There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.
Horseshit. Most libertarians (small 'l') aren't extremists or fanatics; they simply want the smallest, least powerful government possible because the alternative will almost certainly lead to de facto or actual dictatorship. In other words, they're looking for a government that fears the people it represents, and rightly so - rather than the reverse situation we live under now.
Most real libertarians (as opposed to rabid slashdot posters, and their equally rabid detractors) actually think that government in small doses for specific tasks is a good thing. For example, it makes far more sense for a municipal government to build a single set of power lines and junction stations throughout the city, rather than let anyone who wants to try constructing a private infrastructure giving it a shot (putting up 18 sets of poles, lines, etc.). Where libertarians part from current practice is that they believe that after this is done the lines should be leased to any and all comers willing to pay the price and provide the power, rather than granting something that was built with tax money to a single monopolistic entity (corporate or government, it doesn't matter).
Real libertarians generally don't make a lot of noise, just as most political moderates don't make a lot of noise. Their agenda primarily rests upon the "Leave Me The Fuck Alone And Tend To Your Own Pathetic Life" plank, which means you really have to piss them off to get them motivated enough to start kicking ass. Fanatics (pro- and anti-libertarian) don't need any such inspiration; they'll scream, yell, and throw a tantrum at the drop of a hat, spouting vacuous claptrap and claiming that all 'real' followers of the One True and Right Way believe as they do - and that anyone else is a traitor. The internet, like real life, is probably populated by 90% moderates and 10% scumbag fanatics, but the fanatics make 90% of the noise, skewing the perception of who stands where badly out of proportion with reality.
And no, the Libertarian party doesn't speak for us. You can't be libertarian and be in favor of the slavery of women, for example, by supporting a ban on abortions - which the Libertarian party allows. They've chucked their principles in a bid to get actual third party standing, which means that in the end they'll only be Libertarian in name and nothing more. Fuck 'em and don't for a moment think they speak for everyone who claims to be libertarian.
That's a democratic republic, that American invention we've abandoned to others more interested in liberty than in pretending to trade it off for money.
Ah, yes. Europe, the home of inalienable rights - so long as those rights are stamped with the approval of the electorate. God forbid you should exercise your right to free speech, especially if it involves something that might upset someone, somewhere. And as for the actual right to protect yourself or others - well, forget that one! That would REALLY upset your neighbors, who'd much rather Daddy Government came by and cleaned up your stinking corpse after the fact. God forbid that they should be forced to live on the same street with someone who actually has a set of balls....
Yeah, Europe's a real shining beacon of hope when it comes to liberty. One might say they're well on their way to a 'brave new world'.
the Republican government works for us, not themselves and their corporate masters.
As if the Democrats are any different. Both parties work for the rich, the powerful, and those ultimately interested in stasis and status quo. It doesn't matter which party you vote for, because neither has worked for you, the prole in the street, for decades. At least.
Someone has to pay for whatever functions these taxes cover
And exactly what functions do they cover? The tax apparently wasn't necessary when the packets were formated for transmitting email, yet now that they transmit voice there's a sudden 'need' for new taxes and yet more government? Sounds to me like a win-win for the government (more free money for no additional service) and for the telcos competing against VOIP; yet another example of an oligarchy buying government power.
The poster is exactly right. The executive branch of every government (local, state, federal) levies taxes without consulting the legislature all the time, getting around little roadblocks like the Constitution by calling them 'fees'. Apparently if you call it a 'fee' rather than a tax then you can do whatever the fuck you want. This is especially true if you limit your fees to specific groups of the electorate who lack the power (or votes) to protest effectively against this sort of thing.
The sad thing is that most people are perfectly okay with this so long as they aren't the ones getting the shaft. And when their turn comes around their neighbors simply see it as payback for the fees THEY had to pay at some point for some government service that they used (or a commercial service the government decided to tax...er, levy 'fees' against). Basically it's a "I didn't hear you complaining when I had to pay fucking fee X for service Y, so don't expect me to speak up on your behalf now that you're the one being roughed by the government protection racket - asshole."
