Yep, you're right about Metallica. I haven't bought any of their stuff since the Black Album, but not because of their position on Napster/File Trading (which didn't help get me buying their stuff again for sure). The only reason I brought Metallica up was to illustrate my music tastes versus the tastes that the RIAA member companies would want me to have.
Heh, I did much the same thing with the Black Album, and as a matter of taste didn't get into the newer stuff. When they took their stand with Napster, though, I threw away what I had of theirs. I don't want to be involved with them in any way.
OTOH, Some of their old shit was pretty good, so I'm kinda torn on the whole issue of cover tunes. I've got a band called Tigertailz (80s style hair band that failed because they came out in the 90s) doing Creeping Death with keyboards and shit that's pretty good. Megadeth doing Battery is pretty good. And, of course, Anthrax doing Phantom Lord is pretty good, too.:)
And since we're on the subject, I checked out your music. Good stuff. Soon, you'll be able to check out mine [tripod.com] as well...
Thank you! I'll bookmark your link and keep an eye on it. Um, those songs I've got recorded, you may have noticed that they're rough mixes. I've recently identified a serious bass problem with them and haven't yet recorded new tracks to correct it (have to remix the drums, re-record the guitar with a limiter). And there's more coming...:)
What would constitute "proof" for you? Would the stuff mentioned in this column [txtwriter.com], such as
The excerpt you provided is sufficient. It is *exactly* the kind of proof upon which the court case with the tobacco companies wasn't founded.:) It is also the kind of proof that wasn't proven until (as the excerpt states) 1998. The only information I've *ever* heard involved studies, and I don't trust studies involving cigarettes since they're usually embarked upon with the intention of creating more FUD about cigarettes.
Emperical (spelling?) proof had yet to be shown to me, and it has to be shown to me because I don't go looking (I don't care:) ).
No, they wouldn't necessarily be very close to a cure. Knowing the cause of a disease doesn't mean that it's easy to eliminate that cause.
I didn't say easy, I said very close. Very close is a relative thing. In my *very* limited experience, it seems that after the cause of a disease is found, it doesn't take long to either contain or eliminate it. AIDS is proof that it's not easy, even after you've picked out the guilty virus/bacteria.
Furthermore, there might not be a cause for some disease; there does not appear to be one single magic cause for cancer - it appears that various environmental causes can cause various cancers, as can various genetic problems.
In the case of cancer, it's particularly difficult to isolate since there are so many kinds of cancer. Of course, the different kinds of cancer seem to be illusory, since they are all (or so I've read) nothing more than human cells growing out of control. (In fact, if your proof didn't fit in with my limited knowledge, I would've rejected it out-of-hand, without doing further research. It's just not one of my interests)
The point of my original post was actually nothing really about existing proof. Mind you, the labels were affixed to cigarettes long LONG before the proof that you have offered to me. Furthermore, I was referring to the Canadian graphic labels, some of which show a number of instances in which it is still debated among scientists whether or not there's any significant risk (second-hand smoke being one of them). Smoking during pregancy is one that I've seen that indicates one thing, but not the other. Basically, a doctor told me while my wife was pregnant that nicotine and the other stuff don't crossover to the baby, but that the reason smoking while pregnant is unhealthy for the baby is because of the way it interferes with the mother's metabolism. I've known quite a few mothers who smoked and gave birth to healthy kids, and I've *never* met a woman who smoked and gave birth to a dead kid (or miscarried, or whatever). However, I have also not known a good statistical sampling of smoking mothers.:)
In some of my other posts about smoking (since this is a common comparison in this forum, for some reason) I have commented that it's stupid to smoke a cigarette, cough your guts out, and conclude that they are healthy. I never *ever* said that smoking is healthy or not dangerous, nor have I attempted to say that it doesn't actually cause the problems people say they cause. I only tried to point out that people have such an adverse opinion about smoking that they believe every so-called study that says something bad about smoking and disbelieve every study that says something good about it. Worse yet, studies are embarked upon for no better reason than to make a big deal out of smoking being unhealthy. Well, guess what? I don't give a shit.:) Show me real proof (as you have) and I'm willing to believe it (especially since I'm not a scientist and I'm not researching it myself). Show me another study, and I don't give a shit. That's all.:)
My point was that he balanced the budget, and the Republicans keep throwing the budget out of balance. It's hard to compare, though, since Clinton is the exception. Otherwise, there's been a republican in office for a LONG TIME now.
