You Americans are so blinded by your own hype you think the entire rest of the world is some 3rd world dictatorship.
And you seem to be incapable of doing anything other than painting every single American, everywhere, with one stereotypical brush. But then you don't sound like the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.
Your entire country is smaller than my home state - one of 50 in the entire country. We have *70 times* your population. And yet you rant like a fucking juvenile as if one sort of American represented every single American in my country. That's either naive or so damned stupid a law should be passed to prevent your type from polluting the gene pool by breeding.
I don't believe there is such a thing as an "intrinsic" human right.
I would disagree. Certain moral principles aren't relative, but absolute. And these would include simple, painfully obvious things like the right to pursue your continued survival, the right to defend yourself and your property (violently, if need be), and the right to not be enslaved by others. I could give a rat's ass if other cultures, or cultures at other times in history, don't agree with these rights; all that proves is that culture in question is barbaric and inhumane.
Moral relativism is for idiots and philosophy students - not for those of us who live in the real world, and know first-hand and up close the horror it is to have or see these rights violated. Murder, theft, slavery - these are universally evil things, and it doesn't matter for shit what the cultural 'justification' is for these practices.
This definition of "obscenity" has been used to go after both homosexuals and the BDSM crowd in the South, repeatedly. And in some cases, successfully. Community standards do not trump Constitutional rights, and what consenting adults do in their own bedroom - and perhaps later post pictures of on their website - isn't any of your fucking business.
Not if you're a real American, at least. But then real Americans seem to be in short supply, replaced daily by posers who thinking pissing all over the Constitution is just good clean fun, or perhaps the will of some hateful god, or both.
Regular people would have trouble defending things like rape fantasy and pedophilia
I'd be willing to bet that a good many "regular people" understand that it isn't about defending "rape fantasy and pedophilia", but about defending the First Amendment of the Constitution of these United States. And not just when you happen to like the speech the First Amendment protects.
The rest...well, the rest are just twats and fuckwits who never liked the idea that their neighbors had the same rights that they do, and would probably cum all over their television screens if Congress came out and declared a permanent state of martial law. These traitorous little shits aren't worth the fucking O2 they waste every time they draw breath.
You don't think it's possible that these guys are just jealous that they don't control it and want it just because they don't have it?
For these people, the only true measure of power is being able to order someone to do something they don't want to do, or to prevent someone from doing something they do want to do. After seizing control of the internet (which they can't really achieve, despite their childish threats and tantrums) their first order of business would be to prove they have power through muscle-flexing in both directions. And in Europe one of the traditional methods of doing so is by restricting free speech, usually justifying this obnoxious behavior by labeling it "hate speech".
So yes, if the EU had substantial control of the internet one of the first things they'd do is attempt to impose, world-wide, a ban on certain forms of speech they don't happen to agree with. This should be painfully clear from the EU's own short history (especially recent history) where it appears EU representatives are more than willing to sell out their own people for personal political gain and power - repeatedly, without remorse, and without even any real attempt to hide what they hell they're doing. I'm surprised the peoples of the constituent nations of Europe haven't taken to hanging their EU reps from flagpoles, but it seems that Europeans are considerably more tolerant of nascent fascism and emerging dictatorship than Americans are. You'd think that given their history they'd be more sensitive to political power grabs and move quickly to stop them, but that sure as hell doesn't seem to be the case.
EU is greedy enough to break the interweb if it doesn't get control of it
The EU is almost Orwellian in it's desire to dominate and control everything around it, including the citizens of its own member countries, whom it often ignores. They're emulating the U.S. government at its very worst.
Maybe they plan on taxing it or enforcing thier own freedom of speach rules on it.
That would be exactly right. The EU wants as much power as it can possibly manage to acquire, and that can only be done by taking power from someone else. If the EU ruled the internet there would be no such thing as free speech, only the common European version of "free" speech (e.g., you can talk about anything you like, so long as the government approves of it first).
Is this because they, the people opposing these, are leftists or because they are concerned about the environment?
There's a difference between being concerned about the environment and worshipping it as a god, with anything and everything human being equated with evil and sin. Nuclear power plants are far, far less polluting than coal-fired plants, and they conveniently store *all* of their pollution in spent fuel rods rather than tossing it willy-nilly into the atmosphere. Hydropower is even less polluting than that, but it commits the blaspheming act of *altering the environment to satisfy human needs*, an unforgivable crime in environmental circles. Environmentalists go on and on about "alternative" sources of energy, conveniently ignoring the fact that it isn't possible to power the entire economy on solar or wind, nor is it practical in many places, nor is it pollution-free (solar cells have an extremely dirty and poisonous manufacturing process, something greenies never seem to think is worth mentioning). Hell, even wind power is being blasted by some environmentalists because wind farms occasionally kill birds.
