"Please try to enlighten us. I personally agree with the parent poster and, short of illteracy (unable to read the Surgeon General's warnings that have been on the damned things since before most of us were even born), fail to see why these people deserve pity. "
I'll take a stab at explaining my view. I don't expect to change your opinions, but if you'll take a moment to read and understand my view then it'll be greatly appreciated, even if we can't see eye to eye on it. Cool?
People are aware of the health risks. No arguing that. Are they stupid for doing it anyway? I don't see it that way. I used to until I moved in with my girlfriend. She smokes. She's a very intelligent woman. She knows the risks etc. Smokes anyway. I dunno why, but this made me curious about cigarettes, what the addiction is like, etc. So I take drags off her cig. Not only does it make me kind of high, but it also kind of nice to come home to after a long day's work. My guess is that the chemicals in it reduce some of the thought activity in my brain, thus lowering my stress.
Now, I'm sitting here thinking the whole time "I can quit at any time. I'm not past the point of no return." As a matter of fact, I still don't feel that to date. I feel like I could quit at any time. I don't come home craving it unless my gf is smoking one. Despite saying this, I know for a fact that I've bugged my gf to light one up sooner because I wanted some of it. (In other words, I'm addicted even though I don't think I am.)
So what's happening here? Well I'll tell you this, I had cravings for cigarettes long before I ever smoked one. I suspect this has to do with second hand smoke. My best friend growing up smoked, boy was she stunned when I wanted a drag. My mom smoked. I worked around smokers etc. I couldn't get away from it. Worse, the cause of the addiction: nicotene. (sp?)
There's a chemical in it that on a subconscience level my brain craves. That causes me to react without realizing it. When I think about whether or not I've craved it in the past, for some reason I don't remember my asking my gf on numerous occasions to have one so I could steal a few drags. A part of my brain wants it.
So am I addicted? Well, I'm going to have to say yes. I don't crave it while I'm at work. Frankly, I don't crave it unless my gf lights up (pavlov?), and I don't crave it when I'm away from the house. Yet, I still am up and at 'em as soon as my gf starts to get one out. Yes, you can call me stupid for trying it in the first place. I would counter, though, that my decision to do so was based on cravings that were not caused by my smoking one in the first place.
So what's the summary of my story? If the cigarette makers had been more responsible (as opposed to greedy) and made something less addictive, I'd agree that it's stupid in the first place. However, the blame is really theirs. I pity people who die from cigarette cancer. Though their decision may have been ill advised, I don't feel that they had a whole lot of control over it. They had to start at some point. I'll tell ya something, the first cig is rather unpleasant. I nearly puked the first time. (I can't even finish a whole one on my own without stomach upset.)
I realize this won't change your mind. I don't expect it to, but I do appreciate your attention. Part of the reason I decided to drag off my gf was so that I could gather info like this. It's been quite interesting.:)
"More like hard for the artists not to notice, since per a typical RIAA contract, ARTISTS, not dealers or distributors, get dinged for returns."
The stores would notice before the artists, and they'd be able to do something about it. The artists wouldn't have much of a choice. Besides, a boycott of the RIAA will hurt the artists either way.
They will when the retailers start telling the RIAA to shape up or they won't buy their product anymore. If you target somebody like Best Buy, who only uses music to tease people into the store, you may find some support from there.
The real point of it is to give the retailers a reason to side with the consumer.
"Will this even work? Doesn't the RIAA make money by wholesaling the items to retailers? If true, than it really doesn't matter if you buy something, then return it, because the record company has already made money. "
That's a good point. I have considered that, though. The intention was not to make the RIAA lose money, but to put pressure on the retailers to listen to consumers. For the reasons you've mentioned, I don't feel that a boycott would work. I think it'd fall on it's face because the blame would be placed on P2P. The retailers get it in the shorts, the RIAA's still made it's money. But when the retailers have a distinct event caused by people saying "I'm returning this in protest of the RIAA's actions. You now have a record of the amount of money you have lost.", then they have both a message and a number figure to attach to it to take back to the RIAA.
