In the US, the entire political system is based on money from corporations. As far as I understand, the EU isn't quite the same. Who are the companies bribing? Without money, there really is no way to 'put pressure' on anyone, so what's the tactic?
I'm sure most of the 'pressure' is coming from US companies, which begs the question, why does the EU care at all? Profits are only then to be made on selling the CDs and hosting concerts; Is there really all that much money coming through Europe to make it a big deal? In the US, every penny an artist or company makes is eventually going back into the economy, whether through buying a mansion in the Hills, or buying off a Senator. It's not like US artists are investing millions in real estate in England, and I don't think the politicians are quite so owned.
Commercials
on
Advergames
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I would actually pay a couple bucks a month for a station devoted to the funniest commercials, if it were convenient and right there in my living room.
Are you high? You would pay for ads? True, most ads have nothing to do with their products, so they're more like 30-second special effects or quasi-humorous spotlights, but they're still designed to sell you something. There's a reason so many people are disgusted by the industry practices that incorporate paying for ads (cable TV, movies, internet access). Industries/companies shouldn't get both, it's greed at the clear expense of the consumer. Either they give it to you for free with ads, or you pay and don't have to watch them. A few good internet sites do this, but most don't.
Down on Long Island/NYC, which is perhaps the biggest rock market in the US, there is only one Modern Rock station. There were two a few years ago, but since they are both owned by the same company, the other went talk. The Modern Rock station, WXRK (Howard Stern's home), plays Rap, etc along with the other stuff. Yes, we heard 'Because I Got High' too (ugh).
If you're in a college town, listen to their station! Free format may mean you only get a little you like, but at least it will be different music all the time.
Starbucks, like any store that became a chain, isn't what it used to be, you can be sure. The only reason to expand into new locations is to make more money. Once you get big enough, your wholesale or raw materials purchases become so large that what would have once been a thousand dollar a year difference is now billions.
Coporations typically start small, it's the greed required to get them big that is the problem. Companies like JetBlue seem to have figured out a better way to all of this - superior product on a large scale. Rather than high quality in a single location or low-quality on a large scale, they did both, and they're reaping the rewards of thought in business.
True, but that just makes it all the more tenuous. How well do you think this will turn out? If we're looking at a temporary alliance to fight a single bill, how smoothly will the meetings be? These are competing companies after all, and they'd just love to see each other fail. There could a lot of backstabbing here (companies like Microsoft aren't known for their ethical business tactics).
The alliance is fighting government involvement, not copy protection. This might look good at first, but could easily hurt us in the end, as I'd expect lots of Microsoft-style copy protection to emerge as a "compromise".
We could end up with coalition of groups who'll own the only means to access your CDs and DVDs, while other hardware and software companies are left out in the cold with the nerds.
You're better off not lugging your computer home on breaks. Keep it at college, and keep an older computer at home. If you're a computer-oriented individual, you probably got your new computer well before your old one ceased to be functional. An extra 700 dollars is a waste (and if you're in college, you need your cash). Pick up a cheap CRT to keep with your old box, use an old keyboard and mouse (hell, if you don't have one you can get one free after rebate from any computer store). You shouldn't need much for a weekend (or even week) break, just net access. If you can't live without the latest game for Thanksgiving weekend, you should seek help (and get some hobbies/friends while you're at it).
"...the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary..." I don't like this at all. I doubt we'll be getting fair use back anytime soon. In fact, I bet this compromise was just a way for the RIAA to get rid of its opposition in removing it.
Do the makers of Bust-A-Move have a legal case here? New Bust-A-Move games are still coming out (for the PC, too). Is it me, or do computer games have little if any ability to copyright their ideas? Most FPS are clones of the originals, as are simulation games, etc. They aren't new ideas, they're ripoffs. Movies suffer similar consequences (after a teen movie comes out, it isn't uncommon to find a complete ripoff along side it in Blockbuster). Why is there so little protection on visual creativity?
That's exactly what the American automotive industry used to do. The cars were designed to last a relatively short period of time, and foreign cars had trade restrictions on them. The US car manufacturers are still trying to recover from it (they missed out on decades of research into longevity, and lost the trust of non-patriotic consumers).
Who created it is irrelevant. There are more people on the internet in Europe than in the US. We keep making up names that are English, and yes, while it is a common second language, it's not the best idea. The internet is all about sharing (info, etc), not about the English language's ability to control technology.