Far as I can tell, the only thing that'll truly satisfy these nutcases is if all of human civilization is wiped out and we go back to being just a few hundred thousand hunter-gather tribes ranged across the word...worshipping Mother Gaia, of course.
And as far as nuclear power plants, if you get rid of all government subsidies and laws protecting them then nuclear power plants wouldn't be built or wouldn't run, ie if the free market were used nuclear power wouldn't be around.
That isn't true. American methods for producing nuclear power plants treat each plant as unique; they're all prototypes, each and every one, and prototypes are expensive. If they were all built from a single blueprint, i.e., "mass produced" the cost of nuclear power plants would decline dramatically *even if you kept the massive safety redundancy we already have*. Both Sweden and France have conclusively proved that plant production costs declines markedly if you don't build every plant as an entirely new endeavor from the ground up.
And if there were a true 'free market' in power generation, the plants would be even cheaper. And less safe, as well. But certainly cheaper than an equal power production capacity in gas, oil, or coal. Transportation savings alone would be enormous.
All the laws and subsidies are socialistic.
And all corporate welfare is anti-capitalist by definition, not just where nuclear power plants are concerned. The government has no business supporting or bailing out corporations that can't make it on their own, no matter what they're involved in. But nuclear power isn't one of those things that can't make it on its own, assuming far-left morons don't sue the manufacturers into bankruptcy in order to halt construction because it violates their religious tenets.
Actually, I'm footing the bill, along with every other working American who pays taxes. That is, after all, where the Navy gets its money from in the first place.
And frankly, I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being used to support the education of people who can't manage to get a scholarship to Carnegie Mellon on their own. I managed to (turned it down) and if I can do it then so can a fair number of other works who don't have rich parents. And this is back in day when colleges and universities actually had standards that were fairly difficult to meet.
There's probably a lot of people who could great great educations here (or MIT, or where ever) and CAN'T AFFORD IT.
There are two avenues for these folks:
- scholarships, if they're bright enough. If they aren't bright enough, then what the fuck are they doing going to college in the first place? College isn't a right, it's a privilege, and only the privileged (in terms of actual brainpower) should enjoy it. Anything else is a waste of resources.
- loans. Take some personal responsbility. If you desperately want that education and don't have the grey matter required to win a scholarship, then resign yourself to the fact that you're actually going to have to PAY for the service. You aren't entitled to that service; you sure as hell don't "deserve" that service. If you want it, then buck up, act like a man, and pay for it, or promise to pay for it with future income - YOUR future income, not mine.
Considering how the attack on science by religious conservatives has reached a fever pitch
While this is true, the very same thing happens on the extreme left. Any science which opposes the views of far-left loons is lambasted as being the product of covert corporate propaganda, or the shyster dealings of a government in bed with business. If you aren't a mouthpiece for the One True and Right Way(TM), then you're obviously whoring out for the enemy - or so they claim.
This isn't just a problem with the extremist right, it's a problem with EXTREMISTS - period. Extremists don't tolerate any view which doesn't jive with their holy writ, whatever form that holy writ takes. Extremists are the enemies of all science, all rationalism, all logical thought, and by extension all personal freedom. Whether those extremists are thought of as 'right wing' or 'left wing' is, in the final analysis, irrelevent.
My trash bin sits on my property, and the only person who has any right to step onto my property and take are the folks who work for my garbage service. So that means that anyone else who tries this is going to be looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge, trying to explain to me what they think they're doing if they want to live long enough to get charged with trespassing and hauled off by the local sheriff.
I feel for the folks who *have* to put their bins on the curb, when they could just move them a few feet back onto their drive or lawn and make it legally impossible for anyone to touch their trash except for the garbage service. Of course, I also realize that in the current political climate some Washington hack sucking Homeland Security dick would probably pass a law making this illegal if it became common practice.
That, and the fact that the Federal Government doesn't appear to have the legal tools (or the will) to go after a major oligopoly.