Decreasing spending != balancing the budget
Increasing spending and lowering taxes is a sure way to unbalance the budget.
NOrmally, dude, I'm with you. But I have to disagree with this:
I'm a metal/industrial fan. I like Pantera, Biohazard, Megadeth, Metallica, KMFDM/MDFMK, Nine Inch Nails, etc. Yet those aren't marketed by the RIAA member companies.
Metallica, specifically (I don't recall Megadeth taking a stand) took a stand about Napster. At least, Lars Ulrich did. Metallica is a band whose rise to fame is due in LARGE PART to the fact that they encouraged people to copy their stuff and pass it around, going to such lengths as to set aside places in front of the stage for people to record the show. They encouraged bootlegging and promised never to prosecute people who bootleg Metallica music. They promised their fans (in the early days, anyway, all the way up to, and including,...ANd Justice For All) that they would always support this sort of stuff.
Then they come out against Napster in the ultimate confirmation of their hypocrisy. Metallica has been bought and is no longer the band they once were. To put it simply, *we* paid them and supported them and helped them rise to the top of the metal pile, and in return for our hard work, dedication, and (yes, unfortunately) love, they stuck a knife in our collective back.
If you support Metallica, you are supporting one of the RIAA's spokesgroups, and thus helping to bring the tyranny forward. Fuck Metallica, Fuck 'Em All.
My Sony DVD player will play VCDs on CD-Rs but not Music CD-Rs.
My Sony PS2 will play Music CD-Rs but not VCDs on CD-Rs.
Furthermore, although the hardware is cabable, it will not play import games or copies of games.
If it says "Compact Disc" on the hardware then it damn well better play "Compact Discs"
Simple. A VCD is NOT a CD, or a CD-R. CD-R is a misnomer, but I don't really know what the correct technical term for Compact Disc is, however "Compact Disk" means a disk complying with the Red Book format, and contains music. Video Compact Disc means a disk containing a certain type of filesystem storing video content that consists of a multiplexed MPG and some other stuff.
DVD is also NOT a COmpact Disc, rather it's a disc that contains Digital Video, also complying to a certain format.
Therefore, if your DVD player says it'll play VCDs, then it *must* play them. However, it doesn't mean it'll play them when stored on CD-Rs, it means it'll play them only on discs that comply to the VCD standard (of some version, there are a couple of versions of the standard). A CD-R almost certainly does *not* comply to the standard.
Some older CD players don't play CD-Rs because of the color of the laser and the color of the disc. This happens for purely technical reasons and is not an attempt to oppress you. But you should take steps to learn exactly what is what here, rather than claiming that their hardware will work with other hardware that doesn't comply to the standards they are claiming that the stuff works with.
However.. I'm disappointed at only half of the population voting. It's one thing if they don't care. However, they have no right to criticize any official that they could not have voted for, but instead they didn't vote at all. That's what really annoys me.
The numbers don't reflect those who chose not to vote and make that conscious choice. I will vote, one of these days, if a candidate ever surfaces that warrants my vote. I will *not* vote for a loser (and I'm not talking about someone who's not likely to win the election, I'm talking about someone who won't represent me), and when a candidate runs that can convince me he will represent me, then I will vote for him. I cast my vote by chosing not to vote.
Furthermore, I know quite a few people who feel as I do. We'd prefer to take up arms against our government then vote for a loser.
I realize that the high number of people voting is not comprised of people like me, but it is a failure of reasoning to assume that people who don't vote don't care. We just prefer not to settle with bullshit, as the people who use this reasoning expect us to do.
