I realize that the idea isn't to make money, but I'm saying, what will be put into the public domain that anybody actually wants? "Do shit" refers to ideas that will be put into the public domain, not monetary rewards to our government.
I cannot believe that this even gets any attention. It's completely absurd! If in fact it costs $1/year to extend a copyright past 50 years, then I think something that one of the Supreme Court Justices said is probably correct--98% of copyrights aren't earning more than $1 and most likely will not be extended. That's great. But can anybody think of one copyright that will not earn $1 in the next 20 (or whatever the rest of the copyright term is) years that anybody would WANT to have in the public domain? This is just silly. Nothing that's not worth a dollar to the copyright holder (who could easily hold the copyright up for a $5 ransom and in the process earn $4) is going to be worth a fucking cent to anybody else. Get real...these numbers are just too fucking small to do shit.
That's true, however as of late they have been very conservative in their coverage, specifically the new deregulation that has occured, mostly because they're owned by AOL/Time-Warner, which causes obvious conflicts of interest. That having been said, Fox News is a much larger offender and has been for quite a while.
The sad part is that it's true. What the fuck is up with this new Snake II thing!? Now us users with only the original Snake are stuck with scores far lower than even the worst Snake II game after playing for hours.:(
This is not ridiculous. If you can prove that you already purchased the CD, then fine. Bring in the CD, show that you've owned it for a significant amount of time. You're fucking fine. They wouldn't go after you for downloading a 3EB CD, anyway. They're going after the DISTRIBUTORS. If they can prove that they bought every single album and somehow prove that the RIAA just "thinks" that they were sharing it, then they're fine. But 1) they don't own the shit and 2) they were distributing it--illegal whether you own it or not.
Fucking idiot...don't you fucking think that if they were going to sue you they'd at least listen to the fucking thing? They're not completely ignorant morons, you know. And what you're fucking doing is EXACTLY what they want you to do. Now you're just sharing crap with other people, discouraging people from downloading what they really want to. I know you're too fucking lazy to even actually do it, but have some fucking common sense and don't make jokes that aren't funny.
It's not on TechTV! WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T THEY SHOW IT!? Anybody know where to get it? I can't seem to find a site that's broadcasting it. AND WHY THE FUCK ISN'T TECHTV SHOWING IT???
Yeah...you know, maybe some alcohol and girls would be very useful for you. You know, so that you don't spend all of your time snooping your room mate's packets.
Uh...because it's damned good journalism and most people don't mind giving a little back (when this "a little" happens just to be the satisfaction of them being able to confirm that they have x amount of readers, and don't use it for anything else other than that)? You don't think those articles write themselves and the writers live off of your wet dreams of free everything, do you?
Hell, I live in the Philadelphia suburb of Bryn Mawr...first express stop after 30th Street is our only claim to fame...and we still have to dial all ten digits even if I'm calling the line downstairs.
They say that $750 million is nothing for Microsoft as they have over $40 billion in the bank, but that's still almost 2% of their tresury, quite a significant amount for such a huge corporation. Am I the only one who thinks that 2% is a significant amount to be lost in a lawsuit?
Let me just point out that this links to money.cnn.com, and CNN is owned by AOL/Time-Warner, which also owns Netscape. Yet they make no mention of it in the article. I guess just about everything is owned by them, these days, so it's sort of taken as a given. Also intersting to note that they use a Netscape bar at the top (I have no idea why they still brand it as such, as most people associate Netscape with a browser--not the "Netscape Network," although I guess it sounds more professional than "AOL Network"). Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
Yes...I know...that was the point of the joke. And then there's the fact that English is a direct descendent of German, only becoming modern English somewhere around the 15th century (not sure of exact date, but it was somewhere around there) when it was mixed with French. Before then English was VERY closely related to German.
Next time you know they'll be capitalizing nouns. Crazy Germans... You'd think that the language that branched out of the modern American dialect of English would be more respectful of its parent language.
Nice site, but what stuck out on the site was this. Just read the first paragraph. 4.9 people a year from smoking? Looks like they've already achieved their goal
Yeah, but in the case of a wrongful death suit you still need somebody to love you to file the suit once your gone, something that you will never get. Sorry, buddy, but we've all got a little Jew and black in us...
Slashdot Mirror
PCI Express != PCI-X
I realize that the idea isn't to make money, but I'm saying, what will be put into the public domain that anybody actually wants? "Do shit" refers to ideas that will be put into the public domain, not monetary rewards to our government.
