The fear is that if the per song market becomes dominent, that the art of albums will consequently suffer.
That is true. However, if they truly want to keep up the "art" of the album, the solution to that is easy. Save the entire album as one 50mb DRM'd WM9 file, and sell it for $9.95. How hard is that? These people constantly complain and whine, yet they have all the tools at their disposal to take advantage of new technology, in order to stay ahead of the game (or at least keep up). If they can DRM one song and sell it, surely they can DRM one big album file and sell that? I'm pretty sure wm9 audio files support chapters (correct me if I'm wrong on that one). If not, they should - that way you can jump to the songs you like, and still have the "whole" album.
Of course, this goes to the very heart of the recording industry (not artistry, industry). They sell albums with one or two good songs plus 10 fillers. By selling on a song by song basis, people will only buy the ones they like, forcing the industry to get rid of fillers and artists can go back to making real albums again, like they used to do a couple decades ago.
Apart from the government stipulating what hardware manufacturers MUST have in their hardware, I see no problem with this.
If they use 10% of the FCC's collective brain power (which is approximately at the level of Homer Simpson at this point), they'll figure out that the easiest way to get this done is to allow new VCR's/DVD's/DVR's/PVR's to play non-flagged content as well as flagged.
RULE 1: If there's a flag, do what it says. RULE 2: If there's no flag, play the damn thing.
That makes everyone happy. The FCC and MPAA can mandate their stupid flags as much as they want to and it will do what it's supposed to, but I can still play my home videos and all the pirated videos I'll be able to get once someone cracks the flag (and you know it's inevitable).
Any software that keeps track of my activities on my computer, without my express consent and/or knowledge, is by its very nature spyware. When that software then uses the collected information to direct unsolicited advertisements and other worthless and unwanted crap to my desktop, without my implicit consent, it becomes what is commonly referred to as malware (malicious software).
Therefore, the correct term for Gator would be: Malicous Spyware or Spying Malware, take your pick. If the sorry saps at Gator have a problem with me using those terms to discribe their obnoxious product, let me quote our wholly inept president when I say "Bring'em on!"
They can contact me directly here and ask me for my personal information, I will gladly fight these arrogant, ignorant losers in open court if they have problems with my comments. The First Amendment shall surely prevail.
Now is definitely the time to contact your representative. Let them know that if they don't fight this, you will replace them with someone else who will.
Using a 7m separation creates a forced and exaggerated perspective change and is not a real representation of what you're actually looking at. I prefer seeing things as they are, even if the "depth" isn't as spectacular... at least it's a real representation of what I saw when I shot it. However, if you shoot the ground from an airplane looking down, you have nothing in the foreground as a reference, so you could technically shoot two shots several miles apart if your high enough.
The 7 cm rule is pretty important if your subject is relatively close. If they're too close, the images will look truly bad (if you see the subject in both images at all) unless you rotate the cameras slightly towards the center, in order to move the convergence point closer (like you cross your eyes a bit because the subject is so close). Rotating the iris towards the object yields far more realistic results than just pushint the iris' closer together. The "reality cam" Jim and Mike Cameron designed for Ghosts of the Abyss moves the convergence point by rotating the iris in perfect sync with the focus; quite brilliant actually and looks fantastic.
As for your tips for the followers, they're good and valid. The first time I did this, some of the images were shot with the camera a little off (not perfectly horizontal) and I had to align them manually in Photoshop to be able to make the anaglyph properly.
I go to the corner store and buy two tiny disposable cameras and fit them together using a cardboard template I made. I only have to make sure the iris' have approximately the same separation as my eyes (approximately 7 cm or 2.75").
Then I just snap the cameras simultaneously, which takes a bit of practice, but it's a snap once you get the hang of it... no pun intended.