Good luck trying to change things. Governments are as addicted to their fees as smack whores are to heroin - and they've got the guns (metaphorically and literally) to make sure you can't do shit about it.
Yeah, especially when it amounts to the (nearly inevitable) group of young (and sometimes older) male counselors who make it a point to bang as much teenage pussy as they can get their hands on. Now their hot, young, indiscreet partners will describe the encounter in detail on MySpace, putting an end to a revered camp tradition (not to mention an employment perk)!
Your mileage may vary, but it's silly to argue that games were better in the Good Old Days.
Except when they were. There simply aren't games today that can compare to BAK, or Fallout, or Planescape, or XCOM, or...I could go on here for some time.
What distinguishes these games from todays games is that a) they actually had an interesting storyline, and b) they were well-designed (not, I said DESIGNED, not well-coded). Try to convince me that NWN or Oblivion is the equal of BAK or Planescape, or that ANY game is as kooky and engaging today as XCOM or Fallout was, and you'll have to wait for my response until I'm done laughing my ass off.
Sure, the FPS genre has improved...somewhat. Half-Life 2 was good (even though Steam sucks cock), and some other titles were mildly engaging; but when I think of FPS games I wasted hour after hour on I still think of DOOM, and Thief 1 and 2, and Deus Ex. Games like Doom 3 and Hitman don't even rate.
There was a 'golden age' in gaming, and we're past it. With luck another golden age will come again...hopefully before I'm dead of old age. But I'm not holding my breath.
when I was playing this game 21 hours a week in the beginning, but now I'm only playing it 7 hours a week
Man, if you're playing computer games 21 hours a week it's time to seriously look into this thing called 'getting a life'. If you're really lucky you might even be able to snag this really cool gizmo called a 'girlfriend'. And that can lead to an activity called 'sex', which is even more satisfying than powering that dark-elf vampire wizard of yours to level 60! I know, I know, hard to believe, but trust me - it's true.
I thought Oblivion was a waste of time and energy, completely lackluster in every respect. Though it might have a hundred hours of gameplay, it's a hundred hours you'll wish you'd spent doing just about anything else. All of the worst parts of Morrowind wrapped in a (somewhat) upgraded graphical environment.
We live in a society that worships at the alter of the free market.
What a load of crap. The U.S. isn't even remotely close to a free market, and hasn't been for quite some time.
The invisible hand can do no wrong and anyone who claims otherwise is a dirty commie.
Government lopped off the invisible hand at the wrist a long, long time ago, at the behest of large oligarchies who (rightly) interpreted a real free market as a threat to their own continued dominance.
A scarcity must be introduced so that the glorious march of capitalism can continue.
Although you might have a hard time grasping this, our founding fathers were well aware of this fact which is why they introduced the concept of artificial scarcity with limited-time patents and copyrights. The idea wasn't to promote a "glorious march to capitalism" but to allow folks who'd otherwise have to make a living farming or working docks or clerking a chance to feed their kids with the fruits of their inventions and works of art. The thought was that this could only make the U.S. a better place to live, and enrich us all.
And guess what? They were right.
The problem here is that the lesser (much lesser) souls that followed in their footsteps used these same tools to accrue power and wealth, then turned around and bludgeoned all potential competition with them. No one with any actual power these days gives a shit about the original ideal that motivated our founders.
Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Capitalism is anathema to oligarchies.
If they truly don't care, then we can put them on the record as saying so, and use it as evidence of their selfishness in what they do and why their proposed laws that favor only them should be ignored.
The evidence is all around you. Do you honestly think they give a shit if you call them on it? Others have in the past; this isn't anything new. So long as they hold the power they don't have to listen to you, and they won't. The only thing they'll be doing is dreaming up a way to dish out some payback for having the audacity to publicly disagree with them, which shouldn't be too hard to do with Congress in their pockets.
You lost this battle years ago. And the sad fact is that 95% of the people out there simply don't care about you OR them.
Only a complete idiot would equate the loss of housing to the loss of their ability to buy a non-DRM'd music cd. Get fucking job, kid, and then get back to us on how not being able to pirate music is the same as living in the street and courting death from the elements.