These should be modeled after Canada's cigarette warning labels [hc-sc.gc.ca], which show graphic images of the effects of cigarettes.
Too bad those labels are based on popular FUD.:) I'm not about to start saying cigarettes are healthy (they're obviously not, with or without a stupid warning label), but many of the links between cigarettes and diseases are just that: links. Yet to be proven. For example: how can scientists say that they don't know what causes cancer and then turn around and say cigarettes cause lung cancer? This is contradictory. IF they really knew what causes cancer, they'd be very close to a cure.
People smoke, people don't smoke. All people, regardless of what the surgeon general says, die.
If I remember, one of the first music albums to sport an explicit lyrics label was by Frank Zappa. It was an instrumental album... meaning no words. Given the state and quality of current copy protection methods, I find that history has a way of repeating itself.
What are you talkin' about? Frank Zappa taught me how to make my guitar say "Fuck me, you ugly son of a bitch."
On a more serious note, there's no comparison between the labels. One label was forced in an attempt to allow parents to provide censorship for their kids, since the people pushing the label failed to bring fascism about. The other label just informs consumers that the technology may not work with their technology.:)
The difference in implementation is important, too. I've seen a few albums that didn't have any swearing or shit on it, but carried the label, because it's a well-known fact that records with the Explicit Lyrics sticker sell better than ones without it.:) I know I don't buy anything that doesn't have one on it....
Tobacco companies had lables that would be right up their ally here. cigarettes have to warn smokers about the bad side effects of their product and use.
No, no, no. There's absolutely no comparison. As I've posted previously, if you really couldn't figure out that inhaling smoke is dangerous, then you're STUPID. With or without the labels, people light up and have EVERY REASON TO THINK that it's going to kill them. The fact that they make a conscious effort, even WITH the labels, to avoid thinking about their own mortality as a result of their own actions demonstrates that people know and don't care. It doesn't prove that they always knew, but shit! How many houses have to get burned down damaging lungs and what-have-you before people get a grip? Fire and smoke are DANGEROUS. What kind of idiot could actually light a cigarette, smoke it, cough his FUCKING GUTS out, and say "It's perfectly safe!"???
The reason there's no comparison is because when you buy a CD, you have every reason to expect it to behave like other CDs you have bought. There is a standard that dictates how it will behave because the standard dictates how it is formatted. You get gipped if you buy a CD intending to play in your computer (I don't have a regular CD player anymore, I use my computer for my home stereo) and you expect it to play like an ordinary CD, but it doesn't because some record-label executive decided you were a PIRATE for using a computer to listen to CDs (nevermind the fact that I've got $500 worth of equipment doing the jobs of $1500 worth of equipment, by using a computer). Then you have been totally ripped off because you had EVERY REASON to believe that it would work! The label tells you that it "might not work after all" and gives you a chance to steer clear.
Inapplicable comparision. Cigarettes are highly addictive both physically and psychologically, and damn near everybody who is now smoking is smoking despite the knowlege that it is incredibly bad for them. Many of them rationalize the issue away, or build a defense through denial, but on one level or another they are aware of this, and the addiction overpowers that knowlege.
Furthermore, (as a smoker I say this:) ), I fail to see how people would smoke for a few years and start coughing up mucous and shit all the time without ever thinking "Gee, maybe this isn't healthy for me." If common sense were really as common as people say it is, people don't need to be told that inhaling smoke into their lungs (which can KILL QUICKLY in a burning house) is unhealthy.
I say that those who claim that they didn't know cigarettes were dangerous are STUPID. Anybody want to disagree with this?;)
to get the average consumer to understand what is going on here. Once enough people realise what is being done to prevent us from making fair use of the content that we have paid for we might get some balance back. I suspect most people who have problems with a copy protected CD on their PC will blame the hardware and Microsoft first. So this is a great idea!
The flip side is this:
The record companies that are chickenshit about file sharing will use copy protection (generalization for the sake of making my point).
Consumers will either know already (as we do) or will learn through experience not to buy the CDs labeled with copy protection.
