Round and round the monkies go
Gnashing and gnarling and making bad prose
Their logic looping like an accident in code
Time to go out and get the hose!
Wanna make some money? Put together a decent album; jewel case, inserts, booklets, and some high quality burnables. Mabye give them something extra for buying the album like a really neat insert or poster. Put up a website, complete with online ordering for said product. Then, advertise. Do live performances, pay for newspaper space, get people to put your url in their slashdot sigs or put some high quality rips on p2p complete with filled out tags (with generic terms) so they know who made it and where to buy it.
You've gotta try a little harder than "I gave this to one kid on campus and he passed it around". Then again, who said musicians had business skills? You're not going to get lotsa money off of recording sales.
BTW, I understand, since used to play trombone and did write my own music, and I too don't have a lot of dough. But still guy, you've gotta try harder than that. If you're good, it's no problem to make a living so long as you do it right. "Acquire" some business books and do a little research.;-)
Obeying a benevolent dictator is like sticking your head in an allegators mouth; you're completly at it's mercy, if it likes you, you're ok, if it hates you, then you're screwed. That just isn't the american way; americans, in my experience (I'v lived ever since I can remember) are roudy, loud, well mingled folk with plenty of room for nutty people. They prefer their rights are ensured with guns, and about 60% still harbor great distrust of therir government (especially the south).
And the reason our government is so screwed is because we have so many traitors in it accepting bribe money and favors for votes.
Can your "modern" country brag about the same things?
Why the hell would I want to waste my time bragging to a foreigner, much less anyone?
1: Before copyright was here, there was no copyright; copyright was there to regulate publishers. Now, copyrights are signed over to publishers, who own more and more of our culture. Knowledge should be free, I will not live in that kind of tyrrany.
2: www.theafternow.com If you really want to understand the aformentioned point, listen to the tales of the afternow.
Now, the *really* funny part here, is that I actually really hate microsoft, and now I'm getting flamed for pointing that we're cogs in a side of the magic movie theatre from 1984 where we're shown a movie of the resistance members and we are to gnarl and gnash at them.
The funny part is that you are one of my flying linux zealot monkies! Huzzah!
Well, now that the execuitive branch has expanded to the point where the president is essentially king...I mean, how many departments does he have, and how many powers has congress delegated to those departments, especially after the patriot act?
Frankly, if people were more in-tune with this division of power thing, they'd realize that our population has grown something like 10 or 100 fold, while at the same time the federal government has grown to a massive size, and state and local governments have shrunk. How can we ensure that minorities rights are ensured, when majorities (or worse, minorities with power over majorities) exist with power over them?
So why should we have the right to vote for the president? Because then everyone will fallow around the bouncing ball and be distracted by television politics while their rights are dwindled away under execuitive orders, court judgements, and general corruption as they're turned into livestock.
TV exists to make money by serving advertisers, advertising serves to convince people into buying their stuff to make money, money is synonymous with power as you can use it to buy anything, therefore, Television is mind control.
If the artist wants their concert not to be recorded, then they have the right to have it on private property where they can say you can't bring a camera around. If you decide to do a concert out in the middle of nowhere, then guess what? I can record you, don't like it? Pick up your equipment and leave.
Congress passes a law, that law says something very specific or something very general, the judicial system reinterprets that into something else.
Who's in power?
An artist has the right to make money off of their artwork, but they do not, nor should, have the right to make as much money as possible; it is when those in power begin worshipping money, and thus, power itself, that they inflict slavery on others, corpolitical swine.
"My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?"
Gnarl and Gnash! Gnarl and Gnash! Burn down the windows and Redmond! Go my flying slashdot monkies! Kidnap Bill gates and smother him in tar and feathers, then tie bricks to his legs and throw him into the river to see if he's a witch!
Like What the hell do you want? Topical, to the point debate about Windows Vs [insert other corp, oss project, linux, ect here]? The best you'll get is "Microsoft is evil, we like the other project" or "both are evil, where's the linux project".
