Funny, i got my PSX modded and i don't own a single pirate game. However i do own several japanese imports and a copy of ThrillKill (it was never released, so i wouldn't really consider it pirating)
I donated $5 to SpaceDaily for magazine articles, and i've donated to several webcomics. People tend to get upset when you tell them that they have to pay X amount or you won't be able to view it, while they're much more open about giving you some non-exact amount of money after they've already looked at the media and decided they like it. Whether or not the larger number of smaller contributions can counter a smaller number of high cost subscriptions, i have no idea.
Jefferson said,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights;...
I've already given the major Jefferson "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature" quote elsewhere, so here are some others.
"The hocus-pocus fantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs."
- Thomas Jefferson in Jefferson's Works, Vol. IV
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Jefferson's "The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom"
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"
-from Jefferson's biography
Since you didn't quote Washington or Adams or Madison or any of the other founding fathers, i shall allow you to look up for yourself what they had to say about Christianity. Trust me though, you won't like it.
And don't forget about dealing with the economy and the people behind things like the Enron and WorldCom debacles.
All of those sound better than getting your hands into Establishing Religion just to make sure you look good to your Constituents.
Of course i'm not sure if i would rather think that they're just vote-grubbing, or that they acutally _believe_ that "after the events of 9/11" it would be a challenge to our "American cultural heritage" to threaten the "under god" bit.
And, no, I do not believe it (the Pledge) sets a precidence that the Government is "pro-God" and/or anti-"every-other-'religeon'-that-isn't-judeo-chri stian".
Funny that, _i've_ noticed a pretty strong judeo-christian bent in this country, especially looking at the responses to this issue on Congress.org.
A lot of people seem to think that it is unamerican to even think about removing the "under god" bit from the Pledge, which to me is the best example of why it _should_ be removed.
Re: the article you're quoting, the ACLJ made a pretty serious error there. The court didn't say that "school children who want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance can no longer do so because it violates the constitution." The court just said that schools requiring children to recite it is unconsitutional. A child can, on their own, exercising their right to free speach, swear allegiance to the flag, god, christ, allah, yahweh, satan, zeus, odin, or whoever or whatever else they please.
How is it a troll? I think it's relevant that both Google and Teoma are missing an important feature that is carried by a (nowdays overlooked) cempetitor.
Well ok, that's true. However i think that generally the point still stands. Although it can be taken to rediculous extremes, i think more weight lies with those who believe that something is against a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom.
99% of the people can't legislate that 1% of the people can't say a certain thing. The 1%'s right to free speach outweighs the wishes of the 99%. (And let's not deal with strawman arguments like "fire in a crowded theatre" please)
the problem with abolishing the pledge will lead to the abolition of anything that includes the same concept of the country being under God. the declaration of independednce says "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", and as you mentioned, money says "in God we Trust." it says that in the entrance to the Senate Assembly hall, too. the top of the Washington monument says "Praise the Lord!" many important documents relevant to the foundation of the government would be rendered unconstitutional, such as the Gettysberg Address, among other things. court oaths would be changed: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God?" many government proceedings which are opened with prayer would be restructured. the circuit courts which open with "God help this honorable court" or something like that would change their proceedings.
I would say that "Creator" is much less of a specific term than "God." Although it does indeed indicate spiritual leanings, it does not in any way necessarily indicate the judeo-christian religion.
Although it does in some sense indicate a belief in a generic higher power, i far prefer it to the alternative that Eisenhower stuck into the Pledge of Allegiance. If push comes to shove, i'll say that my Creator was whatever star or stars that fussed together the carbon and oxygen that make up my body.
this is a hell of a lot deeper than anyone here seems to realize. Judeo-Christian faith is the basis which the government was built on. it is the history on which the nation was founded. you can't simply strike it out. i don't think they'd let you.
Wow, quite authoritative aren't you? And who wouldn't let me?
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by Congress and signed by John Adams
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
-Thomas Paine
Because if you require someone to be perfect before accepting moral lessons on a particular topic from them then no one would ever have accepted any lessons from anyone, and we'd still think that rape murder and pillage was a good enough justification to go attack anyone within a few days walking distance.