When I have the photos developed, I get a picture CD at the same time (saves me the hassle of scanning 2x 27 photos every time), I then bring the images into Photoshop and crop and match them if necessary. Thanks to the massive depth of field in these tiny cameras, almost everything is in focus, and I have a bit of leeway as to the position of the 3D convergence point. Then I just run the left + right photos through the free Anaglyph Maker and presto, I got my very own 3D image. Using two cameras means that I can shoot 3D anywhere, even pictures of moving objects or from a moving vehicle. Using a tripod with a movable head to shoot two images separately is rather lame IMHO, as you're forced to shoot only static setups.
Now I just have to try this with two digital cameras small enough to fit within the approximate 7 cm separation.
I always carry my favorite pen. Its design has been attributed to NASA. It's about 3.5" long, chrome metal casing. It can write upside down, under water, through grease, and its ink filling lasts approximately 100 years and has an unlimited lifetime warranty... Needless to say, I love this pen.
"Nope. Freedom of EXPRESSION is. Freedom of speech is far from absolute, and you listed many examples why."
Speech is a form of expression, so what's your point?
Freedom if speech IS absolute. It's the consequences of it that may not be. As I said numerous times before.
The examples I listed, are examples of why the repercussions of your speech (or writing) can be used against you, but you still have the right to say or write it, and the government does not have the right to tell you not to do it.
So, you see, you're completely missing/ignoring my point.
Libel and slander are also protected by the first amendment, meaning the government does not and can not pursue cases of libel and slander. These are always civil cases, not criminal. Please make a distinction between those two. There are three main criteria you have to prove in order to win a libel or slander case: A) the statement must not be true, B) a reasonable person could believe it to be true, and C) there must have been malicious intent.
The last two are extremely difficult to prove, which is why you see so few cases like that. Why do you think a tabloid like The Globe is still in business? Because no reasonable person would believe their crap, and you can't prove malicious intent on their behalf. So, they can publish all the lies they want about anyone they want, without being held responsible for it.
As I said before... The government CANNOT stop you from saying whatever the hell you want to. However, and I repeated this more than once in my original reply: You can be held accountable for the consequences of what you say.
If you tell a known bad guy "can you get this guy to understand my point?" you can be held accountable if that known bad guy then goes and kicks the shit out of the him. It doesn't make what you said illegal. It makes your actions illegal, you just happened to use words.
Again, I said this several times before... the distinction is between what you say, and what happens because of it.
Obscenity is not illegal, but you can be held accountable for any harm it may cause others (including mental anguish). The FCC has obscenity guidelines for the public airwaves that TV and Radio stations must follow. The on-air personalities can say whatever they want, and their words are not illegal. The FCC can however mandate that the corporations using the public airwaves do not broadcast obscenities, and that they either bleep them or silence them, at the risk of being fined (stipulations of using the public airwaves for free).
Fighting words are not illegal either, but you could get in trouble if you incite violence, which IS illegal.
Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is actually not illegal either, but you will most definitely get in trouble for endangering the public if you do it.
There is a distinction here you have to make. Words by themselves are not and cannot be illegal, nor can the usage of those words be deemed illegal. The first amendment garantees that. The results of what happens because you spoke your words of choice, however, CAN be held against you. If you say in a public place "I wish he were dead" (about anyone) you have the right to do so. However, if you were to say "Go kill this guy", and someone who heard you went out and did just that because of what you said, then you would absolutely be held accountable for saying it.
Anything you say is legal, regardless of content. The consequences of what you say is another matter entirely.
Fighting virus writers by banning the words they write is absurd and stupid. It is a slippery slope we do not want to enter. It sets a dangerous precedent that can and will be abused. If you ban one use of language, it's very easy to ban another. Next we'll be banning negative movie reviews because they can hurt the movie's business and thus must be banned. Or perhaps we'll start calling people traitors if they criticize the President. Oh, wait, Ann Coulter already is doing that. But of course she has the right to say that too...
According to this discussion on the Cerulean Studios website, their new version of Trillian Pro already supports the MSN 6 protocol, and thus should not be affected by this change. It's already in beta testing, and should be out before the deadline.