They shouldn't make more TLDs. Each country has one, let the individual nations make some lower domains on their own turf. If the US wants Travel, let it have.travel.us and stop clogging up the rest of the world. (It's only "Travel" in English, remember?)
We've gone over this a hundered times..porn won't work. Forcing people in one domain is impossible on a large scale (and the censorship, etc), but keeping a domain clean isn't as bad. That's why we've got.kids in the works.
When will the United States finally have to act like everybody else and use ".us" for sites hosted in the country? I'm sure Microsoft and Netscape would just autocomplete that part, like they do with "http://".
Sorry, made a typo - "Would you do business with a lying money whore?" should read "Would you rather do business with a lying money whore?".
Re:With all due respect
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Sorry, but that's not very well thought out. There is nothing childish about sticking to your morals. Anyone who compromises their morals and ethics for profic is someone I don't trust. If the CEO is a racist, I'd like to know it. I decide where I spend my money, and given the choice of pockets, I'd give it to the guy whose morals I agree with. Oh, and what the hell are you basing your 'Brin can/will become a racist' point on? What's the difference, anyway? If he becomes a racist, then change. You can't go around not trusting people because of what they can or might do. Cynicism is fine, but not when you make it so extreme.
You say you can't trust someone for being honest? That's preposterous. Would you do business with a lying money whore?
I have long said that there is nothing worse than a lie, and I stand by it. If you're a racist, I'd rather know it than have you keep it secret. If you want me dead, let me know, then at least I can defend myself.
"Poorly though-out" is the definition of your comments. I choose to do business with people who are honest and stick to their guns. I may not agree with Howard Stern, et al., but at least they say what they think, and don't change to make more money.
The biggest issue I have with your post is actually one that most people overlook. You list "without religion" in your list of 'evil' traits. It's no secret that religion has nothing to do with morality. Atheists are no more 'evil' than priests, rabbis, or any other religious folk. Your statement is a prejudiced one, and one that I don't agree with. But again, I'm happier having heard it, because it lets me get a clearer picture of you and your mind. I can easily tell, by that statement alone, that you aren't my kind of person. I'm honest, I'm atheist, and I'm moralistic (The Pierce Code). Deal with it. Religion isn't all it's cracked up to be, and your point isn't either.
Most adult film goes don't care about spoilers because there is nothing to spoil. Hollywood garbage doesn't have much in terms of plot. When a decent movie does come out, the people that want to see it as an intellectual or artistic journey don't want it spoiled (think Brazil).
Plot twists aren't relevant, most great works are meant to be a single uninterrupted unit, without prior knowledge. Every decent movie or book has a plot twist (how many of you expected X to happen to Y at point A in anything you've ever read or seen?) There's always something you don't expect. We're not psychics here.
One of my great regrets as a child was reading the Encyclopedia of Middle Earth before LotR. I knew the end before I got to the beginning. There is nothing more anticlimactic than reading or watching what you'd known was going to happen.
I consider the Silmarillion the best of the lot. Instead of just one story spanning three books (albeit a great one), you have dozens that feel just as detailed in a single volume. Tolkien combines most of the major mythologies to bring this one to us, and he does an amazing job. Don't stop with the Silmarillion, though, go on the Unfinished Tales and the rest. There are another dozen or so books published from his journals, and they contain a lot of unpublished parts to each, and earlier versions (Strider was a hobbit named Trotter). After reading the Silmarillion et al. you gain a whole new understanding of the events of the Third Age (Hobbit, LotR). LotR becomes a whole lot more impressive once you know the events that lead up to it.
Here you go, folks, the answer to all of your EULA problems, just click on the next block of text.
By clicking anywhere on this text, you agree to retain your rights, and all provisions of any EULA in conflict with the end user will be invalidated.
Now you can do whatever you damn well please, since their EULA doesn't have 'dominance' over mine, and they can't complain that I've invalidated theirs, since they clearly state:
"If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be stricken from this Agreement without affecting the validity or enforceability of any other provision."
Slashdot Mirror
"The new protocol is called Order-based Deadlock Prevention Protocol with Parallel Requests"
He should've spent more time on the name, no one will call it by it's full name, and think of the acronyms:
ODPPPR
OBDPPPR
OBDPPWPR
It's bad for the system when no one can talk about it.
I didn't say there are only US artists. I'm not US-centric by any means. I'm not even in the US. I said that US labels were the ones pushing this.