So 24% (when i put my vote in, lemming that i am) think that it's unconstitutional.
That's a minority, but if 24% of the people feel that something is religiously opressive, does that other 76% have the right to demand that it stay?
I would think that 24% is a non-trivial number, especially when talking about a constitutionally protected right. Certainly all kinds of hell would be raised if someone proposed an amendment that would take away voting privilegs from 24% of the registered voters in the US.
However as demonstrated by the Senate's action, 76% in support of this issue is enough to guarantee that the government will favor them, regardless of the morality of the situation or the rights of the 24%.
And i think trolls like you need to be put out of _our_ misery. Or are you just too stupid to understand the point of the post?
How does this example hurt the feelings of anyone? Does it hurt the poor WASPs' feelings to imply that Islam is just as valid a religion as Chistianity?
Or does it hurt them to think that in a few more decades they might not be in the majority anymore?
Or maybe you think the Muslims are the ones being hurt? Not being Muslim i can't say for sure, but i'm fairly certain that after 9/11 no Muslim living in America is unaware that there are a great number of ethnocetric WASPs who don't give a damn about other cultures other than to assign labels and blame to them. I doubt they'd mind being used in an example to point out to those people the nature of their own hypocrisy. I certainly wouldn't mind being used as an example myself if i could think of a reasonable one involving athiests.
Clearly the original poster has no problem with diversity, it's the others who think that the idea of a god, in particular the quasi-monotheistic WASP God, should be promoted in public schools who only want diversity as long as it's just like them.
Altavista has a very nice feature that was lacking in both google and and teoma last i checked. Altavista will search for _exactly_ what you typed in, caps, punctuation, and all.
I can not even begin to count the number of crappy links google has tried to give me because it decided that some similar word was "close enough" to what i was searching for.
That might be a useful feature for when i'm unsure of what i'm looking for, but most of the time i _know_ what i want to find, and i don't appreciate Google cluttering things up with other "likely" variants. Using the "exact phrase" in the advanced search option returns the same inexact search results.
Someone else already mentioned the similar article at CNN which says:
"The emissions repair codes are linked to anti-theft devices, which is causing the insurance industry to oppose the EPA proposal. Getting the codes to more repair shops could make it easier for auto thieves to obtain that information, insurers say."
Ok, is the auto industry just making this up so they'll have support for not giving out the codes? Or did some nimrod in the design stage actually think that linking the _emissions control_ system and the _anti-theft_ system was a _good_ idea?
Perhaps there's an unadvertised theft protection device in newer cars, if the onboard computer think the car is being stolen, instead of running the exaust through the catalytic converter it redirects it into the air condtioning system.
The bottom line is that people are twits and love to call other people phonies.
*nods* I'm not sure if these people are idiots or trolls, but growing up as a nerd/geek, i've learned to live with being called far worse names that what they're dishing out, so if they're trying to make me feel bad they're not doing so hot. However i have trouble resiting the desire to respond to pure illogical stupidity in an attempt to correct it.
How saying that i like goth and techno music (among many other kinds of music and without any other statements to judge me by) leads directly to me being a stuck up poser who conforms to non-conformist ideals, i have no idea. The fact that these people claim to believe that makes my brain hurt and the stubborn naive part of me that believes that everyone else is a seeker of truth too cries out that i should show them where they went awry =P
And as for people fitting an exact checklist, if they're associating themselves with some "group" you don't like, be glad they're over there and nut bugging you. If they're associating with a "group" that you associate with, if you like them as a person then be glad that they're now hanging out with you, regardless of how exactly they fit the "ideal," and if you don't like them, just stay away from them for that reason, not because they don't measure up to some made up standard.
I absolutely agree that it would be great if musicians allowed you to buy their music directly through them. Some do. Others don't, prefering to hide behind the record labels. It's the easier path for the musician than other paths because they're approaching a bunch of people with contacts in the media, they take care of the publicity and the "getting the name out there" stuff so the artist won't have to worry.