I've had Vonage for months, and it's great. I had to go to Europe 2 months ago for about 10 days. I just took my ATA186 box with me, hooked it up to a broadband connection and connected a regular phone to it, and people could still call me on my local number. I could make local US calls even though I was 6000 miles away.
I've decided to get another box for my family in Europe. So for a low, flat monthly fee, we can talk as much as we want.
Actually, it wasn't Voltaire who said that, even though it's been attributed to him for nearly a century.
It was written as a commentary on his character.
The origin of the quote has been traced to a book first published in 1906 entitled Life of Voltaire, written by S. G. Tallentyre, the pen name of Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Questioned about it in 1935, she explained: "I did not intend to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim, and should be much surprised if they are found in any of his works."
- Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the quote. Unless you're willing to support the right of your enemy to speak his mind, you do not truly believe in free speech.
When the government fears the people, it's a democracy. When the people fear the government, it's a dictatorship. When a citizen is locked up for being against the current administration, it's fascism.
Thus, by definition, based on this event and many others, we already live in a fascist dictatorship.
This guy should absolutely not be in jail.
He has the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution of these United States, otherwise known as the first article in the Bill of Rights, to say what he wants, where he wants and when he wants, without fear of goverment action.
If that includes telling people how to make bombs, that's fine. If anyone chooses to use that information and actually make a bomb and use it, it is 100% the responsibility of that individual, not the person who told him how to make it. If it was, Einstein would have died in prison for being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. After all, he gave the scientists the information they need to learn how to make an atomic bomb.
If what the person says includes suggesting that the government be overthrown, he also has the right to say that. He even has the right to scream it from a mountain top. If someone takes him up on that, it's a different issue. Most people use their right to Vote as the means to replace a rotten government.
I think the FBI is extrapolating here. He had bombing info AND anti-establishment info on the same site, so they conclude he must be a threat to national security.
So, be careful what you link to.
If I tell my friends that I can't stand George W. Bush and his policies, does that make me a threat to the country? No. To Bush himself? No. To his reputation? No, he seems to be perfectly capable of ruining that himself.
This accusation sounds rather ironic and hypocritical, considering that pretty much everything Microsoft has ever put out is a clone or a copy of something else. That's how Microsoft has always done business: if you can't buy the innovators, clone their product and give your version away for free until the innovators goes out of business or is otherwise unable to compete.
This just goes to show how completely and utterly out of touch with reality the MPAA is.
I AM a starving artist in the film industry, and it's not because of piracy, I can tell you that much right now. Nobody has stolen my work. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if someone did, because at least I'd be getting exposure...
The main reason why artists in the film industry starve, is pretty simple: THE STUDIOS ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY, NOT ART. So, they will hire those who make the most money, not the best artists. Why else do you think Michael Bay gets to direct? It's not because he's an artist (Far from it). It's because he knows how to stage action, and action sells tickets.
It's the same bullshit story as with the music industry. A handful of people get promoted to death so the corporation that they have a contract with can make as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time. In the meantime, real artists, whose appeal isn't as bland and generic (read: mainstream) are left to fight for the crumbs.
So, these commercials do nothing to end the starvation of artists. They are primarily designed to further the wealth of the few that are already getting paid more than they're worth. I'd go so far as to say they have a better chance of increasing the number of people who starve.
It's not because of piracy that movies lose money. Movies lose money if they don't have a marketing blitz promoting it. Even the biggest bombs at the box office still break even for the studios through video sales. The only movies actually LOSING money are independent features that might have something to say other than "hey look at that explosion, isn't that cool?".
The studios are not STARVING... not by any stretch of the imagination. The ones starving, are the people the studios screw over.
You don't own the bits. You own a license to play the music on the CD, for your own personal use. If you own the CD, you've already paid for the license to listen to its contents whenever you want, at your leisure. Since you are legally allowed to make a back-up of said music, downloading an mp3 file someone else made, is the equivalent of skipping that process. You could just as well have a friend come over and rip the cd for you on your pc, the end result is the same. You wind up with a perfectly legal backup copy of a song, for which you've already paid.