"going to movies for $7"
Damn, that's cheap. Where I'm from, it's $10 now (or was it $10.50?).
In the US, the entire political system is based on money from corporations. As far as I understand, the EU isn't quite the same. Who are the companies bribing? Without money, there really is no way to 'put pressure' on anyone, so what's the tactic?
I'm sure most of the 'pressure' is coming from US companies, which begs the question, why does the EU care at all? Profits are only then to be made on selling the CDs and hosting concerts; Is there really all that much money coming through Europe to make it a big deal? In the US, every penny an artist or company makes is eventually going back into the economy, whether through buying a mansion in the Hills, or buying off a Senator. It's not like US artists are investing millions in real estate in England, and I don't think the politicians are quite so owned.
I would actually pay a couple bucks a month for a station devoted to the funniest commercials, if it were convenient and right there in my living room.
Are you high? You would pay for ads? True, most ads have nothing to do with their products, so they're more like 30-second special effects or quasi-humorous spotlights, but they're still designed to sell you something. There's a reason so many people are disgusted by the industry practices that incorporate paying for ads (cable TV, movies, internet access). Industries/companies shouldn't get both, it's greed at the clear expense of the consumer. Either they give it to you for free with ads, or you pay and don't have to watch them. A few good internet sites do this, but most don't.
"rocket surgery"
Hah, now that's even funnier.
Down on Long Island/NYC, which is perhaps the biggest rock market in the US, there is only one Modern Rock station. There were two a few years ago, but since they are both owned by the same company, the other went talk. The Modern Rock station, WXRK (Howard Stern's home), plays Rap, etc along with the other stuff. Yes, we heard 'Because I Got High' too (ugh).
If you're in a college town, listen to their station! Free format may mean you only get a little you like, but at least it will be different music all the time.
The Amish use tech only when it's beneficial, if I understand correctly. Cancer and lung problems, etc. don't seem to fit that.
Perhaps they're trying to kill off us heathens, eh?
Starbucks, like any store that became a chain, isn't what it used to be, you can be sure. The only reason to expand into new locations is to make more money. Once you get big enough, your wholesale or raw materials purchases become so large that what would have once been a thousand dollar a year difference is now billions.
Coporations typically start small, it's the greed required to get them big that is the problem. Companies like JetBlue seem to have figured out a better way to all of this - superior product on a large scale. Rather than high quality in a single location or low-quality on a large scale, they did both, and they're reaping the rewards of thought in business.
True, but that just makes it all the more tenuous. How well do you think this will turn out? If we're looking at a temporary alliance to fight a single bill, how smoothly will the meetings be? These are competing companies after all, and they'd just love to see each other fail. There could a lot of backstabbing here (companies like Microsoft aren't known for their ethical business tactics).
The alliance is fighting government involvement, not copy protection. This might look good at first, but could easily hurt us in the end, as I'd expect lots of Microsoft-style copy protection to emerge as a "compromise".
We could end up with coalition of groups who'll own the only means to access your CDs and DVDs, while other hardware and software companies are left out in the cold with the nerds.
You're better off not lugging your computer home on breaks. Keep it at college, and keep an older computer at home. If you're a computer-oriented individual, you probably got your new computer well before your old one ceased to be functional. An extra 700 dollars is a waste (and if you're in college, you need your cash). Pick up a cheap CRT to keep with your old box, use an old keyboard and mouse (hell, if you don't have one you can get one free after rebate from any computer store). You shouldn't need much for a weekend (or even week) break, just net access. If you can't live without the latest game for Thanksgiving weekend, you should seek help (and get some hobbies/friends while you're at it).
"...the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary..."
I don't like this at all. I doubt we'll be getting fair use back anytime soon. In fact, I bet this compromise was just a way for the RIAA to get rid of its opposition in removing it.
Do the makers of Bust-A-Move have a legal case here? New Bust-A-Move games are still coming out (for the PC, too). Is it me, or do computer games have little if any ability to copyright their ideas? Most FPS are clones of the originals, as are simulation games, etc. They aren't new ideas, they're ripoffs. Movies suffer similar consequences (after a teen movie comes out, it isn't uncommon to find a complete ripoff along side it in Blockbuster). Why is there so little protection on visual creativity?
It's not speculation. It's a plain and simple fact. It's history. I didn't say it's how they are now, either.