With any luck, it'd make a retailer think twice about how many CDs it orders. Another poster mentioned the copy-restricted CDs. Done in the right way, it could make a retailer say "we want nothing to do with anything that'll piss off our customers".
" Its pointless. No one is going to do it, and its really easy to come up with these silly plans. Woo! Stuff like this is worthless when no one else does it (and they wont) so why even bother bringning it up (again and again and again)."
Why aren't you doing it instead of arguing with me? You're part of the problem that you're raising.
" I would suggest simply not purchasing their products at all."
It's the 'not purchasing' aspect that is making the RIAA claim that P2P is costing them money. I have no doubt that my suggestion isn't the best idea, but if people aren't buying CDs but they are trading music, then we all know what the RIAA is going to say. It just won't work.
"Find out about a Flash-Mob group, and run it through them."
That's a good suggestion. Wish I could take a few days off and stand out on a bridge with a sign. Damn. Where are those anti-war protestors when you need them?
"Uh... My girlfriend doesn't have a CD player. Yeah. That's it. "
If you go to a satisfaction guaranteed place then you should just be honest. "I am sending a message to the RIAA that they would have had this money if they weren't busy being legal bullies."
That's a distinct possibility, but I'm not convinced your solution would yield better results. I really do think the RIAA would count loss of sales as losses due to piracy. This could be used as leverage towards stricter punishements and so on.
I'm of the strong belief that a boycott will simply not work in this case. There has to be a stronger message.
The RIAA is demonstrating it's power, right? I think the consumers should demonstrate back. Here's what you do:
- Pick a day.
- On that day, everybody buys a CD. Doesn't matter which, though a newly released highly publiscized CD would be preferable. (Like the newest Spears album or something.)
- DO NOT OPEN THE CD.
- On the following day, return the CDs for a refund. Assuming the store will take back unopened CDs.
If a significant number of money is passed and then refunded, it'd be hard for the retailers not to take notice. I'd be surprised if that info didn't bubble up to the RIAA. If enough money moves, the RIAA will have a pretty good idea that this type of action will cause them to endure losses.
I personally have $100 I'd be willing to pump into this right now this second if I knew other people would be participating too.
"How the fuck did a gaming API ever get enough priveleges in a "modern" operating system to be able to cause any kind of problems beyond resource starvation?"
It'll all become clear to you in a few years when Linux has a gaming API.
"It sounds to me that they were trying to do language detection for the interface so they could release the same disc to several regions. Freeloader probably sets some language flag incorrectly which caused the text display to fail. Isn't it curious that the failure occurs just in the menus and in the speedometers?"
We *all* know this post wouldn't have been taken seriously if this was about the X-BOX.
"If you care about your health (Ok, I guess there are suicidal people in the world) you shouldn't smoke."
Yet, people still do it. Why? Think about it.
"How is saying any of that being narrow minded."
Because there are many factors at play. If you understood more about what all was involved in people smoking despite the risks to their health, it would be unlikely that you would have the opinion you do now.
" Is it narrow minded to tell our children not to play in traffic because they could be hit by cars (no matter how fun it really is)... "
Slashdot Mirror
"The issues to be overcome are language barriers, project management and innovation (or lack thereof with remotely managed projects)."
And the inverted time zone. (sort of the reason my company isn't doing that anymore.)
"Please try to enlighten us. I personally agree with the parent poster and, short of illteracy (unable to read the Surgeon General's warnings that have been on the damned things since before most of us were even born), fail to see why these people deserve pity. "
:)
I'll take a stab at explaining my view. I don't expect to change your opinions, but if you'll take a moment to read and understand my view then it'll be greatly appreciated, even if we can't see eye to eye on it. Cool?
People are aware of the health risks. No arguing that. Are they stupid for doing it anyway? I don't see it that way. I used to until I moved in with my girlfriend. She smokes. She's a very intelligent woman. She knows the risks etc. Smokes anyway. I dunno why, but this made me curious about cigarettes, what the addiction is like, etc. So I take drags off her cig. Not only does it make me kind of high, but it also kind of nice to come home to after a long day's work. My guess is that the chemicals in it reduce some of the thought activity in my brain, thus lowering my stress.