Commoner: Aye! Look, the Patent' system es Brooken! Patent's arre given uut like candy to chil'ren, and onleh those wit' moneh' can enferrce their pa'ent's or defend themselves from large mul'ehnationals.
Media, government, stupider people: Bah, that's hogwash! What do you know about economics?
(translation: We don't want to think, we just want to fallow someone who does the thinking for us and refute you so you can't challenge him.)
Now, lets see what happens when a professor says something about it.
[insert important sounding title here]: Well, the patent system is broken, you see, patents are filed and given out like candy to children with no checking against older patents, and those with money are able to hire lawyers to enforce bad patents against companies, and vice versa.
Media, government, stupider people: Whoa, he's so totally right.
The only amazing thing here, is the level of utter stupidity on the behalf of lawmakers, people, Harvard, and the government judges in general. Like they couldn't have sat down for 10 minutes, looked at the law, and thought "hrm, now, what's wrong with this?", and then once seeing the problem, looked at, oh, I don't know, some large companies getting taken on by smaller guys for rediculous patents and winning? I'm not saying I'm smarter, I am wondering how someone couldn't figure out the relitivally obvious, however.
And *I'll* go out, throw up a 50 foot tall antenna in the back and begin broadcasting Rant TV.(www.ranttv.com) 24/7.
First, The idea of their plan is to stop people from putting out copies of TV shows on the internet by stopping people from copying and to force advertising down their throughts. However, they will fail horribly for a few reasons.
If you stop stupid people from copying off of the TV, they'll look for alternatives or if they can't find any, I don't think joe 6-pack is going to stay home or up beyond his bedtime to watch his favorite shows. You shoot yourself in your foot. The most it'll accomplish is eliminating things like Tivo, but those, according to current insane copyright law, were illegal to begin with.
Second, it won't stop copying; they can't adapt the tech as quickly as we can, no matter how aggressive they want to be. Direct TV has failed, Tivo failed, the RIAA/MPAA have failed, cable providers have failed, and thousands of others.
Third, alternatives still won't stop coming via the internet; ranttv will be better than ever (and hundreds of other stations no doubt), P2P filesharing systems will get far better, more processing power and bandwidth means more p2p goodness. Nothing short of radical legislation and unpopular, radical, and unconstitutional lockdown will stop this, and if that does happen then the hackers will be driven underground, and will begin doing some real damage to TV networks.
I think it would be more like, you write a cool webapp, and you throw it up on a server to do it's thing. I record every single little transaction it does. Not the same thing.
This is why we have LEGISLATION you moron. The courts ARE NOT there to correct the law, they are there to clearly say wheither or not the law is unconstitutional or clearly bad or not. They are NOT there to change the law through inerpretation. Sure, it isn't fair to the backstreet artist if someone records their show and sells it for $10 a copy, but it also isn't fair to us when their copyright of recordings of their show is forever.
Additionally, I dislike the idea of making bootlegging illegal. Perhaps making a profit off of selling copies of a concert performance can be illegal for a certain time period. However, if I bring a video camera to a concert to record the concert for future prosperity, I'm not supposed to be able to make copies of it? That's rediculous.
Unless you're a developer wanting to make a software package in 5 minutes using quick-e-make program maker. As processing speed has increased, the quality of programmers has decreased
Spend a good few years getting real good at math. Then, you program applications that take advantage of statistics for various games, such as black jack. The house makes money because the probability is in their favor, when that favorable probability goes away to someone who manipulates the game, they usually ban them from playing. I remember stories of people making millions in vegas at blackjack tables. Such people can really screw up a casino's profits.
Now, if we compress that into a bot (which probably can be done) and do it online...
As far as casino's go. I hate gambling, the only time I gamble is everyonceinabluemoon kind of gambling where sometimes I'v got a roll of bad or good things happening and I try a lottery ticket. Card games are dumb unless you like screwing around with statistics and probability, which I find tedious unless it's toying around with something that isn't trying to manipulate you like a computer.