Less CDs will be sold with copy protection than without.
Record companies claim record losses and point to the fact that non-copy-protected CDs sell more than copy-protected CDs, and that the *only* people who buy CDs without copy protection are pirates.
What happens next? Beats me.:) Further predictions will likely be biased by the level of paranoia in the predicter.:)
This legislation is a good idea... but it still doesn't address the issue of copy-protection or my ability to make a backup copy of something I purchase.
This is all the addressing that is needed. Smart consumers, like you or I, will just buy the ones that don't carry this label. Dumb consumers will buy them still, and when they notice that the ones with this label give them trouble while the ones without this label don't give them trouble, they'll start gravitating towards the ones without the label.
The label will affect sales just as much as the explicit lyrics labels affected sales, but in the opposite way. People will actually be driven away from the CDs that are labeled, which is the opposite of what happened with explicit lyrics stickers (I was among the kids that used those stickers as a way of determining which records were most likely to piss off my parents, and bought them).
It also fully addresses the issue because you will have a choice at the critical moment - the sale - whether or not to buy it because it is protected.
Let it be known that you do not have a *right* to the music to be delivered how you want it. Fair use says you can put it on different media to satisfy your needs, but you don't get to choose how it's delivered to you. You only get to choose whether or not to buy it. Copy-protection disclosure gives you the ability to make that choice.
How about cutting expenses to lower the deficit? Has anyone ever thought about that option?
Didn't Clinton, a Democrat, do exactly that? Then this here fucking Republican comes in and says "Tax cut, more deficit, more spending, don't worry, we don't know how to do addition and subtraction since we were publically educated by the schools we set up. Oh yeah, and while wars are expensive, my goal is to win at least 3 before I'm kicked out of office."
It's like the conspicuous flags. If your car sports more than five American flags, I can almost guarantee you couldn't name a single item on the bill of rights. Except maybe the second.
5 or more, eh? My experience shows that 1 flag usually indicates ignorance. But since 1 flag could be a whim, it's safer to use 2 flags since that's less likely to be a whim.
In my experience, also, "constitutional rights" has become a buzzword that actual means "I don't want to be responsible for myself, so I will claim that what I want to do is a constitutional right, although I've never read any part of the constitution since I can't read anyway. Then, when I am held responsible for what I've done, I'll fight back over my constitutional rights."
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, give up one, lose the other automatically.
On that note, I think that his secret source of information is CURE, but the President is fucking up big by not sending Sinanju [slashdot.org] after him.
What's more, the First Gulf War wasn't ended with a peace treaty, it was ended with a cease fire. Which means if either side were to violate the terms of the cease fire, the war starts up again. Since the President has determined that Iraq violated the terms of the agreement, bingo!, the war is hot. No declaration is needed, since this isn't a new war.
All agreeable, in fact I have to cede the point that the first one ended in a cease fire because I don't know and don't feel the need to confirm it.:)
The place where it gets muddy isn't whether or not there is legal precedent for war right now, nor is it how long Bush can keep up the fighting (although your point does defeat my statement that Bush can't keep us over there for long). The place it gets muddy is whether or not we could have achieved the disarming of Iraq without war. I say war was inevitable, but I would've preferred holding out a bit longer for the sake of thoroughness. Others say a diplomatic solution could have been reached.
*sigh* For all that can be said, Bush did take quite a bit of initiative and use up quite a bit of balls in going in anyway. I find that an admirable act, even if I think that more thoroughness was called for.
I'd like to point out that we, as regular average everyday folk, do NOT have access to the same kinds of information the President has. He didn't start this war and thus endanger the rest of his political career and possibly his own life on a whim. He was well-informed, and well-informed in such a way that if he told us *what* he knew, it might have revealed *how* he knew it, and we can't compromise our intelligence sources.
On that note, I think that his secret source of information is CURE, but the President is fucking up big by not sending Sinanju after him.
Why would you want to do that? Don't you understand that this connection would be much, much faster than your current modem? It would be at least 24 times faster, with the potential of being up to 57 times faster. Especially during off-peak hours like Thursday at 8pm.
