As previous stated, I wouldn't sign up for a do-not-call list because that prevents me from costing telespammers money. Just hanging up does nothing but allow them to move on to the next potential victim. I waste as much of their time as I can. I realize I probably don't make a significant financial impact, but if more people did this, there would be no need for a do-not-call list. Telespammers would waste all their time with non-payers like me, thwarting their commissions, forcing them to seek new (more moral) jobs, leaving the companies with no one to peddle their wares. Keep this up and eventually, they all go out of business.
I think paying the RIAA for internet use is wrong in principle, but if my isp were to charge no more than say, $5 a month to RIAA, and that kept the RIAA pacified so they didn't sue or shutdown any p2p or other services they have declared war upon, I probably wouldn't complain. But I doubt that's how their proposal will work.
Bad music is a matter of opinion and opinions vary. I think the it's the tastes of people that have changed. Given the current economy, I doubt most people wanna hear lyrics about the "bling bling" lifestyle of the artist.
I actually enjoy calls from phone spammers for one reason...I cost them money. I never just hang up on them. That's too easy, let's them move on the next person. I stay on the line and talk to them as long as I can. I ask all kind of stupid questions and act interested in whatever crap they're pitching. Of course, I never buy anything. When I run out of questions, I just say "Not interested" and wait for them to start whining. This wastes a lot of their time and of course time is money. If more people did this, there would be no need for a do-not-call list.
How long until the record companies can seize a person's entire bank account just because they hear a song in a taxi? Sounds ridiculous now, but so did stories like this.
I'm sure there are plenty of afforadable hitmen/hired goons on the market so if the spammers were as much of a problem as the ISPs say, it could easily be fixed.
What *does* happen, however, is if prosecutors see juries unwilling to convict, they may be reluctant to waste their time with cases they feel they won't win.
The true power behind the DMCA has been not to prosecute or convict, but to threaten with legal notices which has been enough in most cases to intimidate people into folding.
Actually, I do buy a lot of vinyl (I buy more in a year than all the CDs I've bought in my life) and I get a lot of free CDs (demo mixes and such.)
As far as limiting myself to buying/seeing only movies I like, that seems fairly logical to me. Is there a large group of people forcing themselves to purchase and watch movies they dislike?
Last CD I bought was in November 2000. I do buy some DVDs (about 5 or 6 in the last year), but I rarely go the movies anymore unless there's a big scifi/horror/eye-candy release (LOTR, starwars, etc.) or it's date night (which I won't go into the rarety of that:) )
So, to make you happy you need a job where: System reliability is not your responsibility (thus you cannot be blamed for crashes)
Check.
Users don't require system access (thus they are ambivalent about forgotten passwords)
Since I have achieved the above step, this one is pretty much nullified.
IT is not a strategic force within the company (thus allowing for lax scheduling)
No one's IT is a strategic force. At best, they're technical custodians (or so most companies treat them.):)
Yet, IT needs to be so necessary as to preclude budget cuts (impossible if preceding requirements are met).
Most companies do consider IT (the servers and other hardware) that necessary...it's IT personell and those pesky salaries that are the problem.
And I did re-evaluate my interest in the IT field and found it to be very lacking, but I was probably just overloaded being that I worked for IT in a hospital (and I'll match those damned nurses to any idiot luser story you've ever heard:) )
Well then how do you get credit for the work you do, when all that's noticed is the downtime?
The very reason I left. When something crashes, who gets blamed? When users forget their passwords (which are usually something as simple like their friggin' username), who gets hasseled? When admin lays down an impossible time table with ridiculous performance expectations, who gets told "make this work or else?" When the company starts loosing money due to poor business decisions and/or the economy being in the toilet, who's the first dept to get cut?
Not as appealing as those tech school commercials make it out to be, huh?:)
Slashdot Mirror
I can think of several that need to go.