The idea of saying you "could" win and blowing $500 is like saying you "could" get nailed by some lightning or pasted to the ground by a meteorite. To me, it's a big waste of time, I'd rather be playing T2 or some other random game. At least then I'm not loosing money, and I can build up some skill. If probability is against you, and the stakes are high and unnecissary, don't do it.
And you missed the part where sierra renegotiated with valve and valve got the ability to distribute online. Sierra's saying they were misled, that valve downplayed steam. Sierra didn't realize at the time they were selling away their publishing rights.
Valve: We're going to eventually cut you guys outta the picture and begin distributing the game via the internet and our own in-house publishing solution instead of signing our games away to you forever.
Sierra: Oh no you don't...
I hope valve wins, it'd be nice to see these large game publishers dissapear.
Of course, I doubt Mr binladen would expect the thing booby trapped, so when he opens it, there's a large explosion in a cave network somewhere in afganistan.
Once companies begin changing the bids to lower costs slightly (we've got 20 people bidding, looks like it's stopped at 13.50, lets see if we could impersonate someone and, say, make that 13.45...).
Secondly, companies will engauge in price fixing. "We see these jobs being payed for at 13 an hour, lets all start our bids at 12 an hour".
Finally, and most importantly, they won't be honest. They won't put up ther max they'll pay, but lower.
But, my friend, there is 1 or 2 major investors in every company (a million americans own 80% of america's stock exchange), and they are the ones who bind a corporation to, by law, make profit no matter what. They don't care how it's made, so long as it's made.
As for making a lot of money, I don't see it as a bad thing to make a lot of money. I see it as a bad thing to have too much money, or to make too much money. If you made a million in a year, that's ok. If you make 10 billion a month, that's bad. Billionairs are the worlds new dictators. Remember, money is the means by which man enslaves his brother, and thus, is synonymous with power.
When organizations, or people, become too powerful with bad morals, society fall apart.
Yes, publishers do support artists. But, is it right for the RIAA to take a small band, invest 4 or 5 million in them and then take most of the profits, which mostly stem from from their work? I think not. There's a difference between "supporting artists" and "slave waging" artists.
Re:Files they've just taken and not bought or dele
on
The File Sharing Report
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Something I feel a lot of people have forgotten is that, before copyright, authors wrote books and songs, poems and music and never got paid. Then, the printing press came along, as did publishers. Copyright came into being to help out authors, and publishers faught that, but then jested that they owned works (that were previously public, just not easily copyable).
Nowadays, I go onto Suprnova.org or shareaza, and I can find millions of different works, and I always wonder how many of them are still under copyright, of if this vast library of data will ever be opened up to everyone. Sure, it's illegal, but not necissarily immoral. Everyone seems to think corporations have a right to profit, but nobody ever wonders why corporations have an such an insatiable thirst for money that they'd work to digitally, or physically, enslave people.
Frankly, if mickey mouse wasn't still under copyright, as well as nearly every other single great american book, novel, movie, ect, I'd change my tune some. Companies have a stranglehold on information nowadays, one that the design of the internet is facilitating the destruction of. The MPAA and RIAA are about control, they are cults worshipping the false god of money. What is the best way to make money? Enslavement. If they were to innovate and change their business models and be constructive to society, would they then be worshipping money and making as much as they might be able to if something like the Induce act passed, or copyright was indeed extended forever?
I look on P2P apps, and I wonder what they'd be like without infinite copyright but a more logical system in place. Can any of you greedy idiots imagine that? Every single movie ever made, home video's, pictures, games. Bands from 50 years ago could become top hits today. Want to learn calculus? There are already over 20 titles on p2p apps, but there could be 100. Convert a schools book budget into the computer budget; every student gets a laptop (not even a new one, an older P2 with 386 megs of memory running win2k or linux).
Go down to the store, pick up a few feet of sheet metal and some superglue, fold the sheet metal and glue it onto the system. Alternativally, if you've got lots of smaller heatsinks left over from older applications you can make a really neat looking laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
Round and round the monkies go Gnashing and gnarling and making bad prose Their logic looping like an accident in code Time to go out and get the hose!
Oh yea, almost forgot, if you do industrial or punk, goto rantradio.com and bother cimmerian; he can get your music up on the internet radio.