Oh good, we agree then! So why are we still talking? Oh yeah, cause talking is fun!:)
Don't most bands have managers? Couldn't their managers (if they were good) handle those details at a much lower cost than the recording industry?
If the artist was really saavy enough to be able to do what you suggest, don't you think they would have? =]
Isn't that kind of like saying (to pick a random example out of my head) in the 1950's that if there was a way to keep people from dying in head on collision automobile accidents, wouldn't they have implemented it already?
There's always a gap between when something is possible and when it actually gets done. And there are usually a few failures before they figure out the best method.
Not being a sociologist or whatever discipline is appropriate, i can't say why any particular gap is as big as it is, or why some things that are possible might never get done, but just because a lot of artists haven't started doing it yet doesn't mean that it won't necessarily happen.
People on here are really judgemental and quick to jump to conclusions.
A "phony "Goth" poser"? How are they phony? Are they not "real" "Goths"? What's a "real" "Goth" like? Or are they phony posers who aren't really posing?
I like goth music, but other than that and wearing black if i go to a goth club, i don't do any of the "normal" goth stuff. Does that make me a posing phony goth poser phony?
I don't know about the posing phony poser phosy
people, but if i go to a goth club it's to have fun. How will giving up on fun stuff save me from a lifetime of misery?
I'm a phony pansy phobic phaser posing phoser pfaucet phonetic posse person, how bout you?
Unfortunately, if Rush's CDs do not sell in a way that benefits the record industry and pays the bills that the record industry incurs, then there will be no Rush CDs, and Rush will be out of a job.
Just as, if you're a programmer and you write a program that everyone downloads but no one buys, your employer who paid you to write the program will see the program's popularity as nil and will not pay for future updates despite the fact that it might be the most popular program that performs functionality X.
I said "i'd rather d/l the CD and then send Rush $5 through PayPal"
If Rush or any other band was getting paid $5 a CD, they would be making far more than they currently make off of CD sales and could aford to record advertise and sell their own music.
I am in fact a programmer, and for the last project i worked on, if everyone who bought a copy of the product (not even counting people who copied it without paying for it, i have no idea how large _that_ number is) sent me 5 cents, i would have made far more than my employer paid me. There were less that 50 of us on the team, so Less than $3.00 would have done the same for all of us. You think that if we charged $5 for each direct d/l that the $2 over the top for every copy could cover the cost of maintaining a server for people to grab it from?
There are two types of people who "listen" to techno:
1: Raver kiddies
2: Pretentious pricks such as yourself who believe they are so fucking sophisticated and contrary for listening to "non-mainstream" music.
What part of my original post came off as pretentious to you? I'm certianly not sophisticated either. Just because you only liked the music because you fell for some kind of "contrary" crap doesn't mean that everyone else is like you. Some of us are capable of making up our own minds.
If i were to describe my music tastes it would be "random" not "contrary."
Let's see, top 40 pop and rock, heavy metal, grunge, punk, j-pop, techno, goth, industrial, video game soundtracks, showtunes, and the ocasional bits of country and classical music. Pretty much the only stuff i have a serius dislike for is hiphop and rap. Maybe i'm a music slut. Or maybe i just listen to what i like instead of wasting time worrying about what others will think about it.
About the only pretention i see going on around here is the idea of music being judged by how mainsteam or not it is, and it doesn't seem to be something that _i_ brought up.
So are you still going to be listening to punk rock in a few years, or is it just another "cool" fad for you?
Perhaps it has something to do with your "nobody" status, or that you go to clubs populated with a bunch of stoner nobody losers and a bunch of lame ass raver teens on E.
Oh dear, you have found me out, i am so ashamed. I am an asocial geeky nobody. I have no life. I shall go hide in shame and hang out at some geeky place, like, oh, Slashdot or something.
Oh, except it was techno goth, so there were no ravers, and there may have been drugs there, but if so i didn't know about it, and don't really give a damn anyway.
When even the poster of the article doesn't read the article. Moby never said that anyone was putting him in a bind. He's not complaining about lost revenue, and he's not saying that ripping and/or burning are good or bad.