The power of the federal government is the reason that this oligopoly exists in the first place. Without inane copyright laws that go beyond anything the founding fathers ever dreamed possible the oligopoly would crash and burn in a free market. And that doesn't even to begin to touch upon the active collusion of certain government agencies in how radio and CD sales are regulated to the satisfaction of said oligopoly.
Television viewing has been steadily declining amongst the American public since the year 2000. During that year, for the first time since the TV was invented, it was down 3%, and has continued to drop a percentage point or two every year since then.
Oddly enough not all of those television viewing minutes are being transferred to the internet; only about 60% are. The rest are going to other activities, like reading books, going for walks, spending time with the family, and so forth.
So while Americans may be relying too much on their television for information, the fact is that they're doing so less now than at any other time in history, and it appears that it'll be even less than it is now next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. There's no indication whatsoever that the trend in declining viewership is going to end any time soon.
Wait one generation and the number of people using TV as their primary source of information will be a small and relatively powerless minority.
Because you're talking to the entitlement generation.
You're confusing the words "entitlement" and "Boomer". If ever there was a generation who thought they 'deserved' a good life, it's the Boomers, hands down.
Unless you have a very un-Websterlike definition of the word "people", that would include you. So you are also stupid and weak, a sheep waiting to take it up the ass like everyone else around you. Might as well bend over and grap your ankles now, boy, instead of putting off the inevitable.
If a group of people only like a band because it's on an indie label, it says they're a bunch of posers anyway.
Which happens to comprise a huge number of Slashdot posters. Every time an article on the RIAA comes up, these immature little assholes pop out of the woodwork to eagerly proclaim how much superior they are to the 'sheep' because they only listen to "indie" stuff. Pathetic, really, but they somehow think that making nasty comments about popular music while extolling the virtues of some shitty no-name garage band actually proves, in some bizarre teenage-pseudo-rebellious sort of way, that they're actually more intelligent than, say, the guy who collects their trash, or works construction, or flips their burgers.
I guess they never got over being the left-out loser in high school, and this is their own childish form of payback.
It's wrong for labels to sign crap artists and then try to turn them into money makers through propaganda.
No, it isn't. There's no moral standard here since one person's "crap" is another's "great music". What you think sucks applies only to you, and to no one else. Just because you don't like the music doesn't make it shit, nor morally reprehensible to market and sell.
It's wrong for labels to sign good artists and then not support them with the promotion they deserve
A bad business decision, perhaps, but there's nothing "wrong" about it. Just because you have an orgasm every time you hear something from the Corrs doesn't mean that their music is the Voice From On High(TM).
It's wrong for labels to sign good artists and then rip them off as they did with dozens of old time artists who later sued them.
That depends. If the Corrs or anyone else are too fucking stupid to read the fine print on their contract, then any ass-reaming they get is one they deserve. If they were actually ripped off than that's a CRIME, and can be pursued legally. The crime is wrong; the ass-reaming is not.
And it's wrong for artists to sign their asses over to a label and (if they're lucky) get fifteen percent in exchange for production, advertising and distribution
He's a novice barely one year out of college, and worth very little in a real working environment. Somehow I think this in combination with his enormous ego and unrealistic sense of entitlement had something to do with his getting shit-canned. If he'd been working for me I doubt he'd have lasted a month, much less a year.
Hell, just take a look at how many posts he's made to his own article defending himself from his critics. His contempt of anyone with an opinion contrary to his own is enough to get him labeled as an egomaniacal asshole, and rightly so. The biggest mistake his management made was not firing him sooner, if only to improve office morale.
No, it isn't. More than 99% of internet users don't have blogs, yet the tiny minority who do get an inordinate amount of press time - much like PETA in that regard. The only "phenomenon" here is that the press seems to have an orgasm every time they get to use the word "blog" on TV or in a news article.
The fact that anyone who cares can write a web page without knowing HTML is hardly something to get worked up over. Just another form of noise, is all.
You've failed to wrap your tiny little brain around the fact that the developers of Gimp are the only folks who get any say on how it's named. Of course, since it's GPL'd you could repackage it and call it something that won't insult your fragile ego, if you like.
As for other organizations spending money, what the fuck does this have to do with Gimp? Not a thing, at least to those of us with some slight grip on reality. Just because you use a product doesn't mean you get a 'vote' on how it's named.
You don't have any rights here. Get over yourself and move on. If the name Gimp bothers you then don't use the damned software. It's as simple as that.
but if it means that half of the world population dies due to famine and the other half has to be relocated over thousands of km
As if any of this would occur. Where's your evidence that global warming, which the Kyoto Treaty would do practically nothing to slow down (even if the assumptions it's based on are correct) would result in the inevitable starvation of half the world's population? And force the other half to move?
