On a complete and utter tangent from what you said, remember this above all: The right wing isn't nessessarily that right wing.
Want proof? Trying to get a constitutional ammendment so you can supress a group is unprecidented. Going to war against a petty dictator who hasn't actually attacked anyone in the past 10 years is unprecidented. Think about that word, unprecidented(odds are I'm misspelling it. Oh well, it's like 6AM, and I haven't finished my coffee) then what the right wing traditionally stands for. I'd say the current "right wing" is just a group of closet liberals who think that the fact that they openly hate people makes their views "traditional right wing". Somehow, that ends up driving people who believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, maintaining liberties which have been availiable since the inception of the country and maintaining a strong military without actually using it to the "left", in spite of the fact that these ideas are as old as dirt.:)
Are you kidding? Go microsoft. Internet radio is a great thing.
Besides, I severely doubt that MS is stealing the music(which would make all three of those arguements moot). Odds are much better that the stations are complaining because internet radio stations provide a service which hurt their monopoly.
Actually, it's a funny situation, where clearchannel and microsoft, two pretty big monopolies, battle it out.
Frankly, I'll prefer being able to listen to radio from any where in the world, with any genre, at any time (any time I have a net connection, which is quite often, considering that I have a wifi-connection) to having to listen to the local radio station pound out the same half-dozen songs over and over and over.
All he was saying is that artists made most of their money elsewhere. Considering that it's quite well documented that the recording industry rips off it's artists big time(and the parent was talking about just that, in fact), I wouldn't be suprised.
A lot of people pay for their music for the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that the artists are being paid, while still knocking the music industry for their profit hoarding, screwing both the artists and the customers(see: price fixing, cartel behaviour), while pretending to be acting in the best interests of both. For that reason, I refuse to listen to RIAA music if I can help it, and flat out won't download OR buy their music, no matter what the circumstances. There are plenty of bands on the internet who actually want their music heard, and a lot of them are great at what they do. If for that reason alone, I prefer legal and obscure to illegal and mainstream any day. I'll even pay for it whenever I have a few bucks to spare, content in knowing that instead of getting a few pennies for their work, they'll get a few dollars.
Actually, management is filled with people who didn't have the skill or drive to find something they'd actually like to do for a living. Sure, we all hear about the multimillion dollar a year Darl McBrides and Bill Gates and so on, but the truth is, to enter management is to succumb to mediocrity. The average business program, almost by definition, makes the average engineering course look impossibly hard in comparison, and because of that, anyone who doesn't have any ambitions will almost automatically opt for a business course.
To be frank, it's that exact reason why it's a bad idea to get into that field, tempted by dollar signs. You can only have so many managers before the system simply shatters, but adding engineers and other productive people increases the amount of productivity a business can have.
Actually, in Canada an engineer generally won't drive a train. I mean, if you want to go through all that university and work in the engineering field for years to be legally allowed to call yourself an engineer, why would you want to become a train driver?
And those aren't reasons anybody I know uses firefox. The reasons, like immunity from spyware, native popup blocking, skins support, tabs, and other tangible features, mean that memory management, non-mainstream hardware, thread implementation, and platform ports are largely irrelevant in terms of a browser which has many demonstratable reasons to switch, including a scathing denouncement of IE by the US government.
Considering that Firefox ISN'T an alternative TCP/IP stack or a specially compiled kernel with a different scheduler whose performance has subtley superior characteristics, your arguement ends up sounding exactly the way I make it sound, because there ARE tangible reasons to use it, and only user ignorance can be to blame for not knowing about them.
Profiling isn't really that bad, it's just like seeing that your graphics routines in a program are slow, and optimizing that rather than optimizing the disk access routines which run quickly. Some people are more likely to break the law than others. To deny that is to ignore the way things really work. It's a pain in the ass for those who don't fit the pattern, but to treat it as anything more than a result of thinking patterns formed by service in reality(rather than service in liberal fantasy land where upper class white businessmen are often involved in common crimes in bad parts of town(yeah, I know, the mob)), just like a sysadmin checking his servers before he checks his cable runs when his users can't access something.
I've always figured that an open wireless point, which will allow you to associate automatically with you and give you an IP address, is de facto express permission to use it. Here this device is, going "hey everyone! associate with me! I've got free internet!", and automatically setting up any device in range. It's like a house with an open door and a sign saying "free pizza"--The invitation is there, it absolutely shouldn't be illegal when your device automatically accepts it.