He thinks that sales of his and other band's CDs are lower because people are d/ling mp3s instead of buying them. He thinks the recording industry doesn't properly account for that when it "decides" how popular an artist is. (They're probably too busy suing people to worry about it.)
I'm not sure why 20 bazillion posts need to be made about how you think the CD sucks. I think that ground has been covered just a tad.
And another quore from Moby about this issue:
"What do you think about Napster and CD burning?
Moby: On one hand the thought of people in the music business losing their jobs makes me sad. I have a lot of friends who work in record stores and at record companies, and I know that they're nervous these days. So I hope that some way is found to protect their jobs. But I do hope that as the music business becomes less profitable that the people who are in music only to make money will be forced out. People who love money more than music shouldn't be involved in the music business, in my opinion."
Slashdot Mirror
However as pointed out by someone else in one of the other threads, the FCC apparently has rules against active jamming of wireless transmisions.
Of course that guide fails to touch on the it's/its issue, or on any use as a possesive at all.
Funny, i got my PSX modded and i don't own a single pirate game. However i do own several japanese imports and a copy of ThrillKill (it was never released, so i wouldn't really consider it pirating)
I donated $5 to SpaceDaily for magazine articles, and i've donated to several webcomics. People tend to get upset when you tell them that they have to pay X amount or you won't be able to view it, while they're much more open about giving you some non-exact amount of money after they've already looked at the media and decided they like it. Whether or not the larger number of smaller contributions can counter a smaller number of high cost subscriptions, i have no idea.
Jefferson said,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights;...
I've already given the major Jefferson "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature" quote elsewhere, so here are some others.
"The hocus-pocus fantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs."
- Thomas Jefferson in Jefferson's Works, Vol. IV
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Jefferson's "The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom"
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"
-from Jefferson's biography
Since you didn't quote Washington or Adams or Madison or any of the other founding fathers, i shall allow you to look up for yourself what they had to say about Christianity. Trust me though, you won't like it.
The Founding Fathers on Religion
Athiesm Awareness
All of those sound better than getting your hands into Establishing Religion just to make sure you look good to your Constituents.
Of course i'm not sure if i would rather think that they're just vote-grubbing, or that they acutally _believe_ that "after the events of 9/11" it would be a challenge to our "American cultural heritage" to threaten the "under god" bit.
A lot of people seem to think that it is unamerican to even think about removing the "under god" bit from the Pledge, which to me is the best example of why it _should_ be removed.
Re: the article you're quoting, the ACLJ made a pretty serious error there. The court didn't say that "school children who want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance can no longer do so because it violates the constitution." The court just said that schools requiring children to recite it is unconsitutional. A child can, on their own, exercising their right to free speach, swear allegiance to the flag, god, christ, allah, yahweh, satan, zeus, odin, or whoever or whatever else they please.
Communism does not preclude religion.
Neither does blithely declaring your religion "protect" you from communism.
The majority can not decide to take away the consitutionally guaranteed freedoms of a minority.
Our founding fathers were (almost entirely) diests, not Christians, and had pretty nasty things to say about Christianity.
Our Founding Fathers dissing Christianity
How is it a troll? I think it's relevant that both Google and Teoma are missing an important feature that is carried by a (nowdays overlooked) cempetitor.
99% of the people can't legislate that 1% of the people can't say a certain thing. The 1%'s right to free speach outweighs the wishes of the 99%. (And let's not deal with strawman arguments like "fire in a crowded theatre" please)
I would say that "Creator" is much less of a specific term than "God." Although it does indeed indicate spiritual leanings, it does not in any way necessarily indicate the judeo-christian religion.
Although it does in some sense indicate a belief in a generic higher power, i far prefer it to the alternative that Eisenhower stuck into the Pledge of Allegiance. If push comes to shove, i'll say that my Creator was whatever star or stars that fussed together the carbon and oxygen that make up my body.
this is a hell of a lot deeper than anyone here seems to realize. Judeo-Christian faith is the basis which the government was built on. it is the history on which the nation was founded. you can't simply strike it out. i don't think they'd let you.
Wow, quite authoritative aren't you? And who wouldn't let me?