Really, you've got the drama queen act down pat. Perhaps you should think about moving to Hollywood and trying out for a part in a disaster movie....
But of course, I could just ignore global scientific consensus and listen to some random slashdotter who obviously has no clue about what the problem actually is instead.
Or we could allow the chicken littles of the world to take charge of our governments and cause untold suffering reordering every modern economy according to their own personal "scientific" gospels. Yep, I'm sure that'd be far less destructive than global warming....
The solution is to mediate the impact we've had as best we can, and then try to minimize our current and future impact.
Thanks, but no thanks. As the previous poster pointed out, nature is incredibly violent and quite fond of change. Nature doesn't give a shit about you, me, or the species as a whole. Me, now, I *do* give a shit and would much rather change the world to suit my species in whatever way is required. If this bothers the folks who worship nature as a god, fuck them and the horse they rode in on (assuming they don't worship the horse, too).
We should not be in the business of preserving life as we know it; we should be preserving the ability of life to 'choose it's own destiny', for lack of a better term.
That's nothing more than New-Age religious propaganda. It's our planet and we can do whatever the hell we please with it. The only 'business' that's mandatory is survival of ourselves and the species; everything else is optional.
I believe we have a unique opportunity to let the Mississipi delta reclaim some if its natural state. I believe resources directed to rebuilding should instead be directed to relocating to an area with a lesser impact.
There aren't any safe places on Earth. It's a mark of intelligence that we can build any goddamned place we please AND survive any disaster that may befall that place. I say rebuild New Orleans and this time make sure the damned dikes work as advertised.
Slashdot Mirror
You Americans are so blinded by your own hype you think the entire rest of the world is some 3rd world dictatorship.
And you seem to be incapable of doing anything other than painting every single American, everywhere, with one stereotypical brush. But then you don't sound like the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.
Your entire country is smaller than my home state - one of 50 in the entire country. We have *70 times* your population. And yet you rant like a fucking juvenile as if one sort of American represented every single American in my country. That's either naive or so damned stupid a law should be passed to prevent your type from polluting the gene pool by breeding.
Max
I don't believe there is such a thing as an "intrinsic" human right.
I would disagree. Certain moral principles aren't relative, but absolute. And these would include simple, painfully obvious things like the right to pursue your continued survival, the right to defend yourself and your property (violently, if need be), and the right to not be enslaved by others. I could give a rat's ass if other cultures, or cultures at other times in history, don't agree with these rights; all that proves is that culture in question is barbaric and inhumane.
Moral relativism is for idiots and philosophy students - not for those of us who live in the real world, and know first-hand and up close the horror it is to have or see these rights violated. Murder, theft, slavery - these are universally evil things, and it doesn't matter for shit what the cultural 'justification' is for these practices.
Max
Obscene material does none of these things.
Yeah, right - pull the other finger.
This definition of "obscenity" has been used to go after both homosexuals and the BDSM crowd in the South, repeatedly. And in some cases, successfully. Community standards do not trump Constitutional rights, and what consenting adults do in their own bedroom - and perhaps later post pictures of on their website - isn't any of your fucking business.
Not if you're a real American, at least. But then real Americans seem to be in short supply, replaced daily by posers who thinking pissing all over the Constitution is just good clean fun, or perhaps the will of some hateful god, or both.
Max
Regular people would have trouble defending things like rape fantasy and pedophilia
I'd be willing to bet that a good many "regular people" understand that it isn't about defending "rape fantasy and pedophilia", but about defending the First Amendment of the Constitution of these United States. And not just when you happen to like the speech the First Amendment protects.
The rest...well, the rest are just twats and fuckwits who never liked the idea that their neighbors had the same rights that they do, and would probably cum all over their television screens if Congress came out and declared a permanent state of martial law. These traitorous little shits aren't worth the fucking O2 they waste every time they draw breath.
Max
You don't think it's possible that these guys are just jealous that they don't control it and want it just because they don't have it?
For these people, the only true measure of power is being able to order someone to do something they don't want to do, or to prevent someone from doing something they do want to do. After seizing control of the internet (which they can't really achieve, despite their childish threats and tantrums) their first order of business would be to prove they have power through muscle-flexing in both directions. And in Europe one of the traditional methods of doing so is by restricting free speech, usually justifying this obnoxious behavior by labeling it "hate speech".