Schools that teach how to use the software people actually use ARE the better schools. Those who eschew mainstream methods for more idealistically sound methods are useless and inferior.
Ignorance is a stupid arguement. Especially when the original arguement has nothing to do with the fact that you're ignorant. It's features which are being spoken of, remember?
You know, I was working for a company which made me work 16 hours straight one time on a 10 day run. I worked nearly 100 hours on that cheque, but they refused to pay me overtime until 95 hours.
When I see federal agents knocking down THEIR door, I might (but probably won't) care about the poor poor artists who are still creating profitable albums, but being shat on by the companies they work for.
For the record, I refuse to download OR buy music for that very reason, among others. I don't want to give my mindshare to such cretins.
Right...except that you'd be wrong on both accounts. Digital content isn't hard to make these days, nor it it hard to profit from if you know how.
It's not the script kiddies who are wrecking the livelihood of artists, it's the recording industry who refuses to pay artists a living wage for producing a profitable album, and who are manufacturing "artists" like spears, who are well marketed, but don't nessessarily have any talent. Yes, there may be a problem in file sharing, but It's a problem for the recording industry, not for the artists. Their problem is that they work for shitty companies who will burn the candle at both ends and try to shit on their customers while shitting on their artists at the same time.
1)I'd be saying the same thing if the justice department raided the home of a chronic Jay-walker as well. Historically, copyright exists to protect artists for unscrupulous publishers, not individual listeners.
2)John Ashcroft is one man, and it seems from the way the article was written that he was actually wasting thought on this. If the nations top leaders, and top law enforcement agents, who have far more important stuff to be working on, are spending resources pursuing this, then the resources spent on this quickly add up.
3)Sure, but it's still a pittiance compared to real law-breakers. As for ethics, it's a sliding scale. I, for one, refuse to buy music albums or download music from p2p networks because I find the way their payment scheme allows an artist who creates a profitable piece of music to end up OWING the company money for their work far more unethical. I find the way they collude to fix prices unethical. I find the way they use money to try to exert their will upon a democratic government unethical.
With data it's fuzzy. The companies want to have their cake and eat it to with respect to digital rights. They want the mortality of the physical medium, but the restrictions of the data.
That's why I don't download music. I decided long ago that I refuse to give these assholes money OR mindshare. Not as much because of file sharing, but because of the fact that the music industry is purely immoral, screwing the artists and the customers, while trying to impose their illegitimate will upon democratic governments and create their own law enforcement agencies.
So they DIDN'T say Iraq had stockpiles of thousands of gallons of various types of biological and chemical weapon when they didn't?
Fucking CNN and Fox News! Those lefty bastards had me thinking that the Bush administration painted the Iraqis as a serious threat to this continent, with thousands of gallons of these things and the means to deliver them. In fact, those fucking assholes even had me thinking that donald rumsfeld said "We know where they are", with respect to said weapons!
Fucking pinko faggot conspiracy nutcases! Why can't they print the REAL news, the news that all right thinking people of the world, lik b-baggins, tells it?
Anyone who bases their business model on morality is a fool. Either compete in the market or get out. thumbing your nose at those who drink from the river when the bottled water plant is right there may make you feel good, but it won't put food on the table.
Yeah. With all the hard drug dealers, murderers, hard property thieves, rapists, carjackers, and smugglers in the world, I really want my tax dollars going towards raiding some nerds house.
It's fucking file sharing. Anyone who is seriously passionate about this and seriously thinks all the money spent on this is worth it has a serious problem with perspective.
Not off-topic, IBM has primarily used Java to power the aging OS/2 platform. If you were running OS/2, you'd be running a whole lot of Java Apps.
Of course, don't let a little bit of history get in the way of your -1, offtopic. After all, Windows XP is extremely innovative, Microsoft worked hard to get their MS-DOS monopoly, and Linux was written by AT&T, won by Berkley in a lawsuit and stolen by Linus Torvalds, only so he could be sued by SCO, right?
Are you the same guy I butted heads with about a year ago when I decided some of the stuff ocg was saying made sense(user freindliness in linux -- I agree somewhat less with him now since I've moved to Debian)?
I'm just curious, because that ac really needs to find something better to do with his time.;)
Slashdot Mirror
On a complete and utter tangent from what you said, remember this above all: The right wing isn't nessessarily that right wing.