I cannot believe that this even gets any attention. It's completely absurd! If in fact it costs $1/year to extend a copyright past 50 years, then I think something that one of the Supreme Court Justices said is probably correct--98% of copyrights aren't earning more than $1 and most likely will not be extended. That's great. But can anybody think of one copyright that will not earn $1 in the next 20 (or whatever the rest of the copyright term is) years that anybody would WANT to have in the public domain? This is just silly. Nothing that's not worth a dollar to the copyright holder (who could easily hold the copyright up for a $5 ransom and in the process earn $4) is going to be worth a fucking cent to anybody else. Get real...these numbers are just too fucking small to do shit.
That's true, however as of late they have been very conservative in their coverage, specifically the new deregulation that has occured, mostly because they're owned by AOL/Time-Warner, which causes obvious conflicts of interest. That having been said, Fox News is a much larger offender and has been for quite a while.
The sad part is that it's true. What the fuck is up with this new Snake II thing!? Now us users with only the original Snake are stuck with scores far lower than even the worst Snake II game after playing for hours. :(
-1 for using Fox for anything except the Simpsons--especially for news.
Sure you can. But I'm confused--what does this have to do with you violating copyright laws?
This is not ridiculous. If you can prove that you already purchased the CD, then fine. Bring in the CD, show that you've owned it for a significant amount of time. You're fucking fine. They wouldn't go after you for downloading a 3EB CD, anyway. They're going after the DISTRIBUTORS. If they can prove that they bought every single album and somehow prove that the RIAA just "thinks" that they were sharing it, then they're fine. But 1) they don't own the shit and 2) they were distributing it--illegal whether you own it or not.
Fucking idiot...don't you fucking think that if they were going to sue you they'd at least listen to the fucking thing? They're not completely ignorant morons, you know. And what you're fucking doing is EXACTLY what they want you to do. Now you're just sharing crap with other people, discouraging people from downloading what they really want to. I know you're too fucking lazy to even actually do it, but have some fucking common sense and don't make jokes that aren't funny.
OSNews is run by a former BeOS developer who is married to a former BeOS developer. EVERYTHING will relate back to the BeBox--you begin to learn that.
They carried it last year...*whimpers*
It's not on TechTV! WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T THEY SHOW IT!? Anybody know where to get it? I can't seem to find a site that's broadcasting it. AND WHY THE FUCK ISN'T TECHTV SHOWING IT???
Yeah...you know, maybe some alcohol and girls would be very useful for you. You know, so that you don't spend all of your time snooping your room mate's packets.
Marijuana might be psychologically addictive, but is most definitely not chemically addictive.
It's embarassing, but it in no way reflects the Times' track record. Unfortunate, but surely not an indicator of their overall quality.
Uh...because it's damned good journalism and most people don't mind giving a little back (when this "a little" happens just to be the satisfaction of them being able to confirm that they have x amount of readers, and don't use it for anything else other than that)? You don't think those articles write themselves and the writers live off of your wet dreams of free everything, do you?
Hell, I live in the Philadelphia suburb of Bryn Mawr...first express stop after 30th Street is our only claim to fame...and we still have to dial all ten digits even if I'm calling the line downstairs.
They say that $750 million is nothing for Microsoft as they have over $40 billion in the bank, but that's still almost 2% of their tresury, quite a significant amount for such a huge corporation. Am I the only one who thinks that 2% is a significant amount to be lost in a lawsuit?
Let me just point out that this links to money.cnn.com, and CNN is owned by AOL/Time-Warner, which also owns Netscape. Yet they make no mention of it in the article. I guess just about everything is owned by them, these days, so it's sort of taken as a given. Also intersting to note that they use a Netscape bar at the top (I have no idea why they still brand it as such, as most people associate Netscape with a browser--not the "Netscape Network," although I guess it sounds more professional than "AOL Network"). Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
i think any linguists reading slashdot would have had a stroke a long time ago....
No no no, that should be would of had a strock.
Yes...I know...that was the point of the joke. And then there's the fact that English is a direct descendent of German, only becoming modern English somewhere around the 15th century (not sure of exact date, but it was somewhere around there) when it was mixed with French. Before then English was VERY closely related to German.
Next time you know they'll be capitalizing nouns. Crazy Germans... You'd think that the language that branched out of the modern American dialect of English would be more respectful of its parent language.
Nice site, but what stuck out on the site was this. Just read the first paragraph. 4.9 people a year from smoking? Looks like they've already achieved their goal
Yeah, but in the case of a wrongful death suit you still need somebody to love you to file the suit once your gone, something that you will never get. Sorry, buddy, but we've all got a little Jew and black in us...
HAHAHA! Very imaginative response. Somebody, please mod this one up. C'mon, I'm burning karma on this request...