That's exactly what the American automotive industry used to do. The cars were designed to last a relatively short period of time, and foreign cars had trade restrictions on them. The US car manufacturers are still trying to recover from it (they missed out on decades of research into longevity, and lost the trust of non-patriotic consumers).
Who created it is irrelevant. There are more people on the internet in Europe than in the US. We keep making up names that are English, and yes, while it is a common second language, it's not the best idea. The internet is all about sharing (info, etc), not about the English language's ability to control technology.
They shouldn't make more TLDs. Each country has one, let the individual nations make some lower domains on their own turf. If the US wants Travel, let it have .travel.us and stop clogging up the rest of the world. (It's only "Travel" in English, remember?)
We've gone over this a hundered times. .porn won't work. Forcing people in one domain is impossible on a large scale (and the censorship, etc), but keeping a domain clean isn't as bad. That's why we've got .kids in the works.
When will the United States finally have to act like everybody else and use ".us" for sites hosted in the country? I'm sure Microsoft and Netscape would just autocomplete that part, like they do with "http://".
Sorry, made a typo - "Would you do business with a lying money whore?" should read "Would you rather do business with a lying money whore?".
Sorry, but that's not very well thought out. There is nothing childish about sticking to your morals. Anyone who compromises their morals and ethics for profic is someone I don't trust. If the CEO is a racist, I'd like to know it. I decide where I spend my money, and given the choice of pockets, I'd give it to the guy whose morals I agree with. Oh, and what the hell are you basing your 'Brin can/will become a racist' point on? What's the difference, anyway? If he becomes a racist, then change. You can't go around not trusting people because of what they can or might do. Cynicism is fine, but not when you make it so extreme.
You say you can't trust someone for being honest? That's preposterous. Would you do business with a lying money whore?
I have long said that there is nothing worse than a lie, and I stand by it. If you're a racist, I'd rather know it than have you keep it secret. If you want me dead, let me know, then at least I can defend myself.
"Poorly though-out" is the definition of your comments. I choose to do business with people who are honest and stick to their guns. I may not agree with Howard Stern, et al., but at least they say what they think, and don't change to make more money.
The biggest issue I have with your post is actually one that most people overlook. You list "without religion" in your list of 'evil' traits. It's no secret that religion has nothing to do with morality. Atheists are no more 'evil' than priests, rabbis, or any other religious folk. Your statement is a prejudiced one, and one that I don't agree with. But again, I'm happier having heard it, because it lets me get a clearer picture of you and your mind. I can easily tell, by that statement alone, that you aren't my kind of person. I'm honest, I'm atheist, and I'm moralistic (The Pierce Code). Deal with it. Religion isn't all it's cracked up to be, and your point isn't either.
Most adult film goes don't care about spoilers because there is nothing to spoil. Hollywood garbage doesn't have much in terms of plot. When a decent movie does come out, the people that want to see it as an intellectual or artistic journey don't want it spoiled (think Brazil).
Plot twists aren't relevant, most great works are meant to be a single uninterrupted unit, without prior knowledge. Every decent movie or book has a plot twist (how many of you expected X to happen to Y at point A in anything you've ever read or seen?) There's always something you don't expect. We're not psychics here.
One of my great regrets as a child was reading the Encyclopedia of Middle Earth before LotR. I knew the end before I got to the beginning. There is nothing more anticlimactic than reading or watching what you'd known was going to happen.
I consider the Silmarillion the best of the lot. Instead of just one story spanning three books (albeit a great one), you have dozens that feel just as detailed in a single volume. Tolkien combines most of the major mythologies to bring this one to us, and he does an amazing job. Don't stop with the Silmarillion, though, go on the Unfinished Tales and the rest. There are another dozen or so books published from his journals, and they contain a lot of unpublished parts to each, and earlier versions (Strider was a hobbit named Trotter). After reading the Silmarillion et al. you gain a whole new understanding of the events of the Third Age (Hobbit, LotR). LotR becomes a whole lot more impressive once you know the events that lead up to it.
Here you go, folks, the answer to all of your EULA problems, just click on the next block of text.
By clicking anywhere on this text, you agree to retain your rights, and all provisions of any EULA in conflict with the end user will be invalidated.
Now you can do whatever you damn well please, since their EULA doesn't have 'dominance' over mine, and they can't complain that I've invalidated theirs, since they clearly state:
"If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, then the invalid or unenforceable provision will be stricken from this Agreement without affecting the validity or enforceability of any other provision."