As for your last comment, it's quite idiotic, and seems more like a deliberate flaimbate or trolling, so I won't respond to it.
If I OWN something, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it. Period. If I OWN a system, and forget my password, but can use another system I own to crack it, no law can stipulate that I cannot do that.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here: Because Microsoft has a monopoly? Because of software availability? Because that's all OEM's offer? (with VERY few exceptions). Because that's what they learned at school? Because most people don't even know there's an alternative?
Just because it's popular doesn't make it good. Just look at Britney Spears... or VHS... or Michael Bay movies... or McDonalds... or Twinkies... or fossil fuels... I could go on...
My point is, popularity and quality are not the same thing. Microsoft has the worlds best marketing machine... how do I know? because they routinely beat the competition, even when the competition offers a better product, at a lower price.
If you want to see it, and you girlfriend doesn't, that automatically means you can't go without her?
OK everybody, say it with me: "you're whipped!"
Now, go and get your balls back from the mason jar under the sink where she stores them, re-attach them, then call up a buddy and go see the friggin' movie if you want to see it!
Slashdot Mirror
The fear is that if the per song market becomes dominent, that the art of albums will consequently suffer.
That is true. However, if they truly want to keep up the "art" of the album, the solution to that is easy. Save the entire album as one 50mb DRM'd WM9 file, and sell it for $9.95. How hard is that?
These people constantly complain and whine, yet they have all the tools at their disposal to take advantage of new technology, in order to stay ahead of the game (or at least keep up).
If they can DRM one song and sell it, surely they can DRM one big album file and sell that?
I'm pretty sure wm9 audio files support chapters (correct me if I'm wrong on that one). If not, they should - that way you can jump to the songs you like, and still have the "whole" album.
Of course, this goes to the very heart of the recording industry (not artistry, industry). They sell albums with one or two good songs plus 10 fillers. By selling on a song by song basis, people will only buy the ones they like, forcing the industry to get rid of fillers and artists can go back to making real albums again, like they used to do a couple decades ago.
Insert swallowing joke here.
Apart from the government stipulating what hardware manufacturers MUST have in their hardware, I see no problem with this.
If they use 10% of the FCC's collective brain power (which is approximately at the level of Homer Simpson at this point), they'll figure out that the easiest way to get this done is to allow new VCR's/DVD's/DVR's/PVR's to play non-flagged content as well as flagged.
RULE 1: If there's a flag, do what it says.
RULE 2: If there's no flag, play the damn thing.
That makes everyone happy. The FCC and MPAA can mandate their stupid flags as much as they want to and it will do what it's supposed to, but I can still play my home videos and all the pirated videos I'll be able to get once someone cracks the flag (and you know it's inevitable).
Any software that keeps track of my activities on my computer, without my express consent and/or knowledge, is by its very nature spyware.
When that software then uses the collected information to direct unsolicited advertisements and other worthless and unwanted crap to my desktop, without my implicit consent, it becomes what is commonly referred to as malware (malicious software).
Therefore, the correct term for Gator would be: Malicous Spyware or Spying Malware, take your pick.
If the sorry saps at Gator have a problem with me using those terms to discribe their obnoxious product, let me quote our wholly inept president when I say "Bring'em on!"
They can contact me directly here and ask me for my personal information, I will gladly fight these arrogant, ignorant losers in open court if they have problems with my comments. The First Amendment shall surely prevail.
Now is definitely the time to contact your representative.
Let them know that if they don't fight this, you will replace them with someone else who will.
Using a 7m separation creates a forced and exaggerated perspective change and is not a real representation of what you're actually looking at.
I prefer seeing things as they are, even if the "depth" isn't as spectacular... at least it's a real representation of what I saw when I shot it.
However, if you shoot the ground from an airplane looking down, you have nothing in the foreground as a reference, so you could technically shoot two shots several miles apart if your high enough.