So yes, if the EU had substantial control of the internet one of the first things they'd do is attempt to impose, world-wide, a ban on certain forms of speech they don't happen to agree with. This should be painfully clear from the EU's own short history (especially recent history) where it appears EU representatives are more than willing to sell out their own people for personal political gain and power - repeatedly, without remorse, and without even any real attempt to hide what they hell they're doing. I'm surprised the peoples of the constituent nations of Europe haven't taken to hanging their EU reps from flagpoles, but it seems that Europeans are considerably more tolerant of nascent fascism and emerging dictatorship than Americans are. You'd think that given their history they'd be more sensitive to political power grabs and move quickly to stop them, but that sure as hell doesn't seem to be the case.
Max
EU is greedy enough to break the interweb if it doesn't get control of it
The EU is almost Orwellian in it's desire to dominate and control everything around it, including the citizens of its own member countries, whom it often ignores. They're emulating the U.S. government at its very worst.
Maybe they plan on taxing it or enforcing thier own freedom of speach rules on it.
That would be exactly right. The EU wants as much power as it can possibly manage to acquire, and that can only be done by taking power from someone else. If the EU ruled the internet there would be no such thing as free speech, only the common European version of "free" speech (e.g., you can talk about anything you like, so long as the government approves of it first).
Max
Assume for a moment that the Christian God is real
I'd rather assume the Norse gods were real. They're a hell of a lot more fun, and far more forgiving of mistakes.
Max
Is this because they, the people opposing these, are leftists or because they are concerned about the environment?
There's a difference between being concerned about the environment and worshipping it as a god, with anything and everything human being equated with evil and sin. Nuclear power plants are far, far less polluting than coal-fired plants, and they conveniently store *all* of their pollution in spent fuel rods rather than tossing it willy-nilly into the atmosphere. Hydropower is even less polluting than that, but it commits the blaspheming act of *altering the environment to satisfy human needs*, an unforgivable crime in environmental circles. Environmentalists go on and on about "alternative" sources of energy, conveniently ignoring the fact that it isn't possible to power the entire economy on solar or wind, nor is it practical in many places, nor is it pollution-free (solar cells have an extremely dirty and poisonous manufacturing process, something greenies never seem to think is worth mentioning). Hell, even wind power is being blasted by some environmentalists because wind farms occasionally kill birds.
Far as I can tell, the only thing that'll truly satisfy these nutcases is if all of human civilization is wiped out and we go back to being just a few hundred thousand hunter-gather tribes ranged across the word...worshipping Mother Gaia, of course.
And as far as nuclear power plants, if you get rid of all government subsidies and laws protecting them then nuclear power plants wouldn't be built or wouldn't run, ie if the free market were used nuclear power wouldn't be around.
That isn't true. American methods for producing nuclear power plants treat each plant as unique; they're all prototypes, each and every one, and prototypes are expensive. If they were all built from a single blueprint, i.e., "mass produced" the cost of nuclear power plants would decline dramatically *even if you kept the massive safety redundancy we already have*. Both Sweden and France have conclusively proved that plant production costs declines markedly if you don't build every plant as an entirely new endeavor from the ground up.
And if there were a true 'free market' in power generation, the plants would be even cheaper. And less safe, as well. But certainly cheaper than an equal power production capacity in gas, oil, or coal. Transportation savings alone would be enormous.
All the laws and subsidies are socialistic.
And all corporate welfare is anti-capitalist by definition, not just where nuclear power plants are concerned. The government has no business supporting or bailing out corporations that can't make it on their own, no matter what they're involved in. But nuclear power isn't one of those things that can't make it on its own, assuming far-left morons don't sue the manufacturers into bankruptcy in order to halt construction because it violates their religious tenets.
Max
I'm NROTC, so the US Navy is footing the bill
Actually, I'm footing the bill, along with every other working American who pays taxes. That is, after all, where the Navy gets its money from in the first place.
And frankly, I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being used to support the education of people who can't manage to get a scholarship to Carnegie Mellon on their own. I managed to (turned it down) and if I can do it then so can a fair number of other works who don't have rich parents. And this is back in day when colleges and universities actually had standards that were fairly difficult to meet.
There's probably a lot of people who could great great educations here (or MIT, or where ever) and CAN'T AFFORD IT.