Wanna make some money? Put together a decent album; jewel case, inserts, booklets, and some high quality burnables. Mabye give them something extra for buying the album like a really neat insert or poster. Put up a website, complete with online ordering for said product. Then, advertise. Do live performances, pay for newspaper space, get people to put your url in their slashdot sigs or put some high quality rips on p2p complete with filled out tags (with generic terms) so they know who made it and where to buy it.
;-)
You've gotta try a little harder than "I gave this to one kid on campus and he passed it around". Then again, who said musicians had business skills? You're not going to get lotsa money off of recording sales.
BTW, I understand, since used to play trombone and did write my own music, and I too don't have a lot of dough. But still guy, you've gotta try harder than that. If you're good, it's no problem to make a living so long as you do it right. "Acquire" some business books and do a little research.
Obeying a benevolent dictator is like sticking your head in an allegators mouth; you're completly at it's mercy, if it likes you, you're ok, if it hates you, then you're screwed. That just isn't the american way; americans, in my experience (I'v lived ever since I can remember) are roudy, loud, well mingled folk with plenty of room for nutty people. They prefer their rights are ensured with guns, and about 60% still harbor great distrust of therir government (especially the south).
And the reason our government is so screwed is because we have so many traitors in it accepting bribe money and favors for votes.
Can your "modern" country brag about the same things?
Why the hell would I want to waste my time bragging to a foreigner, much less anyone?
Yes and if you violate the warrenty, god won't give you another. Nuetering also removes warrenty.
1: Before copyright was here, there was no copyright; copyright was there to regulate publishers. Now, copyrights are signed over to publishers, who own more and more of our culture. Knowledge should be free, I will not live in that kind of tyrrany.
2: www.theafternow.com If you really want to understand the aformentioned point, listen to the tales of the afternow.
Now, the *really* funny part here, is that I actually really hate microsoft, and now I'm getting flamed for pointing that we're cogs in a side of the magic movie theatre from 1984 where we're shown a movie of the resistance members and we are to gnarl and gnash at them.
The funny part is that you are one of my flying linux zealot monkies! Huzzah!
Well, now that the execuitive branch has expanded to the point where the president is essentially king...I mean, how many departments does he have, and how many powers has congress delegated to those departments, especially after the patriot act?
Frankly, if people were more in-tune with this division of power thing, they'd realize that our population has grown something like 10 or 100 fold, while at the same time the federal government has grown to a massive size, and state and local governments have shrunk. How can we ensure that minorities rights are ensured, when majorities (or worse, minorities with power over majorities) exist with power over them?
So why should we have the right to vote for the president? Because then everyone will fallow around the bouncing ball and be distracted by television politics while their rights are dwindled away under execuitive orders, court judgements, and general corruption as they're turned into livestock.
TV exists to make money by serving advertisers, advertising serves to convince people into buying their stuff to make money, money is synonymous with power as you can use it to buy anything, therefore, Television is mind control.
If the artist wants their concert not to be recorded, then they have the right to have it on private property where they can say you can't bring a camera around. If you decide to do a concert out in the middle of nowhere, then guess what? I can record you, don't like it? Pick up your equipment and leave.
Congress passes a law, that law says something very specific or something very general, the judicial system reinterprets that into something else.
Who's in power?
An artist has the right to make money off of their artwork, but they do not, nor should, have the right to make as much money as possible; it is when those in power begin worshipping money, and thus, power itself, that they inflict slavery on others, corpolitical swine.
"My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?"
Gnarl and Gnash! Gnarl and Gnash! Burn down the windows and Redmond! Go my flying slashdot monkies! Kidnap Bill gates and smother him in tar and feathers, then tie bricks to his legs and throw him into the river to see if he's a witch!
Like What the hell do you want? Topical, to the point debate about Windows Vs [insert other corp, oss project, linux, ect here]? The best you'll get is "Microsoft is evil, we like the other project" or "both are evil, where's the linux project".