The 7 cm rule is pretty important if your subject is relatively close. If they're too close, the images will look truly bad (if you see the subject in both images at all) unless you rotate the cameras slightly towards the center, in order to move the convergence point closer (like you cross your eyes a bit because the subject is so close). Rotating the iris towards the object yields far more realistic results than just pushint the iris' closer together.
The "reality cam" Jim and Mike Cameron designed for Ghosts of the Abyss moves the convergence point by rotating the iris in perfect sync with the focus; quite brilliant actually and looks fantastic.
As for your tips for the followers, they're good and valid.
The first time I did this, some of the images were shot with the camera a little off (not perfectly horizontal) and I had to align them manually in Photoshop to be able to make the anaglyph properly.
I build and use my own 3D cameras all the time.
I go to the corner store and buy two tiny disposable cameras and fit them together using a cardboard template I made.
I only have to make sure the iris' have approximately the same separation as my eyes (approximately 7 cm or 2.75").
Then I just snap the cameras simultaneously, which takes a bit of practice, but it's a snap once you get the hang of it... no pun intended.
When I have the photos developed, I get a picture CD at the same time (saves me the hassle of scanning 2x 27 photos every time), I then bring the images into Photoshop and crop and match them if necessary.
Thanks to the massive depth of field in these tiny cameras, almost everything is in focus, and I have a bit of leeway as to the position of the 3D convergence point.
Then I just run the left + right photos through the free Anaglyph Maker and presto, I got my very own 3D image.
Using two cameras means that I can shoot 3D anywhere, even pictures of moving objects or from a moving vehicle.
Using a tripod with a movable head to shoot two images separately is rather lame IMHO, as you're forced to shoot only static setups.
Now I just have to try this with two digital cameras small enough to fit within the approximate 7 cm separation.
I always carry my favorite pen. Its design has been attributed to NASA. It's about 3.5" long, chrome metal casing. It can write upside down, under water, through grease, and its ink filling lasts approximately 100 years and has an unlimited lifetime warranty...
Needless to say, I love this pen.
"Nope. Freedom of EXPRESSION is. Freedom of speech is far from absolute, and you listed many examples why."
Speech is a form of expression, so what's your point?
Freedom if speech IS absolute. It's the consequences of it that may not be. As I said numerous times before.
The examples I listed, are examples of why the repercussions of your speech (or writing) can be used against you, but you still have the right to say or write it, and the government does not have the right to tell you not to do it.
So, you see, you're completely missing/ignoring my point.
Libel and slander are also protected by the first amendment, meaning the government does not and can not pursue cases of libel and slander.
These are always civil cases, not criminal. Please make a distinction between those two.
There are three main criteria you have to prove in order to win a libel or slander case:
A) the statement must not be true,
B) a reasonable person could believe it to be true, and
C) there must have been malicious intent.
The last two are extremely difficult to prove, which is why you see so few cases like that. Why do you think a tabloid like The Globe is still in business? Because no reasonable person would believe their crap, and you can't prove malicious intent on their behalf. So, they can publish all the lies they want about anyone they want, without being held responsible for it.
As I said before...
The government CANNOT stop you from saying whatever the hell you want to.
However, and I repeated this more than once in my original reply: You can be held accountable for the consequences of what you say.
If you tell a known bad guy "can you get this guy to understand my point?" you can be held accountable if that known bad guy then goes and kicks the shit out of the him. It doesn't make what you said illegal. It makes your actions illegal, you just happened to use words.
Again, I said this several times before... the distinction is between what you say, and what happens because of it.
"there is no mechanism for the Government to stop it from being published. At least, not yet."
It would require nothing less than the reversal of the First Amendment in order to do that.
That's absolutely incorrect.
Freedom of speech is absolute. No exceptions.
Obscenity is not illegal, but you can be held accountable for any harm it may cause others (including mental anguish). The FCC has obscenity guidelines for the public airwaves that TV and Radio stations must follow. The on-air personalities can say whatever they want, and their words are not illegal. The FCC can however mandate that the corporations using the public airwaves do not broadcast obscenities, and that they either bleep them or silence them, at the risk of being fined (stipulations of using the public airwaves for free).