There are two avenues for these folks:
- scholarships, if they're bright enough. If they aren't bright enough, then what the fuck are they doing going to college in the first place? College isn't a right, it's a privilege, and only the privileged (in terms of actual brainpower) should enjoy it. Anything else is a waste of resources.
- loans. Take some personal responsbility. If you desperately want that education and don't have the grey matter required to win a scholarship, then resign yourself to the fact that you're actually going to have to PAY for the service. You aren't entitled to that service; you sure as hell don't "deserve" that service. If you want it, then buck up, act like a man, and pay for it, or promise to pay for it with future income - YOUR future income, not mine.
Max
Considering how the attack on science by religious conservatives has reached a fever pitch
While this is true, the very same thing happens on the extreme left. Any science which opposes the views of far-left loons is lambasted as being the product of covert corporate propaganda, or the shyster dealings of a government in bed with business. If you aren't a mouthpiece for the One True and Right Way(TM), then you're obviously whoring out for the enemy - or so they claim.
This isn't just a problem with the extremist right, it's a problem with EXTREMISTS - period. Extremists don't tolerate any view which doesn't jive with their holy writ, whatever form that holy writ takes. Extremists are the enemies of all science, all rationalism, all logical thought, and by extension all personal freedom. Whether those extremists are thought of as 'right wing' or 'left wing' is, in the final analysis, irrelevent.
Max
Exactly what I mean by "wrong." Thank you for comprehending belatedly.
It wouldn't be belated if you'd use the English language as it was actually intended. "Wrong" doesn't mean "stupid" or "desperate".
Max
My trash bin sits on my property, and the only person who has any right to step onto my property and take are the folks who work for my garbage service. So that means that anyone else who tries this is going to be looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge, trying to explain to me what they think they're doing if they want to live long enough to get charged with trespassing and hauled off by the local sheriff.
I feel for the folks who *have* to put their bins on the curb, when they could just move them a few feet back onto their drive or lawn and make it legally impossible for anyone to touch their trash except for the garbage service. Of course, I also realize that in the current political climate some Washington hack sucking Homeland Security dick would probably pass a law making this illegal if it became common practice.
Max
That, and the fact that the Federal Government doesn't appear to have the legal tools (or the will) to go after a major oligopoly.
The power of the federal government is the reason that this oligopoly exists in the first place. Without inane copyright laws that go beyond anything the founding fathers ever dreamed possible the oligopoly would crash and burn in a free market. And that doesn't even to begin to touch upon the active collusion of certain government agencies in how radio and CD sales are regulated to the satisfaction of said oligopoly.
Government is the music industry's bitch.
Max
Television viewing has been steadily declining amongst the American public since the year 2000. During that year, for the first time since the TV was invented, it was down 3%, and has continued to drop a percentage point or two every year since then.
Oddly enough not all of those television viewing minutes are being transferred to the internet; only about 60% are. The rest are going to other activities, like reading books, going for walks, spending time with the family, and so forth.
So while Americans may be relying too much on their television for information, the fact is that they're doing so less now than at any other time in history, and it appears that it'll be even less than it is now next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. There's no indication whatsoever that the trend in declining viewership is going to end any time soon.
Wait one generation and the number of people using TV as their primary source of information will be a small and relatively powerless minority.
Max
Because you're talking to the entitlement generation.
You're confusing the words "entitlement" and "Boomer". If ever there was a generation who thought they 'deserved' a good life, it's the Boomers, hands down.
Max
Because the people are stupid and weak.
Unless you have a very un-Websterlike definition of the word "people", that would include you. So you are also stupid and weak, a sheep waiting to take it up the ass like everyone else around you. Might as well bend over and grap your ankles now, boy, instead of putting off the inevitable.
Max
If a group of people only like a band because it's on an indie label, it says they're a bunch of posers anyway.
Which happens to comprise a huge number of Slashdot posters. Every time an article on the RIAA comes up, these immature little assholes pop out of the woodwork to eagerly proclaim how much superior they are to the 'sheep' because they only listen to "indie" stuff. Pathetic, really, but they somehow think that making nasty comments about popular music while extolling the virtues of some shitty no-name garage band actually proves, in some bizarre teenage-pseudo-rebellious sort of way, that they're actually more intelligent than, say, the guy who collects their trash, or works construction, or flips their burgers.
I guess they never got over being the left-out loser in high school, and this is their own childish form of payback.
Max
It's wrong for labels to sign crap artists and then try to turn them into money makers through propaganda.
