this one:
http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/20/1310248
seems pretty abusive, no?
you and stallman fail because you assume trademark is the only weapon we have against the asshole selling bathtub bilge water as pepsi
stallman is entitled to his opinion, but he's not some god you have to obey without thinking the issue out yourself. read his argument again and THINK (tm)
k thx (tm)
you have no clear understanding of what they mean, because they are not intended to have a clear meaning
error in meaning process #4512: lack of internal logical coherence in statement detected. statement may be ironic, or speaker may be confused. abort, retry, fail?
when intellectual property law was meant to protect the solitary inventor from the predatory conglomerate. now the predatory conglomerate just preemptively carpet bombs their intellectual property territory and backs it up with a legion of lawyers. the solitary inventor doesn't stand a chance
intellectual property law is defunct. it is philosophically bankrupt and must be replaced wholesale, ignored, or at least radically revamped. this applies to trademark, copyright, and patents: the whole lot of it is rotten to the core and betrays any noble principles it was ever meant to uphold
are having intercourse with the teddy ruxpins, while the cabbage patch kids are fellating the my little ponies
the tamagotchi orgy centers on aang the last airbender and spongebob square pants is using the tentacled kate gosselin dildo on adam lambert and dick cheney ...
oh i'm sorry, you meant define porn IN GENERAL, not my specific porn, sorry
so i can only bring 0.03% of my porn collection to australia?
http://www.portlandmercury.com/columns/savage-love/Content?oid=25486
or was it geekgrrl?
ah yes:
http://slashdot.org/~geekgrrl
what say you, resident trademark pseudoinfringer?
1. yes, there was no quick and easy way to move their work around... and? your point?
2. they lived in an era where people had to go someplace to hear their work. again, your point? currently, the mp3 is free, just an advertisement to go see the artist at a concert. same world, better advertising
3. they weren't competing in the same market? again, what is your point? what is this observation supposed to mean? how is that instructive as to why or why not free mp3s are good/ bad? i am not being facetious, i am genuinely interested in why you think that is supposed to mean something
in the end, its not right versus left. the right doesn't want to fund islamic terrorism and gasbags like chavez and wants national security. the left wants a clean environment and livable cities and climate change security. its win win, there's no argument here, its beyond the traditional partisan divides. we can all agree on this one: NO OIL. GET OFF IT
our only enemies are the oil industry, entrenched corporatism warping our media and our regulations and our country's political willpower. this is why we can't fulfill the obvious natural political consensus here
before its too late, we better recognize we are junkies and see our drug dealer boyfriend for what he really is, because we're being put in a stupor and being fucked by someone who is happy to rape us and steal everything about us all the while lying to us: corporatism
corporatism is not capitalism, and is in fact a greater enemy of capitalism than socialism or communism: read your economic history of oligopolies and monopolies, morons. don't believe the corporate funded propaganda that lies to you and says they defend capitalism when they really warp the marketplace by buying off our legislators and defying our regulations and rape our environment and our national security, and leaving us polluted poor propagandized in stupid, and they run off with all the cash
before its too late, recognize the drug dealer who is raping you, and fight for your country BY GETTING OFF OIL
why do believe you need money to make art? why do you confuse a DISTRIBUTION MODEL with an essential passion of mankind?
and how did mozart and shakespeare function? patronage, that's how
and why do you NEED an ancillary dvd market to support crap movies? as you say, avatar made bazillions... in the movie theater! can the world survive without direct-to-dvd crap?! pfffffft
musicians will make millions... at concert gigs
sure, only 0.01% of them
JUST LIKE IN THE PRE-INTERNET ERA
but with the long tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail) greater quantization of the market due to more efficient distribution (the internet) means the world is not a binary existence between signing a contract (and making millions) or making nothing. instead, all those starving musicians... some will make $100s, some $1,000s, %10,000s, $100,000s... where before the capricious opinions of record company execs decided your fate between nothing and millions. and even THEN made you sign contracts where they got the lion share of $ anyways. in fact, artists will be RICHER because even though there is less money in play on just concert gigs and other ancillaries, they get the money DIRECT, not 10% of what some record exec rams down your throat due to holding all the power. now, on the internet, YOU, the audience decides who will make $$$, not some asshole snorting blow off a hooker's ass. its a far more efficient, egalitarian model. the artist is freer, the audience has more cultural riches... and the old school media conglomerate dies. let me find my tiny violin somewhere...
you fail to think the issue through. you only grasp part of the issues you talk about. just think all of your concerns through. you will see for yourself: THERE IS NO PROBLEM (unless you are an old school distributor). the sky is not falling chicken little. the world has survived far greater shocks to social and legal convention due to technological progress. open your brittle mind, see the better future for what it is
every mp3 is completely free and ad-less. because the mp3 IS the advertisement... for the concert gig where you sell tickets, for the musician who will endorse your product, for ALL SORTS OF ANCILLARY REVENUE STREAMS
"Where is that money going to come from?"