It's my right to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else. As the cost imposed upon the artist by my piracy is 0, no harm is inflicted. Therefore, it IS my right. What's so hard to understand about this?
Perhaps that you live in a society circumscribed by laws, and you don't get to decide which ones you want to abide by and which ones you don't? Contrary to what you might believe, you aren't exceptional or extraordinary; you're a prole, just like the rest of us.
If you suck, you have no right for huge profit simply because you might have gotten just one good song on your CD of 15-20.
No, you don't have a right to profit. But in my country, at least, no yahoo off the street has a right to *prevent* you from profiting from this scenario either.
The CD should be the promotion of your work.
The cd should be whatever the producer and the buyer think it should be. In this case there's a disconnect because the seller thinks they're 'renting', while the buyer, alas, still believes he or she is buying. Either way, neither party agrees with your assessment, nor will they give you the time of day if you try to force it on anyone via legislation.
The RIAA might be very surprised to hear that they're actually losing money to DRM, and how DRM actually PROMOTES piracy.
The RIAA doesn't give a shit. They're interested in power, first and foremost. DRM represents power; not because it can't be broken, but because it allows the RIAA the opportunity to buy laws from Congress that the RIAA can use to punish people (guilty or not) - and THAT'S power. REAL power. And as we can see from (unskewed) sales figures, it doesn't appear as if the average consumer actually gives a shit about the DRM, so this is a win-win for them.
They don't care about what you think. The only thing they care about is that you have the arrogance to actually disagree with them. Trust me, the only thing they're pondering at the moment is how they can use this to track down all the little shits who 'dared' to pull this stunt, so they can punish them. Probably by providing a list of phone numbers to Daddy Government of 'suspected pirates' and ne'er-do-wells who need to be watched/raided/jailed/whatever.
you'd be pretty damn glad when the cops showed up because your neighbour had the sense to call them to PROTECT you
I'd be far more grateful if my NEIGHBOR showed up, armed to the teeth, to give me a hand - rather than hiding in his home, hoping that the police get around to doing the job before the baddies decide to use me for target practice. But I guess I can't really expect that from the average American these days.
I'd rather the police intervene BEFORE I'm dead
Except that statistically the police arrive while a violent crime is in progress less than 2% of the time. For the other 98% they show up long after, to clean up the mess. What you hope to be true and what actually is true are two very different things here.
Unless you somehow think you're blessed enough to always fall within that 2%, there's a 98% chance that the next time you're the victim of violent crime the only person who'll be around who actually gives a shit about protecting you is going to be...you. Daddy government won't magically appear to save the day, no matter how many laws you pass or how many police you put on the streets. It's incumbent upon rational, mature adults to take responsibility for their own protection, and stop screaming for a world of 'safety' that they can't ever have.
Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.
That's pretty amusing, given their own admission that they have no reliable data stretching back more than 400 years. You'd think they'd avoid making blanket statements about greenhouse gas levels and global temperatures when there isn't any solid measurement of either thing from 1 A.D. to about 1600 A.D.
I guess passing off speculation as fact is the new empiricism. So long as they're goodfacts, of course.
That being said 19 year olds should be carful about being with 17 year olds, though it isn't anywhere close to being as bad as a 45 year old with a 17 year old.
It's every bit as bad. Both cases involve a minor and an adult; it doesn't matter what age the adult is, as legally they're both the same. Douchebags don't get a 'free pass' just because the age difference between themselves and the minor isn't as great. Frankly, the only way I can see anyone arguing to the contrary is if they themselves are 19, want to bang teenage girls, yet don't want any competition from older, more experienced men - which is a pretty fucking sick way of looking at the universe.
If, on the other hand, you think a 17-year-old girl is old enough to consent, then change the law - and accept the simple fact that if she's old enough to consent to a 19-year-old, she's also old enough to consent to the 45-year-old. Either way 17-year-old girls are not the 'private hunting ground' of college twats who can't keep their cocks in their pants and who're too immature to actually interest a woman their own age.
You seriously tell me you would stop having sex with each other for 2 years? Yeah sure.