No, it isn't. There's no moral standard here since one person's "crap" is another's "great music". What you think sucks applies only to you, and to no one else. Just because you don't like the music doesn't make it shit, nor morally reprehensible to market and sell.
It's wrong for labels to sign good artists and then not support them with the promotion they deserve
A bad business decision, perhaps, but there's nothing "wrong" about it. Just because you have an orgasm every time you hear something from the Corrs doesn't mean that their music is the Voice From On High(TM).
It's wrong for labels to sign good artists and then rip them off as they did with dozens of old time artists who later sued them.
That depends. If the Corrs or anyone else are too fucking stupid to read the fine print on their contract, then any ass-reaming they get is one they deserve. If they were actually ripped off than that's a CRIME, and can be pursued legally. The crime is wrong; the ass-reaming is not.
And it's wrong for artists to sign their asses over to a label and (if they're lucky) get fifteen percent in exchange for production, advertising and distribution
No, it's just stupid. Or desperate. Or both.
Max
He's a novice barely one year out of college, and worth very little in a real working environment. Somehow I think this in combination with his enormous ego and unrealistic sense of entitlement had something to do with his getting shit-canned. If he'd been working for me I doubt he'd have lasted a month, much less a year.
Hell, just take a look at how many posts he's made to his own article defending himself from his critics. His contempt of anyone with an opinion contrary to his own is enough to get him labeled as an egomaniacal asshole, and rightly so. The biggest mistake his management made was not firing him sooner, if only to improve office morale.
Max
yet it's a huge phenomenon
No, it isn't. More than 99% of internet users don't have blogs, yet the tiny minority who do get an inordinate amount of press time - much like PETA in that regard. The only "phenomenon" here is that the press seems to have an orgasm every time they get to use the word "blog" on TV or in a news article.
The fact that anyone who cares can write a web page without knowing HTML is hardly something to get worked up over. Just another form of noise, is all.
Max
You've failed to wrap your tiny little brain around the fact that the developers of Gimp are the only folks who get any say on how it's named. Of course, since it's GPL'd you could repackage it and call it something that won't insult your fragile ego, if you like.
As for other organizations spending money, what the fuck does this have to do with Gimp? Not a thing, at least to those of us with some slight grip on reality. Just because you use a product doesn't mean you get a 'vote' on how it's named.
You don't have any rights here. Get over yourself and move on. If the name Gimp bothers you then don't use the damned software. It's as simple as that.
Max
but if it means that half of the world population dies due to famine and the other half has to be relocated over thousands of km
As if any of this would occur. Where's your evidence that global warming, which the Kyoto Treaty would do practically nothing to slow down (even if the assumptions it's based on are correct) would result in the inevitable starvation of half the world's population? And force the other half to move?
Really, you've got the drama queen act down pat. Perhaps you should think about moving to Hollywood and trying out for a part in a disaster movie....
Max
But of course, I could just ignore global scientific consensus and listen to some random slashdotter who obviously has no clue about what the problem actually is instead.
Or we could allow the chicken littles of the world to take charge of our governments and cause untold suffering reordering every modern economy according to their own personal "scientific" gospels. Yep, I'm sure that'd be far less destructive than global warming....
Max
Isn't that what the dinosaurs said about 65 million years ago?
No, what they said was "if only we had opposable thumbs..."
Max
The solution is to mediate the impact we've had as best we can, and then try to minimize our current and future impact.
Thanks, but no thanks. As the previous poster pointed out, nature is incredibly violent and quite fond of change. Nature doesn't give a shit about you, me, or the species as a whole. Me, now, I *do* give a shit and would much rather change the world to suit my species in whatever way is required. If this bothers the folks who worship nature as a god, fuck them and the horse they rode in on (assuming they don't worship the horse, too).
We should not be in the business of preserving life as we know it; we should be preserving the ability of life to 'choose it's own destiny', for lack of a better term.
That's nothing more than New-Age religious propaganda. It's our planet and we can do whatever the hell we please with it. The only 'business' that's mandatory is survival of ourselves and the species; everything else is optional.
I believe we have a unique opportunity to let the Mississipi delta reclaim some if its natural state. I believe resources directed to rebuilding should instead be directed to relocating to an area with a lesser impact.
There aren't any safe places on Earth. It's a mark of intelligence that we can build any goddamned place we please AND survive any disaster that may befall that place. I say rebuild New Orleans and this time make sure the damned dikes work as advertised.
Max