Now, I'm sitting here thinking the whole time "I can quit at any time. I'm not past the point of no return." As a matter of fact, I still don't feel that to date. I feel like I could quit at any time. I don't come home craving it unless my gf is smoking one. Despite saying this, I know for a fact that I've bugged my gf to light one up sooner because I wanted some of it. (In other words, I'm addicted even though I don't think I am.)
So what's happening here? Well I'll tell you this, I had cravings for cigarettes long before I ever smoked one. I suspect this has to do with second hand smoke. My best friend growing up smoked, boy was she stunned when I wanted a drag. My mom smoked. I worked around smokers etc. I couldn't get away from it. Worse, the cause of the addiction: nicotene. (sp?)
There's a chemical in it that on a subconscience level my brain craves. That causes me to react without realizing it. When I think about whether or not I've craved it in the past, for some reason I don't remember my asking my gf on numerous occasions to have one so I could steal a few drags. A part of my brain wants it.
So am I addicted? Well, I'm going to have to say yes. I don't crave it while I'm at work. Frankly, I don't crave it unless my gf lights up (pavlov?), and I don't crave it when I'm away from the house. Yet, I still am up and at 'em as soon as my gf starts to get one out. Yes, you can call me stupid for trying it in the first place. I would counter, though, that my decision to do so was based on cravings that were not caused by my smoking one in the first place.
So what's the summary of my story? If the cigarette makers had been more responsible (as opposed to greedy) and made something less addictive, I'd agree that it's stupid in the first place. However, the blame is really theirs. I pity people who die from cigarette cancer. Though their decision may have been ill advised, I don't feel that they had a whole lot of control over it. They had to start at some point. I'll tell ya something, the first cig is rather unpleasant. I nearly puked the first time. (I can't even finish a whole one on my own without stomach upset.)
I realize this won't change your mind. I don't expect it to, but I do appreciate your attention. Part of the reason I decided to drag off my gf was so that I could gather info like this. It's been quite interesting.
"More like hard for the artists not to notice, since per a typical RIAA contract, ARTISTS, not dealers or distributors, get dinged for returns."
The stores would notice before the artists, and they'd be able to do something about it. The artists wouldn't have much of a choice. Besides, a boycott of the RIAA will hurt the artists either way.
" The RIAA's members will never see the blip."
They will when the retailers start telling the RIAA to shape up or they won't buy their product anymore. If you target somebody like Best Buy, who only uses music to tease people into the store, you may find some support from there.
The real point of it is to give the retailers a reason to side with the consumer.
"Is how to ban the RIAA from accessing the Internet. "
Slashdot them.
"shame, i think they are doing more damage to him by teaching him to be greedy versus 'taking' the joke."
You're absolutely right. He should have just taken it in stride. He is, afterall, a celebrity now.
"It's currently at 17,085 signatures. Can Slashdot get it to at least 20,000?"
I think Slashdot rolled it back a bit. It says 404 now.
"No kidding, I hope that Linux gets a gaming API pretty soon.....oh wait, OPENGL!!!!
IDIOT"
OpenGL is not a gaming API. It is simply a graphics API. It does not handle sound, networking, or input devices.
Idiot.
"Next time do your homework you Windows Wuss "
I have, as demonstrated by your total defeat.
"Will this even work? Doesn't the RIAA make money by wholesaling the items to retailers? If true, than it really doesn't matter if you buy something, then return it, because the record company has already made money. "
That's a good point. I have considered that, though. The intention was not to make the RIAA lose money, but to put pressure on the retailers to listen to consumers. For the reasons you've mentioned, I don't feel that a boycott would work. I think it'd fall on it's face because the blame would be placed on P2P. The retailers get it in the shorts, the RIAA's still made it's money. But when the retailers have a distinct event caused by people saying "I'm returning this in protest of the RIAA's actions. You now have a record of the amount of money you have lost.", then they have both a message and a number figure to attach to it to take back to the RIAA.