Fighting words are not illegal either, but you could get in trouble if you incite violence, which IS illegal.
Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is actually not illegal either, but you will most definitely get in trouble for endangering the public if you do it.
There is a distinction here you have to make.
Words by themselves are not and cannot be illegal, nor can the usage of those words be deemed illegal. The first amendment garantees that.
The results of what happens because you spoke your words of choice, however, CAN be held against you.
If you say in a public place "I wish he were dead" (about anyone) you have the right to do so.
However, if you were to say "Go kill this guy", and someone who heard you went out and did just that because of what you said, then you would absolutely be held accountable for saying it.
Anything you say is legal, regardless of content.
The consequences of what you say is another matter entirely.
Fighting virus writers by banning the words they write is absurd and stupid. It is a slippery slope we do not want to enter. It sets a dangerous precedent that can and will be abused. If you ban one use of language, it's very easy to ban another. Next we'll be banning negative movie reviews because they can hurt the movie's business and thus must be banned. Or perhaps we'll start calling people traitors if they criticize the President. Oh, wait, Ann Coulter already is doing that. But of course she has the right to say that too...
In a way, I think it's incredibly appropriate that his electronic trail puts hime just a few blocks from the White House...
According to this discussion on the Cerulean Studios website, their new version of Trillian Pro already supports the MSN 6 protocol, and thus should not be affected by this change.
It's already in beta testing, and should be out before the deadline.
Agreed!
I've had Vonage for months, and it's great.
I had to go to Europe 2 months ago for about 10 days. I just took my ATA186 box with me, hooked it up to a broadband connection and connected a regular phone to it, and people could still call me on my local number. I could make local US calls even though I was 6000 miles away.
I've decided to get another box for my family in Europe. So for a low, flat monthly fee, we can talk as much as we want.
It sounds great, works great and latency is fine.
Actually, it wasn't Voltaire who said that, even though it's been attributed to him for nearly a century.
It was written as a commentary on his character.
The origin of the quote has been traced to a book first published in 1906 entitled Life of Voltaire, written by S. G. Tallentyre, the pen name of Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
Questioned about it in 1935, she explained: "I did not intend to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim, and should be much surprised if they are found in any of his works."
You can look this up in the book They Never Said It
-
Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with the quote.
Unless you're willing to support the right of your enemy to speak his mind, you do not truly believe in free speech.
When the government fears the people, it's a democracy.
When the people fear the government, it's a dictatorship.
When a citizen is locked up for being against the current administration, it's fascism.
Thus, by definition, based on this event and many others, we already live in a fascist dictatorship.
This guy should absolutely not be in jail.
He has the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution of these United States, otherwise known as the first article in the Bill of Rights, to say what he wants, where he wants and when he wants, without fear of goverment action.
If that includes telling people how to make bombs, that's fine. If anyone chooses to use that information and actually make a bomb and use it, it is 100% the responsibility of that individual, not the person who told him how to make it. If it was, Einstein would have died in prison for being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. After all, he gave the scientists the information they need to learn how to make an atomic bomb.
If what the person says includes suggesting that the government be overthrown, he also has the right to say that. He even has the right to scream it from a mountain top. If someone takes him up on that, it's a different issue. Most people use their right to Vote as the means to replace a rotten government.
I think the FBI is extrapolating here. He had bombing info AND anti-establishment info on the same site, so they conclude he must be a threat to national security.
So, be careful what you link to.
If I tell my friends that I can't stand George W. Bush and his policies, does that make me a threat to the country?
No.
To Bush himself?
No.
To his reputation?
No, he seems to be perfectly capable of ruining that himself.
This accusation sounds rather ironic and hypocritical, considering that pretty much everything Microsoft has ever put out is a clone or a copy of something else.
That's how Microsoft has always done business: if you can't buy the innovators, clone their product and give your version away for free until the innovators goes out of business or is otherwise unable to compete.