As previous stated, I wouldn't sign up for a do-not-call list because that prevents me from costing telespammers money. Just hanging up does nothing but allow them to move on to the next potential victim. I waste as much of their time as I can. I realize I probably don't make a significant financial impact, but if more people did this, there would be no need for a do-not-call list. Telespammers would waste all their time with non-payers like me, thwarting their commissions, forcing them to seek new (more moral) jobs, leaving the companies with no one to peddle their wares. Keep this up and eventually, they all go out of business.
http://www.buzzmachines.com
I think paying the RIAA for internet use is wrong in principle, but if my isp were to charge no more than say, $5 a month to RIAA, and that kept the RIAA pacified so they didn't sue or shutdown any p2p or other services they have declared war upon, I probably wouldn't complain. But I doubt that's how their proposal will work.
Bad music is a matter of opinion and opinions vary. I think the it's the tastes of people that have changed. Given the current economy, I doubt most people wanna hear lyrics about the "bling bling" lifestyle of the artist.
I always use cdreward@riaa.com ...and I sign up for EVERYTHING.
I actually enjoy calls from phone spammers for one reason...I cost them money. I never just hang up on them. That's too easy, let's them move on the next person. I stay on the line and talk to them as long as I can. I ask all kind of stupid questions and act interested in whatever crap they're pitching. Of course, I never buy anything. When I run out of questions, I just say "Not interested" and wait for them to start whining. This wastes a lot of their time and of course time is money. If more people did this, there would be no need for a do-not-call list.
If Moore's Law does official die, will there be sightings of it afterwards like that of Elvis?
No rights to it.
Isn't it all that way?
The U.S. Government seems very fond of this phrase so I'll throw it back their way...
If you're not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide.
I don't eat anything that never had a mother. Take that PETA :b
How long until the record companies can seize a person's entire bank account just because they hear a song in a taxi? Sounds ridiculous now, but so did stories like this.
And what DRM nonsense will this release include?
I'm sure there are plenty of afforadable hitmen/hired goons on the market so if the spammers were as much of a problem as the ISPs say, it could easily be fixed.
Money Good! Napster Bad!
They just annoy me for some reason.
What *does* happen, however, is if prosecutors see juries unwilling to convict, they may be reluctant to waste their time with cases they feel they won't win. The true power behind the DMCA has been not to prosecute or convict, but to threaten with legal notices which has been enough in most cases to intimidate people into folding.
Actually, I do buy a lot of vinyl (I buy more in a year than all the CDs I've bought in my life) and I get a lot of free CDs (demo mixes and such.)
As far as limiting myself to buying/seeing only movies I like, that seems fairly logical to me. Is there a large group of people forcing themselves to purchase and watch movies they dislike?
Last CD I bought was in November 2000. I do buy some DVDs (about 5 or 6 in the last year), but I rarely go the movies anymore unless there's a big scifi/horror/eye-candy release (LOTR, starwars, etc.) or it's date night (which I won't go into the rarety of that :) )
I'm no legal expert, but I think we're still a long way from overturning that law. It will take a lot more cases such as this...a LOT more.
Should I be happy about spammers losing millions or sad about AOL winning court cases? It's difficult. :)
So, to make you happy you need a job where:
:)
:) )
System reliability is not your responsibility (thus you cannot be blamed for crashes)
Check.
Users don't require system access (thus they are ambivalent about forgotten passwords)
Since I have achieved the above step, this one is pretty much nullified.
IT is not a strategic force within the company (thus allowing for lax scheduling)
No one's IT is a strategic force. At best, they're technical custodians (or so most companies treat them.)
Yet, IT needs to be so necessary as to preclude budget cuts (impossible if preceding requirements are met).
Most companies do consider IT (the servers and other hardware) that necessary...it's IT personell and those pesky salaries that are the problem.
And I did re-evaluate my interest in the IT field and found it to be very lacking, but I was probably just overloaded being that I worked for IT in a hospital (and I'll match those damned nurses to any idiot luser story you've ever heard
Well then how do you get credit for the work you do, when all that's noticed is the downtime?
:)
The very reason I left. When something crashes, who gets blamed? When users forget their passwords (which are usually something as simple like their friggin' username), who gets hasseled? When admin lays down an impossible time table with ridiculous performance expectations, who gets told "make this work or else?" When the company starts loosing money due to poor business decisions and/or the economy being in the toilet, who's the first dept to get cut?
Not as appealing as those tech school commercials make it out to be, huh?
Or a portable DivX player with a picture of Jack Valenti on it.