Commoner: Aye! Look, the Patent' system es Brooken! Patent's arre given uut like candy to chil'ren, and onleh those wit' moneh' can enferrce their pa'ent's or defend themselves from large mul'ehnationals.
Media, government, stupider people: Bah, that's hogwash! What do you know about economics? (translation: We don't want to think, we just want to fallow someone who does the thinking for us and refute you so you can't challenge him.)
Now, lets see what happens when a professor says something about it.
[insert important sounding title here]: Well, the patent system is broken, you see, patents are filed and given out like candy to children with no checking against older patents, and those with money are able to hire lawyers to enforce bad patents against companies, and vice versa.
Media, government, stupider people: Whoa, he's so totally right.
The only amazing thing here, is the level of utter stupidity on the behalf of lawmakers, people, Harvard, and the government judges in general. Like they couldn't have sat down for 10 minutes, looked at the law, and thought "hrm, now, what's wrong with this?", and then once seeing the problem, looked at, oh, I don't know, some large companies getting taken on by smaller guys for rediculous patents and winning? I'm not saying I'm smarter, I am wondering how someone couldn't figure out the relitivally obvious, however.
And *I'll* go out, throw up a 50 foot tall antenna in the back and begin broadcasting Rant TV.(www.ranttv.com) 24/7.
First, The idea of their plan is to stop people from putting out copies of TV shows on the internet by stopping people from copying and to force advertising down their throughts. However, they will fail horribly for a few reasons.
If you stop stupid people from copying off of the TV, they'll look for alternatives or if they can't find any, I don't think joe 6-pack is going to stay home or up beyond his bedtime to watch his favorite shows. You shoot yourself in your foot. The most it'll accomplish is eliminating things like Tivo, but those, according to current insane copyright law, were illegal to begin with.
Second, it won't stop copying; they can't adapt the tech as quickly as we can, no matter how aggressive they want to be. Direct TV has failed, Tivo failed, the RIAA/MPAA have failed, cable providers have failed, and thousands of others.
Third, alternatives still won't stop coming via the internet; ranttv will be better than ever (and hundreds of other stations no doubt), P2P filesharing systems will get far better, more processing power and bandwidth means more p2p goodness. Nothing short of radical legislation and unpopular, radical, and unconstitutional lockdown will stop this, and if that does happen then the hackers will be driven underground, and will begin doing some real damage to TV networks.
I think it would be more like, you write a cool webapp, and you throw it up on a server to do it's thing. I record every single little transaction it does. Not the same thing.
This is why we have LEGISLATION you moron. The courts ARE NOT there to correct the law, they are there to clearly say wheither or not the law is unconstitutional or clearly bad or not. They are NOT there to change the law through inerpretation. Sure, it isn't fair to the backstreet artist if someone records their show and sells it for $10 a copy, but it also isn't fair to us when their copyright of recordings of their show is forever.
Additionally, I dislike the idea of making bootlegging illegal. Perhaps making a profit off of selling copies of a concert performance can be illegal for a certain time period. However, if I bring a video camera to a concert to record the concert for future prosperity, I'm not supposed to be able to make copies of it? That's rediculous.
Unless you're a developer wanting to make a software package in 5 minutes using quick-e-make program maker. As processing speed has increased, the quality of programmers has decreased
The solution, then is flying cars!!!!!!
Waitasec, if we had flying cars, then how would police do their job?....
It'll be illegal before it hits the streets!
Spend a good few years getting real good at math. Then, you program applications that take advantage of statistics for various games, such as black jack. The house makes money because the probability is in their favor, when that favorable probability goes away to someone who manipulates the game, they usually ban them from playing. I remember stories of people making millions in vegas at blackjack tables. Such people can really screw up a casino's profits.
Now, if we compress that into a bot (which probably can be done) and do it online...
As far as casino's go. I hate gambling, the only time I gamble is everyonceinabluemoon kind of gambling where sometimes I'v got a roll of bad or good things happening and I try a lottery ticket. Card games are dumb unless you like screwing around with statistics and probability, which I find tedious unless it's toying around with something that isn't trying to manipulate you like a computer.