gee, i dunno, i didn't know your average guitar and laptop with free software was a major investment. especially considering the teenager holding that guitar and pushing record on that laptop is mainly doing it to get in girl's pants, like very other wannabe musician in history. but gee i'm sorry, i didn't want to brust your bubble: as we all know its IMPOSSIBLE to make art without money first, that moeny is the only motivation. and art motivated by money is always the highest quality that everyone desires, not at all shallow vapid and empty. yup, yup
the world is not ending son. only the distribution model that the internet killed. get used to it
so what is your alternative distribution model? control the internet?
good luck!
you're reacting to me like i'm really your parent. which was the analogy used in the above post, correct. however the idea was to actually understand the analogy, and use it for enlightenment on the source of bad opinions people have: indolent immature complacency
but instead, you start roll playing your own psychological complexes!
did you have a flashback? are you actually 14 years old? how do you feel about your mother?
"Why don't you let us do what makes sense fiscally? If I can't afford it then I can't afford it. I'm not going to become homeless just so you can feel good about yourself. You really are honest about who you are, too. You want to run all our lives, just like everyone else."
LOL! i can't read that without hearing it in the voice of a pouty valley girl. the teenage psychology is like an overwhelming stink. talk about a massive chip on an immature mind's shoulder
dude: i'm not your father. really. YOU inserted the condescending psychology, i didn't supply it. you really have issues: you can't look at the underlying concepts, you can only mentally process the issues as one of parental authoritarian force
here's an amazing fucking concept for you: maybe the issue here is PROPER ENERGY POLICY. not PARENTAL AUTHORITY
why don't you try processing the FORMER issue and leave the LATTER issue to immature low iq dimwits
pffffft
what they believe is what the future of society believes. if you don't understand that this is a fight over the habits and beliefs of teenagers, you don't understand the fight at all
because of the pervasive censorship, and announces a strong anti-censorship stance, even in engaging in a hopeful (although a little hamstrung) effort to show themselves as friends of transparency:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/20/google-google-street-view
but on the other hand it engages in a strange, fossil pre-'The Graduate' sort of hysterical moral panic that doesn't even exist (as a compelling widely believed opinion) in western countries anymore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graduate
even if you are so cynical as to say google has no real allegiance to transparency and truly fights censorship, that it's just a pr campaign, the contrast here is so galling as to nullify even the pr campaign on a surface level
therefore, this has to be a case of google losing some coherence in internal corporate guidelines. there's going to be some meetings, some people are going to get a stern email, and this decision will be reversed by higher ups
as to say this decision is hypocritical of google is putting it mildly
but luckily pecos bill and jesus, fresh from writing the us constitution, stopped the evil science-believing mexicans from raping white women and illegally occupying manifest destiny lands
they were building dense cities 4,000 years ago on the nile
whatever $ is lost for moving food into the city is gained and then some by everyone not needing to drive 2 hours and sit in gridlock every day just to do their business
dense cities are the norm for humanity. dense cities make sense even when all you have is sailing ships and mules. when oil goes to $15 a gallon, the cities will contract in size and normalcy will return after 50 years of cheap oil fueled insanity
meanwhile, suburban sprawl is an artificial endangered idiocy
if that "smugness" bothers you, why doesn't the traditional tea party/ republican low iq smugness and complacency about there being no problem in energy bother you?
do you want my email for?
sign me up to the scat lovers newsletter?
they gave songs away for free for decades: the radio
they gave shows away for free for decades: broadcast television
and before either, there WAS no recorded music or images. yet we still had shakespeare and mozart
art is not dying, creativity will never die, in fact, those who truly love art are not motivated by the almighty buck, they are motivated by love of the art. they'll waste millions to make art, and we'll benefit from it. meanwhile, art made for profit, the usual mindless pop movies and music, will we miss them?
and finally, if you give away your songs for free, what really happens? well, for 0.01% (the rest stay poor, JUST LIKE BEFORE THE INTERNET) you get famous. then you make millions from concert gigs, advertising endorsements, personalized content... in other words, you'll still make $ from art, only via ANCILLARY REVENUES
so sorry chicken little, the sky is not falling
its a game of cut off the head of the hydra
all the old school distributors are doing is breeding more industrial strength, impossible to detect distribution network
really! why not hide it is as tiny http form posts and or gets? how do you deep packet inspect that?
and why not download slow? for the majority of teenagers, iron man 2 in 5 days rather than $20 is perfectly fine
i want you to listen to reason: we need to get off oil now, or we will suffer
and you react like i'm trying to run your life?
no, i'm trying to wake you up from your ignorant complacency, and you are reacting like a teenager told by his mom he needs to stop playing videogames and start studying. that indolent sloth of a teenager would then say 'Look on the bright side. Now you have an outlet for all your self-righteous indignation. Nothing feels quite as good to someone trying to run other people's lives as saying "I told you so!"'
so you are basically saying that american energy policy is akin to a fat lazy useless teenager with a sense of spoiled entitlement... but i'm in the wrong because i'm pointing out the simple obvious truth that we're on the wrong path? is that your message to me?