:)
Want proof? Trying to get a constitutional ammendment so you can supress a group is unprecidented. Going to war against a petty dictator who hasn't actually attacked anyone in the past 10 years is unprecidented. Think about that word, unprecidented(odds are I'm misspelling it. Oh well, it's like 6AM, and I haven't finished my coffee) then what the right wing traditionally stands for. I'd say the current "right wing" is just a group of closet liberals who think that the fact that they openly hate people makes their views "traditional right wing". Somehow, that ends up driving people who believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, maintaining liberties which have been availiable since the inception of the country and maintaining a strong military without actually using it to the "left", in spite of the fact that these ideas are as old as dirt.
Are you kidding? Go microsoft. Internet radio is a great thing.
Besides, I severely doubt that MS is stealing the music(which would make all three of those arguements moot). Odds are much better that the stations are complaining because internet radio stations provide a service which hurt their monopoly.
Actually, it's a funny situation, where clearchannel and microsoft, two pretty big monopolies, battle it out.
Frankly, I'll prefer being able to listen to radio from any where in the world, with any genre, at any time (any time I have a net connection, which is quite often, considering that I have a wifi-connection) to having to listen to the local radio station pound out the same half-dozen songs over and over and over.
Isn't that just an abstraction? After all, the D-Pad itself is just four microswitches hidden under a round piece of plastic.
Where did he say he condoned it?
All he was saying is that artists made most of their money elsewhere. Considering that it's quite well documented that the recording industry rips off it's artists big time(and the parent was talking about just that, in fact), I wouldn't be suprised.
A lot of people pay for their music for the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that the artists are being paid, while still knocking the music industry for their profit hoarding, screwing both the artists and the customers(see: price fixing, cartel behaviour), while pretending to be acting in the best interests of both. For that reason, I refuse to listen to RIAA music if I can help it, and flat out won't download OR buy their music, no matter what the circumstances. There are plenty of bands on the internet who actually want their music heard, and a lot of them are great at what they do. If for that reason alone, I prefer legal and obscure to illegal and mainstream any day. I'll even pay for it whenever I have a few bucks to spare, content in knowing that instead of getting a few pennies for their work, they'll get a few dollars.
Now that's what I call "voting with your wallet".
Actually, management is filled with people who didn't have the skill or drive to find something they'd actually like to do for a living. Sure, we all hear about the multimillion dollar a year Darl McBrides and Bill Gates and so on, but the truth is, to enter management is to succumb to mediocrity. The average business program, almost by definition, makes the average engineering course look impossibly hard in comparison, and because of that, anyone who doesn't have any ambitions will almost automatically opt for a business course.
To be frank, it's that exact reason why it's a bad idea to get into that field, tempted by dollar signs. You can only have so many managers before the system simply shatters, but adding engineers and other productive people increases the amount of productivity a business can have.
Actually, in Canada an engineer generally won't drive a train. I mean, if you want to go through all that university and work in the engineering field for years to be legally allowed to call yourself an engineer, why would you want to become a train driver?
And those aren't reasons anybody I know uses firefox. The reasons, like immunity from spyware, native popup blocking, skins support, tabs, and other tangible features, mean that memory management, non-mainstream hardware, thread implementation, and platform ports are largely irrelevant in terms of a browser which has many demonstratable reasons to switch, including a scathing denouncement of IE by the US government.
Considering that Firefox ISN'T an alternative TCP/IP stack or a specially compiled kernel with a different scheduler whose performance has subtley superior characteristics, your arguement ends up sounding exactly the way I make it sound, because there ARE tangible reasons to use it, and only user ignorance can be to blame for not knowing about them.
I bet if he was sending "increase the size of your penis naturally using faith in Jesus", he could have applied for federal funding. ;)
Profiling isn't really that bad, it's just like seeing that your graphics routines in a program are slow, and optimizing that rather than optimizing the disk access routines which run quickly. Some people are more likely to break the law than others. To deny that is to ignore the way things really work. It's a pain in the ass for those who don't fit the pattern, but to treat it as anything more than a result of thinking patterns formed by service in reality(rather than service in liberal fantasy land where upper class white businessmen are often involved in common crimes in bad parts of town(yeah, I know, the mob)), just like a sysadmin checking his servers before he checks his cable runs when his users can't access something.
I've always figured that an open wireless point, which will allow you to associate automatically with you and give you an IP address, is de facto express permission to use it. Here this device is, going "hey everyone! associate with me! I've got free internet!", and automatically setting up any device in range. It's like a house with an open door and a sign saying "free pizza"--The invitation is there, it absolutely shouldn't be illegal when your device automatically accepts it.
So nobody should ever innovate because customers have already decided for themselves which features they use?