No, you seem to have missed the point. If the girl is, at 17, old enough to consent to having sex with a 19-year-old, then she's equally old enough to consent to having sex with a 45-year-old. The difference in the age of her partner is entirely irrelevent as both are just as 'adult' as the other.
You can't have it both ways. Choose one or choose the other, but don't for a moment think that being 19 entitles you to bang teenage girls just because you like the thought of doing so, while cutting out the older 'competition'. You're an adult, or so we've been told, so act like it.
There's no difference whatsoever between a 19-year-old scumbag and a 45-year-old scumbag. A scumbag is a scumbag; the moment you hit 18 you're assumed to be responsible enough to vote, so keeping it in your pants when it comes to minors shouldn't be too much of a stretch. If it is, then YOU can rot in hell no matter how old you are.
And once a store refuses service to somebody, if that person comes into their store anyway they're trespassing, even though the store is open to the public.
And no store has any right to tell you what you can or cannot do the moment you step off their property. They don't own the public areas outside of their store and they don't have any business dictating the terms of use of those areas. If the store doesn't want someone using their service they should a) not project that service onto public property, or b) make some minimal attempt at encrypting the signal. This is as idiotic as if the shop were holding a rave and telling everyone on the (public) street outside that they had to leave because they don't have 'permission' to listen to the music blasting a couple hundred yards in every direction.
Years ago, before there was such a thing as cable or DSL, I had a very nice dial-up account with a mom 'n pop ISP. Unfortunately mom 'n pop got bought out and the service started to rapidly expand, and just as rapidly go downhill as well. I decided I wanted to cancel the account, which I'd kept for certain reasons even though I'd moved to a different city.
Well, wouldn't you know - under the new TOS (which I never agreed to, having signed up years before) they didn't accept ANY cancellation requests unless you delivered a signed form to them IN PERSON at the home office. As you can imagine this didn't sit well with me and after several arguments on the phone I told them I'd cancel the credit card they were billing and they could just suck it up and deal with it - at which point they said "go ahead; we'll report you to the bureaus for defaulting on your bill". It was clear the rep had used this tactic before, and was loving every second of his job, dishing out shit to the customer. (Fucking little twat. What I wouldn't give even now to kick the bastard's teeth in.)
I consulted with a lawyer and while he told me I'd almost certainly win against the company it'd take roughly on the order of one-and-a-half to two years to clear the whole matter up, during which time my credit might very well be screwed by the monthly reports of non-payment these assholes would make. He recommended that I be the one to suck it up, drive across the state, and fill out/hand in the signed form - after, of course, I made a copy of said form and made sure he got one, just in case they managed to 'lose' it. Which is exactly what I did, although the people at the company actually tried to stop me from leaving the office with the form to go to Kinko's to make a copy. Christ, were they pissed when I told them that I was going to have proof that I turned the damned thing in whether they liked it or not.
AOL's behavior here, while reprehensible, isn't anywhere close to as bad as it can get. Oh, and in case anyone's wondering the sons of bitches in question were a company by the name of Rio Communications (http://www.rio.com/). I have no idea if they're still the same assholes they were years ago, but I for one wouldn't even consider touching their company after what I went through with those cocksuckers.
Upper-level management has been divesting itself of MS stock - slowly - for years now. Only a tiny fraction of Bill's money in now in MS; the rest has been reinvested elsewhere (a large amount of it in the pharmaceutical industry). The people who still have a 'crapload' of stock are outside investors and middle management who got options as part of their employment package.
I think it says something about the company when you realize that the people who run the ship have been quietly dumping stock in controlled batches for years to stay 'under the radar'. Of course, this has been pointed out time and again, and Bill's fan club jumps to his defense to offer up apologia as to why he's doing this...but those of us who made it past Econ 101 know that this is usually a sign of a lack of confidence in the long-term prospects of the company.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.
Horseshit. Most libertarians (small 'l') aren't extremists or fanatics; they simply want the smallest, least powerful government possible because the alternative will almost certainly lead to de facto or actual dictatorship. In other words, they're looking for a government that fears the people it represents, and rightly so - rather than the reverse situation we live under now.