This just goes to show how completely and utterly out of touch with reality the MPAA is.
I AM a starving artist in the film industry, and it's not because of piracy, I can tell you that much right now.
Nobody has stolen my work. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if someone did, because at least I'd be getting exposure...
The main reason why artists in the film industry starve, is pretty simple:
THE STUDIOS ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY, NOT ART.
So, they will hire those who make the most money, not the best artists. Why else do you think Michael Bay gets to direct? It's not because he's an artist (Far from it). It's because he knows how to stage action, and action sells tickets.
It's the same bullshit story as with the music industry. A handful of people get promoted to death so the corporation that they have a contract with can make as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time.
In the meantime, real artists, whose appeal isn't as bland and generic (read: mainstream) are left to fight for the crumbs.
So, these commercials do nothing to end the starvation of artists. They are primarily designed to further the wealth of the few that are already getting paid more than they're worth.
I'd go so far as to say they have a better chance of increasing the number of people who starve.
It's not because of piracy that movies lose money. Movies lose money if they don't have a marketing blitz promoting it. Even the biggest bombs at the box office still break even for the studios through video sales. The only movies actually LOSING money are independent features that might have something to say other than "hey look at that explosion, isn't that cool?".
The studios are not STARVING... not by any stretch of the imagination. The ones starving, are the people the studios screw over.
The attitude here is "we could be making more".
With the incorrect "vaccuum" spelling, things get a bit messed up:
English-French-English:
Hello, Ivan, this pickling solution of vaccuum that you left is on fritz still, it does not suck.
English-Portugese-English:
Hi, Ivan, this liquid of cleanness that of vaccuum you left is in fritz another time, it does not suck.
However, with the correct spelling og "vacuum", something still gets lost in the translation, especially if you use more than one step:
English-French-German-English:
Good day, Iwan, this vacuum cleaner, which you left, is not still on Fritz, it sucks.
and my personal favorite,
English-German-French-English:
Hallo, is not again of Ivan, this vacuum cleaner which you left, on Fritz, sucks to him.
I think I speak for everyone when I say: Huh?
You've apparently never heard of Fair Use.
You don't own the bits. You own a license to play the music on the CD, for your own personal use.
If you own the CD, you've already paid for the license to listen to its contents whenever you want, at your leisure.
Since you are legally allowed to make a back-up of said music, downloading an mp3 file someone else made, is the equivalent of skipping that process. You could just as well have a friend come over and rip the cd for you on your pc, the end result is the same. You wind up with a perfectly legal backup copy of a song, for which you've already paid.
As for your last comment, it's quite idiotic, and seems more like a deliberate flaimbate or trolling, so I won't respond to it.
If I OWN something, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it. Period.
If I OWN a system, and forget my password, but can use another system I own to crack it, no law can stipulate that I cannot do that.
If it's not better, why do so many people use it?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here:
Because Microsoft has a monopoly?
Because of software availability?
Because that's all OEM's offer? (with VERY few exceptions).
Because that's what they learned at school?
Because most people don't even know there's an alternative?
Just because it's popular doesn't make it good.
Just look at Britney Spears... or VHS... or Michael Bay movies... or McDonalds... or Twinkies... or fossil fuels... I could go on...
My point is, popularity and quality are not the same thing. Microsoft has the worlds best marketing machine... how do I know? because they routinely beat the competition, even when the competition offers a better product, at a lower price.
it wasn't really a retorical question...
DVD+R is the one approved by Sony and Phillips.
Well, DUH! They designed the +R standard.
Just because Microsoft prefers it doesn't make it better... have you ever used Windows?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here...
If you want to see it, and you girlfriend doesn't, that automatically means you can't go without her?
OK everybody, say it with me:
"you're whipped!"
Now, go and get your balls back from the mason jar under the sink where she stores them, re-attach them, then call up a buddy and go see the friggin' movie if you want to see it!
Who wears the pants in this relationship anyway?