Tell that to Apple and Microsoft -- they could have saved MILLIONS if they'd just kept serving up command-line based machines!
Schools that teach how to use the software people actually use ARE the better schools. Those who eschew mainstream methods for more idealistically sound methods are useless and inferior.
Ignorance is a stupid arguement. Especially when the original arguement has nothing to do with the fact that you're ignorant. It's features which are being spoken of, remember?
Kudos on the inflammatory title. They're not even infringers, they're "Music lovers"! :P
You know, I was working for a company which made me work 16 hours straight one time on a 10 day run. I worked nearly 100 hours on that cheque, but they refused to pay me overtime until 95 hours.
When I see federal agents knocking down THEIR door, I might (but probably won't) care about the poor poor artists who are still creating profitable albums, but being shat on by the companies they work for.
For the record, I refuse to download OR buy music for that very reason, among others. I don't want to give my mindshare to such cretins.
Right...except that you'd be wrong on both accounts. Digital content isn't hard to make these days, nor it it hard to profit from if you know how.
It's not the script kiddies who are wrecking the livelihood of artists, it's the recording industry who refuses to pay artists a living wage for producing a profitable album, and who are manufacturing "artists" like spears, who are well marketed, but don't nessessarily have any talent. Yes, there may be a problem in file sharing, but It's a problem for the recording industry, not for the artists. Their problem is that they work for shitty companies who will burn the candle at both ends and try to shit on their customers while shitting on their artists at the same time.
1)I'd be saying the same thing if the justice department raided the home of a chronic Jay-walker as well. Historically, copyright exists to protect artists for unscrupulous publishers, not individual listeners.
2)John Ashcroft is one man, and it seems from the way the article was written that he was actually wasting thought on this. If the nations top leaders, and top law enforcement agents, who have far more important stuff to be working on, are spending resources pursuing this, then the resources spent on this quickly add up.
3)Sure, but it's still a pittiance compared to real law-breakers. As for ethics, it's a sliding scale. I, for one, refuse to buy music albums or download music from p2p networks because I find the way their payment scheme allows an artist who creates a profitable piece of music to end up OWING the company money for their work far more unethical. I find the way they collude to fix prices unethical. I find the way they use money to try to exert their will upon a democratic government unethical.
With data it's fuzzy. The companies want to have their cake and eat it to with respect to digital rights. They want the mortality of the physical medium, but the restrictions of the data.
That's why I don't download music. I decided long ago that I refuse to give these assholes money OR mindshare. Not as much because of file sharing, but because of the fact that the music industry is purely immoral, screwing the artists and the customers, while trying to impose their illegitimate will upon democratic governments and create their own law enforcement agencies.
So they DIDN'T say Iraq had stockpiles of thousands of gallons of various types of biological and chemical weapon when they didn't?
Fucking CNN and Fox News! Those lefty bastards had me thinking that the Bush administration painted the Iraqis as a serious threat to this continent, with thousands of gallons of these things and the means to deliver them. In fact, those fucking assholes even had me thinking that donald rumsfeld said "We know where they are", with respect to said weapons!
Fucking pinko faggot conspiracy nutcases! Why can't they print the REAL news, the news that all right thinking people of the world, lik b-baggins, tells it?
(Score:5, Bitter old man)
Directconnect hubs generally have far fewer machines than that.
Anyone who bases their business model on morality is a fool. Either compete in the market or get out. thumbing your nose at those who drink from the river when the bottled water plant is right there may make you feel good, but it won't put food on the table.
Yeah. With all the hard drug dealers, murderers, hard property thieves, rapists, carjackers, and smugglers in the world, I really want my tax dollars going towards raiding some nerds house.
It's fucking file sharing. Anyone who is seriously passionate about this and seriously thinks all the money spent on this is worth it has a serious problem with perspective.
Not off-topic, IBM has primarily used Java to power the aging OS/2 platform. If you were running OS/2, you'd be running a whole lot of Java Apps.
Of course, don't let a little bit of history get in the way of your -1, offtopic. After all, Windows XP is extremely innovative, Microsoft worked hard to get their MS-DOS monopoly, and Linux was written by AT&T, won by Berkley in a lawsuit and stolen by Linus Torvalds, only so he could be sued by SCO, right?
Are you the same guy I butted heads with about a year ago when I decided some of the stuff ocg was saying made sense(user freindliness in linux -- I agree somewhat less with him now since I've moved to Debian)?
;)
I'm just curious, because that ac really needs to find something better to do with his time.