Most real libertarians (as opposed to rabid slashdot posters, and their equally rabid detractors) actually think that government in small doses for specific tasks is a good thing. For example, it makes far more sense for a municipal government to build a single set of power lines and junction stations throughout the city, rather than let anyone who wants to try constructing a private infrastructure giving it a shot (putting up 18 sets of poles, lines, etc.). Where libertarians part from current practice is that they believe that after this is done the lines should be leased to any and all comers willing to pay the price and provide the power, rather than granting something that was built with tax money to a single monopolistic entity (corporate or government, it doesn't matter).
Real libertarians generally don't make a lot of noise, just as most political moderates don't make a lot of noise. Their agenda primarily rests upon the "Leave Me The Fuck Alone And Tend To Your Own Pathetic Life" plank, which means you really have to piss them off to get them motivated enough to start kicking ass. Fanatics (pro- and anti-libertarian) don't need any such inspiration; they'll scream, yell, and throw a tantrum at the drop of a hat, spouting vacuous claptrap and claiming that all 'real' followers of the One True and Right Way believe as they do - and that anyone else is a traitor. The internet, like real life, is probably populated by 90% moderates and 10% scumbag fanatics, but the fanatics make 90% of the noise, skewing the perception of who stands where badly out of proportion with reality.
And no, the Libertarian party doesn't speak for us. You can't be libertarian and be in favor of the slavery of women, for example, by supporting a ban on abortions - which the Libertarian party allows. They've chucked their principles in a bid to get actual third party standing, which means that in the end they'll only be Libertarian in name and nothing more. Fuck 'em and don't for a moment think they speak for everyone who claims to be libertarian.
Max
That's a democratic republic, that American invention we've abandoned to others more interested in liberty than in pretending to trade it off for money.
Ah, yes. Europe, the home of inalienable rights - so long as those rights are stamped with the approval of the electorate. God forbid you should exercise your right to free speech, especially if it involves something that might upset someone, somewhere. And as for the actual right to protect yourself or others - well, forget that one! That would REALLY upset your neighbors, who'd much rather Daddy Government came by and cleaned up your stinking corpse after the fact. God forbid that they should be forced to live on the same street with someone who actually has a set of balls....
Yeah, Europe's a real shining beacon of hope when it comes to liberty. One might say they're well on their way to a 'brave new world'.
Max
the Republican government works for us, not themselves and their corporate masters.
As if the Democrats are any different. Both parties work for the rich, the powerful, and those ultimately interested in stasis and status quo. It doesn't matter which party you vote for, because neither has worked for you, the prole in the street, for decades. At least.
Max
Someone has to pay for whatever functions these taxes cover
And exactly what functions do they cover? The tax apparently wasn't necessary when the packets were formated for transmitting email, yet now that they transmit voice there's a sudden 'need' for new taxes and yet more government? Sounds to me like a win-win for the government (more free money for no additional service) and for the telcos competing against VOIP; yet another example of an oligarchy buying government power.
Max
The poster is exactly right. The executive branch of every government (local, state, federal) levies taxes without consulting the legislature all the time, getting around little roadblocks like the Constitution by calling them 'fees'. Apparently if you call it a 'fee' rather than a tax then you can do whatever the fuck you want. This is especially true if you limit your fees to specific groups of the electorate who lack the power (or votes) to protest effectively against this sort of thing.
The sad thing is that most people are perfectly okay with this so long as they aren't the ones getting the shaft. And when their turn comes around their neighbors simply see it as payback for the fees THEY had to pay at some point for some government service that they used (or a commercial service the government decided to tax...er, levy 'fees' against). Basically it's a "I didn't hear you complaining when I had to pay fucking fee X for service Y, so don't expect me to speak up on your behalf now that you're the one being roughed by the government protection racket - asshole."
Good luck trying to change things. Governments are as addicted to their fees as smack whores are to heroin - and they've got the guns (metaphorically and literally) to make sure you can't do shit about it.
Max
Yeah, especially when it amounts to the (nearly inevitable) group of young (and sometimes older) male counselors who make it a point to bang as much teenage pussy as they can get their hands on. Now their hot, young, indiscreet partners will describe the encounter in detail on MySpace, putting an end to a revered camp tradition (not to mention an employment perk)!