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by Congress and signed by John Adams
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
-Thomas Paine
Athiesm Awareness
Not a Christian Nation
Treaty of Tripoli
Because if you require someone to be perfect before accepting moral lessons on a particular topic from them then no one would ever have accepted any lessons from anyone, and we'd still think that rape murder and pillage was a good enough justification to go attack anyone within a few days walking distance.
That's a minority, but if 24% of the people feel that something is religiously opressive, does that other 76% have the right to demand that it stay?
I would think that 24% is a non-trivial number, especially when talking about a constitutionally protected right. Certainly all kinds of hell would be raised if someone proposed an amendment that would take away voting privilegs from 24% of the registered voters in the US.
However as demonstrated by the Senate's action, 76% in support of this issue is enough to guarantee that the government will favor them, regardless of the morality of the situation or the rights of the 24%.
How does this example hurt the feelings of anyone? Does it hurt the poor WASPs' feelings to imply that Islam is just as valid a religion as Chistianity?
Or does it hurt them to think that in a few more decades they might not be in the majority anymore?
Or maybe you think the Muslims are the ones being hurt? Not being Muslim i can't say for sure, but i'm fairly certain that after 9/11 no Muslim living in America is unaware that there are a great number of ethnocetric WASPs who don't give a damn about other cultures other than to assign labels and blame to them. I doubt they'd mind being used in an example to point out to those people the nature of their own hypocrisy. I certainly wouldn't mind being used as an example myself if i could think of a reasonable one involving athiests.
Clearly the original poster has no problem with diversity, it's the others who think that the idea of a god, in particular the quasi-monotheistic WASP God, should be promoted in public schools who only want diversity as long as it's just like them.
I can not even begin to count the number of crappy links google has tried to give me because it decided that some similar word was "close enough" to what i was searching for.
That might be a useful feature for when i'm unsure of what i'm looking for, but most of the time i _know_ what i want to find, and i don't appreciate Google cluttering things up with other "likely" variants. Using the "exact phrase" in the advanced search option returns the same inexact search results.
"The emissions repair codes are linked to anti-theft devices, which is causing the insurance industry to oppose the EPA proposal. Getting the codes to more repair shops could make it easier for auto thieves to obtain that information, insurers say."
Ok, is the auto industry just making this up so they'll have support for not giving out the codes? Or did some nimrod in the design stage actually think that linking the _emissions control_ system and the _anti-theft_ system was a _good_ idea?
Perhaps there's an unadvertised theft protection device in newer cars, if the onboard computer think the car is being stolen, instead of running the exaust through the catalytic converter it redirects it into the air condtioning system.
It could have been a plane _or_ a helicopter! Actually, you know what, it might even have been a blimp! I have no idea which!
The bottom line is that people are twits and love to call other people phonies.
*nods* I'm not sure if these people are idiots or trolls, but growing up as a nerd/geek, i've learned to live with being called far worse names that what they're dishing out, so if they're trying to make me feel bad they're not doing so hot. However i have trouble resiting the desire to respond to pure illogical stupidity in an attempt to correct it.
How saying that i like goth and techno music (among many other kinds of music and without any other statements to judge me by) leads directly to me being a stuck up poser who conforms to non-conformist ideals, i have no idea. The fact that these people claim to believe that makes my brain hurt and the stubborn naive part of me that believes that everyone else is a seeker of truth too cries out that i should show them where they went awry =P
And as for people fitting an exact checklist, if they're associating themselves with some "group" you don't like, be glad they're over there and nut bugging you. If they're associating with a "group" that you associate with, if you like them as a person then be glad that they're now hanging out with you, regardless of how exactly they fit the "ideal," and if you don't like them, just stay away from them for that reason, not because they don't measure up to some made up standard.
No kidding!
Hey everyone! Along with liking music (gasp!) i'm also a gay commie whale! Here's a nuke! Have fun!
Oh good, we agree then! So why are we still talking? Oh yeah, cause talking is fun! :)
Don't most bands have managers? Couldn't their managers (if they were good) handle those details at a much lower cost than the recording industry?