The idea of saying you "could" win and blowing $500 is like saying you "could" get nailed by some lightning or pasted to the ground by a meteorite. To me, it's a big waste of time, I'd rather be playing T2 or some other random game. At least then I'm not loosing money, and I can build up some skill. If probability is against you, and the stakes are high and unnecissary, don't do it.
And if the little battery on the device goes?
:x
And you missed the part where sierra renegotiated with valve and valve got the ability to distribute online. Sierra's saying they were misled, that valve downplayed steam. Sierra didn't realize at the time they were selling away their publishing rights.
But now, we have broadband en masse, press releases, demo's, and open beta's.
Valve: We're going to eventually cut you guys outta the picture and begin distributing the game via the internet and our own in-house publishing solution instead of signing our games away to you forever.
Sierra: Oh no you don't...
I hope valve wins, it'd be nice to see these large game publishers dissapear.
Of course, I doubt Mr binladen would expect the thing booby trapped, so when he opens it, there's a large explosion in a cave network somewhere in afganistan.
Once companies begin changing the bids to lower costs slightly (we've got 20 people bidding, looks like it's stopped at 13.50, lets see if we could impersonate someone and, say, make that 13.45...).
Secondly, companies will engauge in price fixing. "We see these jobs being payed for at 13 an hour, lets all start our bids at 12 an hour".
Finally, and most importantly, they won't be honest. They won't put up ther max they'll pay, but lower.
But, my friend, there is 1 or 2 major investors in every company (a million americans own 80% of america's stock exchange), and they are the ones who bind a corporation to, by law, make profit no matter what. They don't care how it's made, so long as it's made.
As for making a lot of money, I don't see it as a bad thing to make a lot of money. I see it as a bad thing to have too much money, or to make too much money. If you made a million in a year, that's ok. If you make 10 billion a month, that's bad. Billionairs are the worlds new dictators. Remember, money is the means by which man enslaves his brother, and thus, is synonymous with power. When organizations, or people, become too powerful with bad morals, society fall apart.
Yes, publishers do support artists. But, is it right for the RIAA to take a small band, invest 4 or 5 million in them and then take most of the profits, which mostly stem from from their work? I think not. There's a difference between "supporting artists" and "slave waging" artists.
Something I feel a lot of people have forgotten is that, before copyright, authors wrote books and songs, poems and music and never got paid. Then, the printing press came along, as did publishers. Copyright came into being to help out authors, and publishers faught that, but then jested that they owned works (that were previously public, just not easily copyable).
Nowadays, I go onto Suprnova.org or shareaza, and I can find millions of different works, and I always wonder how many of them are still under copyright, of if this vast library of data will ever be opened up to everyone. Sure, it's illegal, but not necissarily immoral. Everyone seems to think corporations have a right to profit, but nobody ever wonders why corporations have an such an insatiable thirst for money that they'd work to digitally, or physically, enslave people.
Frankly, if mickey mouse wasn't still under copyright, as well as nearly every other single great american book, novel, movie, ect, I'd change my tune some. Companies have a stranglehold on information nowadays, one that the design of the internet is facilitating the destruction of. The MPAA and RIAA are about control, they are cults worshipping the false god of money. What is the best way to make money? Enslavement. If they were to innovate and change their business models and be constructive to society, would they then be worshipping money and making as much as they might be able to if something like the Induce act passed, or copyright was indeed extended forever?
I look on P2P apps, and I wonder what they'd be like without infinite copyright but a more logical system in place. Can any of you greedy idiots imagine that? Every single movie ever made, home video's, pictures, games. Bands from 50 years ago could become top hits today. Want to learn calculus? There are already over 20 titles on p2p apps, but there could be 100. Convert a schools book budget into the computer budget; every student gets a laptop (not even a new one, an older P2 with 386 megs of memory running win2k or linux).
Go down to the store, pick up a few feet of sheet metal and some superglue, fold the sheet metal and glue it onto the system. Alternativally, if you've got lots of smaller heatsinks left over from older applications you can make a really neat looking laptop.