Max
Your mileage may vary, but it's silly to argue that games were better in the Good Old Days.
Except when they were. There simply aren't games today that can compare to BAK, or Fallout, or Planescape, or XCOM, or...I could go on here for some time.
What distinguishes these games from todays games is that a) they actually had an interesting storyline, and b) they were well-designed (not, I said DESIGNED, not well-coded). Try to convince me that NWN or Oblivion is the equal of BAK or Planescape, or that ANY game is as kooky and engaging today as XCOM or Fallout was, and you'll have to wait for my response until I'm done laughing my ass off.
Sure, the FPS genre has improved...somewhat. Half-Life 2 was good (even though Steam sucks cock), and some other titles were mildly engaging; but when I think of FPS games I wasted hour after hour on I still think of DOOM, and Thief 1 and 2, and Deus Ex. Games like Doom 3 and Hitman don't even rate.
There was a 'golden age' in gaming, and we're past it. With luck another golden age will come again...hopefully before I'm dead of old age. But I'm not holding my breath.
Max
when I was playing this game 21 hours a week in the beginning, but now I'm only playing it 7 hours a week
Man, if you're playing computer games 21 hours a week it's time to seriously look into this thing called 'getting a life'. If you're really lucky you might even be able to snag this really cool gizmo called a 'girlfriend'. And that can lead to an activity called 'sex', which is even more satisfying than powering that dark-elf vampire wizard of yours to level 60! I know, I know, hard to believe, but trust me - it's true.
Max
I thought Oblivion was a waste of time and energy, completely lackluster in every respect. Though it might have a hundred hours of gameplay, it's a hundred hours you'll wish you'd spent doing just about anything else. All of the worst parts of Morrowind wrapped in a (somewhat) upgraded graphical environment.
Max
Lost and 24 makes it worth it to buy a TV and put up with advertising
This would explain why my TV currently resides in a storage unit, along with all the other crap I never use.
Max
The fact is, most people are stupid
If that's the case, then there's a high probability that you, too, belong to this subset of "stupid" people, making you part of the problem.
Currently, I am working as an advertisement producer at a local TV station
Ah, well. 'nuff said.
Max
We live in a society that worships at the alter of the free market.
What a load of crap. The U.S. isn't even remotely close to a free market, and hasn't been for quite some time.
The invisible hand can do no wrong and anyone who claims otherwise is a dirty commie.
Government lopped off the invisible hand at the wrist a long, long time ago, at the behest of large oligarchies who (rightly) interpreted a real free market as a threat to their own continued dominance.
A scarcity must be introduced so that the glorious march of capitalism can continue.
Although you might have a hard time grasping this, our founding fathers were well aware of this fact which is why they introduced the concept of artificial scarcity with limited-time patents and copyrights. The idea wasn't to promote a "glorious march to capitalism" but to allow folks who'd otherwise have to make a living farming or working docks or clerking a chance to feed their kids with the fruits of their inventions and works of art. The thought was that this could only make the U.S. a better place to live, and enrich us all.
And guess what? They were right.
The problem here is that the lesser (much lesser) souls that followed in their footsteps used these same tools to accrue power and wealth, then turned around and bludgeoned all potential competition with them. No one with any actual power these days gives a shit about the original ideal that motivated our founders.
Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Capitalism is anathema to oligarchies.
Max
If they truly don't care, then we can put them on the record as saying so, and use it as evidence of their selfishness in what they do and why their proposed laws that favor only them should be ignored.
The evidence is all around you. Do you honestly think they give a shit if you call them on it? Others have in the past; this isn't anything new. So long as they hold the power they don't have to listen to you, and they won't. The only thing they'll be doing is dreaming up a way to dish out some payback for having the audacity to publicly disagree with them, which shouldn't be too hard to do with Congress in their pockets.
You lost this battle years ago. And the sad fact is that 95% of the people out there simply don't care about you OR them.
Max
Only a complete idiot would equate the loss of housing to the loss of their ability to buy a non-DRM'd music cd. Get fucking job, kid, and then get back to us on how not being able to pirate music is the same as living in the street and courting death from the elements.