If the artist was really saavy enough to be able to do what you suggest, don't you think they would have? =]
Isn't that kind of like saying (to pick a random example out of my head) in the 1950's that if there was a way to keep people from dying in head on collision automobile accidents, wouldn't they have implemented it already?
There's always a gap between when something is possible and when it actually gets done. And there are usually a few failures before they figure out the best method.
Not being a sociologist or whatever discipline is appropriate, i can't say why any particular gap is as big as it is, or why some things that are possible might never get done, but just because a lot of artists haven't started doing it yet doesn't mean that it won't necessarily happen.
A "phony "Goth" poser"? How are they phony? Are they not "real" "Goths"? What's a "real" "Goth" like? Or are they phony posers who aren't really posing?
I like goth music, but other than that and wearing black if i go to a goth club, i don't do any of the "normal" goth stuff. Does that make me a posing phony goth poser phony?
I don't know about the posing phony poser phosy people, but if i go to a goth club it's to have fun. How will giving up on fun stuff save me from a lifetime of misery?
I'm a phony pansy phobic phaser posing phoser pfaucet phonetic posse person, how bout you?
Just as, if you're a programmer and you write a program that everyone downloads but no one buys, your employer who paid you to write the program will see the program's popularity as nil and will not pay for future updates despite the fact that it might be the most popular program that performs functionality X.
I said "i'd rather d/l the CD and then send Rush $5 through PayPal"
If Rush or any other band was getting paid $5 a CD, they would be making far more than they currently make off of CD sales and could aford to record advertise and sell their own music.
I am in fact a programmer, and for the last project i worked on, if everyone who bought a copy of the product (not even counting people who copied it without paying for it, i have no idea how large _that_ number is) sent me 5 cents, i would have made far more than my employer paid me. There were less that 50 of us on the team, so Less than $3.00 would have done the same for all of us. You think that if we charged $5 for each direct d/l that the $2 over the top for every copy could cover the cost of maintaining a server for people to grab it from?
1: Raver kiddies
2: Pretentious pricks such as yourself who believe they are so fucking sophisticated and contrary for listening to "non-mainstream" music.
What part of my original post came off as pretentious to you? I'm certianly not sophisticated either. Just because you only liked the music because you fell for some kind of "contrary" crap doesn't mean that everyone else is like you. Some of us are capable of making up our own minds.
If i were to describe my music tastes it would be "random" not "contrary."
Let's see, top 40 pop and rock, heavy metal, grunge, punk, j-pop, techno, goth, industrial, video game soundtracks, showtunes, and the ocasional bits of country and classical music. Pretty much the only stuff i have a serius dislike for is hiphop and rap. Maybe i'm a music slut. Or maybe i just listen to what i like instead of wasting time worrying about what others will think about it.
About the only pretention i see going on around here is the idea of music being judged by how mainsteam or not it is, and it doesn't seem to be something that _i_ brought up.
So are you still going to be listening to punk rock in a few years, or is it just another "cool" fad for you?
Oh dear, you have found me out, i am so ashamed. I am an asocial geeky nobody. I have no life. I shall go hide in shame and hang out at some geeky place, like, oh, Slashdot or something.
Oh, except it was techno goth, so there were no ravers, and there may have been drugs there, but if so i didn't know about it, and don't really give a damn anyway.
He thinks that sales of his and other band's CDs are lower because people are d/ling mp3s instead of buying them. He thinks the recording industry doesn't properly account for that when it "decides" how popular an artist is. (They're probably too busy suing people to worry about it.)
I'm not sure why 20 bazillion posts need to be made about how you think the CD sucks. I think that ground has been covered just a tad.
And another quore from Moby about this issue:
"What do you think about Napster and CD burning?
Moby: On one hand the thought of people in the music business losing their jobs makes me sad. I have a lot of friends who work in record stores and at record companies, and I know that they're nervous these days. So I hope that some way is found to protect their jobs. But I do hope that as the music business becomes less profitable that the people who are in music only to make money will be forced out. People who love money more than music shouldn't be involved in the music business, in my opinion."
From a random interview i found.