With any luck, it'd make a retailer think twice about how many CDs it orders. Another poster mentioned the copy-restricted CDs. Done in the right way, it could make a retailer say "we want nothing to do with anything that'll piss off our customers".
I think stores take steps to prevent that. You could find yourself in court over it.
Also, we don't really want to punish the retailers here. Though a wake-up call to them would be nice.
" Its pointless. No one is going to do it, and its really easy to come up with these silly plans. Woo! Stuff like this is worthless when no one else does it (and they wont) so why even bother bringning it up (again and again and again)."
Why aren't you doing it instead of arguing with me? You're part of the problem that you're raising.
" I would suggest simply not purchasing their products at all."
It's the 'not purchasing' aspect that is making the RIAA claim that P2P is costing them money. I have no doubt that my suggestion isn't the best idea, but if people aren't buying CDs but they are trading music, then we all know what the RIAA is going to say. It just won't work.
"Find out about a Flash-Mob group, and run it through them."
That's a good suggestion. Wish I could take a few days off and stand out on a bridge with a sign. Damn. Where are those anti-war protestors when you need them?
"Uh... My girlfriend doesn't have a CD player. Yeah. That's it. "
If you go to a satisfaction guaranteed place then you should just be honest. "I am sending a message to the RIAA that they would have had this money if they weren't busy being legal bullies."
"Sorry to be a pescimist, but it'd never work."
That's a distinct possibility, but I'm not convinced your solution would yield better results. I really do think the RIAA would count loss of sales as losses due to piracy. This could be used as leverage towards stricter punishements and so on.
I'm of the strong belief that a boycott will simply not work in this case. There has to be a stronger message.
"stores will post 0.00 for a week, and people will start to notice."
I honestly doubt it. 9-11 came along and Napster was blamed for a drop in profits.
"I think the RIAA is already smelling the economic equivalent - mass downloading. "
You're absolutely right.
Makes you wonder what Apple would have done in the RIAA's place. Even Microsoft would have found a way to make money from this brewing demand.
The RIAA is demonstrating it's power, right? I think the consumers should demonstrate back. Here's what you do:
- Pick a day.
- On that day, everybody buys a CD. Doesn't matter which, though a newly released highly publiscized CD would be preferable. (Like the newest Spears album or something.)
- DO NOT OPEN THE CD.
- On the following day, return the CDs for a refund. Assuming the store will take back unopened CDs.
If a significant number of money is passed and then refunded, it'd be hard for the retailers not to take notice. I'd be surprised if that info didn't bubble up to the RIAA. If enough money moves, the RIAA will have a pretty good idea that this type of action will cause them to endure losses.
I personally have $100 I'd be willing to pump into this right now this second if I knew other people would be participating too.
The RIAA claims that downloading music will drive them out of business. Anybody else smell a massive boycott brewing?
Heh just for a moment I thought I was reading the Onion.
"How the fuck did a gaming API ever get enough priveleges in a "modern" operating system to be able to cause any kind of problems beyond resource starvation?"
It'll all become clear to you in a few years when Linux has a gaming API.
Again, you're not working with all the data here. You are a small step closer, though.
I'm impressed that was modded as troll. Take THAT netgear!
"It sounds to me that they were trying to do language detection for the interface so they could release the same disc to several regions. Freeloader probably sets some language flag incorrectly which caused the text display to fail. Isn't it curious that the failure occurs just in the menus and in the speedometers?"
We *all* know this post wouldn't have been taken seriously if this was about the X-BOX.
"If you care about your health (Ok, I guess there are suicidal people in the world) you shouldn't smoke."
Yet, people still do it. Why? Think about it.
"How is saying any of that being narrow minded."
Because there are many factors at play. If you understood more about what all was involved in people smoking despite the risks to their health, it would be unlikely that you would have the opinion you do now.
" Is it narrow minded to tell our children not to play in traffic because they could be hit by cars (no matter how fun it really is)... "
Apples != oranges.