Max
It's my right to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else. As the cost imposed upon the artist by my piracy is 0, no harm is inflicted. Therefore, it IS my right. What's so hard to understand about this?
Perhaps that you live in a society circumscribed by laws, and you don't get to decide which ones you want to abide by and which ones you don't? Contrary to what you might believe, you aren't exceptional or extraordinary; you're a prole, just like the rest of us.
Max
If you suck, you have no right for huge profit simply because you might have gotten just one good song on your CD of 15-20.
No, you don't have a right to profit. But in my country, at least, no yahoo off the street has a right to *prevent* you from profiting from this scenario either.
The CD should be the promotion of your work.
The cd should be whatever the producer and the buyer think it should be. In this case there's a disconnect because the seller thinks they're 'renting', while the buyer, alas, still believes he or she is buying. Either way, neither party agrees with your assessment, nor will they give you the time of day if you try to force it on anyone via legislation.
At least not in a semi-free country.
Max
The RIAA might be very surprised to hear that they're actually losing money to DRM, and how DRM actually PROMOTES piracy.
The RIAA doesn't give a shit. They're interested in power, first and foremost. DRM represents power; not because it can't be broken, but because it allows the RIAA the opportunity to buy laws from Congress that the RIAA can use to punish people (guilty or not) - and THAT'S power. REAL power. And as we can see from (unskewed) sales figures, it doesn't appear as if the average consumer actually gives a shit about the DRM, so this is a win-win for them.
They don't care about what you think. The only thing they care about is that you have the arrogance to actually disagree with them. Trust me, the only thing they're pondering at the moment is how they can use this to track down all the little shits who 'dared' to pull this stunt, so they can punish them. Probably by providing a list of phone numbers to Daddy Government of 'suspected pirates' and ne'er-do-wells who need to be watched/raided/jailed/whatever.
Max
you'd be pretty damn glad when the cops showed up because your neighbour had the sense to call them to PROTECT you
I'd be far more grateful if my NEIGHBOR showed up, armed to the teeth, to give me a hand - rather than hiding in his home, hoping that the police get around to doing the job before the baddies decide to use me for target practice. But I guess I can't really expect that from the average American these days.
I'd rather the police intervene BEFORE I'm dead
Except that statistically the police arrive while a violent crime is in progress less than 2% of the time. For the other 98% they show up long after, to clean up the mess. What you hope to be true and what actually is true are two very different things here.
Unless you somehow think you're blessed enough to always fall within that 2%, there's a 98% chance that the next time you're the victim of violent crime the only person who'll be around who actually gives a shit about protecting you is going to be...you. Daddy government won't magically appear to save the day, no matter how many laws you pass or how many police you put on the streets. It's incumbent upon rational, mature adults to take responsibility for their own protection, and stop screaming for a world of 'safety' that they can't ever have.
Max
Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.
That's pretty amusing, given their own admission that they have no reliable data stretching back more than 400 years. You'd think they'd avoid making blanket statements about greenhouse gas levels and global temperatures when there isn't any solid measurement of either thing from 1 A.D. to about 1600 A.D.
I guess passing off speculation as fact is the new empiricism. So long as they're goodfacts, of course.
Max
That being said 19 year olds should be carful about being with 17 year olds, though it isn't anywhere close to being as bad as a 45 year old with a 17 year old.
It's every bit as bad. Both cases involve a minor and an adult; it doesn't matter what age the adult is, as legally they're both the same. Douchebags don't get a 'free pass' just because the age difference between themselves and the minor isn't as great. Frankly, the only way I can see anyone arguing to the contrary is if they themselves are 19, want to bang teenage girls, yet don't want any competition from older, more experienced men - which is a pretty fucking sick way of looking at the universe.
If, on the other hand, you think a 17-year-old girl is old enough to consent, then change the law - and accept the simple fact that if she's old enough to consent to a 19-year-old, she's also old enough to consent to the 45-year-old. Either way 17-year-old girls are not the 'private hunting ground' of college twats who can't keep their cocks in their pants and who're too immature to actually interest a woman their own age.
Max
You seriously tell me you would stop having sex with each other for 2 years? Yeah sure.
No, you seem to have missed the point. If the girl is, at 17, old enough to consent to having sex with a 19-year-old, then she's equally old enough to consent to having sex with a 45-year-old. The difference in the age of her partner is entirely irrelevent as both are just as 'adult' as the other.
You can't have it both ways. Choose one or choose the other, but don't for a moment think that being 19 entitles you to bang teenage girls just because you like the thought of doing so, while cutting out the older 'competition'. You're an adult, or so we've been told, so act like it.
Max
There's no difference whatsoever between a 19-year-old scumbag and a 45-year-old scumbag. A scumbag is a scumbag; the moment you hit 18 you're assumed to be responsible enough to vote, so keeping it in your pants when it comes to minors shouldn't be too much of a stretch. If it is, then YOU can rot in hell no matter how old you are.
Max
And once a store refuses service to somebody, if that person comes into their store anyway they're trespassing, even though the store is open to the public.
And no store has any right to tell you what you can or cannot do the moment you step off their property. They don't own the public areas outside of their store and they don't have any business dictating the terms of use of those areas. If the store doesn't want someone using their service they should a) not project that service onto public property, or b) make some minimal attempt at encrypting the signal. This is as idiotic as if the shop were holding a rave and telling everyone on the (public) street outside that they had to leave because they don't have 'permission' to listen to the music blasting a couple hundred yards in every direction.
Max
AOL isn't the only asshole in the business.
Years ago, before there was such a thing as cable or DSL, I had a very nice dial-up account with a mom 'n pop ISP. Unfortunately mom 'n pop got bought out and the service started to rapidly expand, and just as rapidly go downhill as well. I decided I wanted to cancel the account, which I'd kept for certain reasons even though I'd moved to a different city.
Well, wouldn't you know - under the new TOS (which I never agreed to, having signed up years before) they didn't accept ANY cancellation requests unless you delivered a signed form to them IN PERSON at the home office. As you can imagine this didn't sit well with me and after several arguments on the phone I told them I'd cancel the credit card they were billing and they could just suck it up and deal with it - at which point they said "go ahead; we'll report you to the bureaus for defaulting on your bill". It was clear the rep had used this tactic before, and was loving every second of his job, dishing out shit to the customer. (Fucking little twat. What I wouldn't give even now to kick the bastard's teeth in.)
I consulted with a lawyer and while he told me I'd almost certainly win against the company it'd take roughly on the order of one-and-a-half to two years to clear the whole matter up, during which time my credit might very well be screwed by the monthly reports of non-payment these assholes would make. He recommended that I be the one to suck it up, drive across the state, and fill out/hand in the signed form - after, of course, I made a copy of said form and made sure he got one, just in case they managed to 'lose' it. Which is exactly what I did, although the people at the company actually tried to stop me from leaving the office with the form to go to Kinko's to make a copy. Christ, were they pissed when I told them that I was going to have proof that I turned the damned thing in whether they liked it or not.
AOL's behavior here, while reprehensible, isn't anywhere close to as bad as it can get. Oh, and in case anyone's wondering the sons of bitches in question were a company by the name of Rio Communications (http://www.rio.com/). I have no idea if they're still the same assholes they were years ago, but I for one wouldn't even consider touching their company after what I went through with those cocksuckers.
Max
Also note that MS execs hold a crapload of stock
Upper-level management has been divesting itself of MS stock - slowly - for years now. Only a tiny fraction of Bill's money in now in MS; the rest has been reinvested elsewhere (a large amount of it in the pharmaceutical industry). The people who still have a 'crapload' of stock are outside investors and middle management who got options as part of their employment package.
I think it says something about the company when you realize that the people who run the ship have been quietly dumping stock in controlled batches for years to stay 'under the radar'. Of course, this has been pointed out time and again, and Bill's fan club jumps to his defense to offer up apologia as to why he's doing this...but those of us who made it past Econ 101 know that this is usually a sign of a lack of confidence in the long-term prospects of the company.
Max