That would make me 24 times the pirate I am today, with the potential to be up to 57 times the pirate I am today. Then they would use that peculiar method of reasoning to assign me a sentence that would require 24 lifetimes to serve, with the potential of requiring up to 57 lifetimes to serve.
Sorry, just a bit sick of people on both sides arguing only to win the argument, would be nice if they would actually listen to each other for a change..
It's alright. In another one of my posts your reasons for the reaction would've been totally justified. I've been trolling all night as a result of insomnia.
For me, though, it's not typical trolling. I'm arguing both sides here and there not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of understanding. My feelings are very mixed on the matter. I simply think that we need to topple Hussein. I also simply think that this strike is a little too pre-emptive. But it's not that clear cut a case, so as I usually do when trying to understand a multi-faceted issue, I'm going around arguing all the different sides to see what I come up with.
Seems a lot of people just ignore things they don't have good answers for..:)
I did ignore the rest of your post because I didn't have good answers for it.:) Of course, I didn't actually address any of the meaningful part of your post either....
I am getting a bit sick of people thinking that we owe France for our freedom, which is the point I *did* address in your post. There's 200 years of history being ignored by the statement during which many old alliances were broken, reformed, broken with war, etc. Those 200 years are also the years that led this country to where it is today, and a close examination of those years turns up some amazing things. Mass destruction of American citizens by the American army (aka the Civil War, the Indian Wars, etc). Religious and cultural persecution, attempted genocide (the Indian Wars). I'm too tired to list anything from the last century, sorry. You can probably dig up some history to show my point, provided I made my point clear enough, if I even have a point.
Firsty I assume you did know that Iraq is secular rather than islamic.
A good assumption, since every 3rd or 4th post around here is a post saying that "Iraq is secular".
Secondly, there are protestors in Iraq, 100 or so of them that are perfectly alive.
Haven't heard about that, but when I go looking for news I'm looking for explosions, because explosions are cool.;)
Sure saddam is an asshole, but hes not the bogeyman.
Of course he's not the bogeyman, the bogeyman is a fictional character invented to scare kids.
Dispite how much the Iraqi people dislike him, on the whole it would seem most would prefer not to be "freed" by bombs.
Completely and utterly false, as a generalization. When people commit to freeing themselves, the phrase "by any means necessary" typically comes up. In this day and age, any means necessary can very well include bombs, getting the US to come free you, and so forth. When it's time to fight for freedom, you go for broke hoping to win, or you lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, you're right about Metallica. I haven't bought any of their stuff since the Black Album, but not because of their position on Napster/File Trading (which didn't help get me buying their stuff again for sure). The only reason I brought Metallica up was to illustrate my music tastes versus the tastes that the RIAA member companies would want me to have.
Heh, I did much the same thing with the Black Album, and as a matter of taste didn't get into the newer stuff. When they took their stand with Napster, though, I threw away what I had of theirs. I don't want to be involved with them in any way.
OTOH, Some of their old shit was pretty good, so I'm kinda torn on the whole issue of cover tunes. I've got a band called Tigertailz (80s style hair band that failed because they came out in the 90s) doing Creeping Death with keyboards and shit that's pretty good. Megadeth doing Battery is pretty good. And, of course, Anthrax doing Phantom Lord is pretty good, too. :)
And since we're on the subject, I checked out your music. Good stuff. Soon, you'll be able to check out mine [tripod.com] as well...
Thank you! I'll bookmark your link and keep an eye on it. Um, those songs I've got recorded, you may have noticed that they're rough mixes. I've recently identified a serious bass problem with them and haven't yet recorded new tracks to correct it (have to remix the drums, re-record the guitar with a limiter). And there's more coming... :)
What would constitute "proof" for you? Would the stuff mentioned in this column [txtwriter.com], such as
The excerpt you provided is sufficient. It is *exactly* the kind of proof upon which the court case with the tobacco companies wasn't founded. :) It is also the kind of proof that wasn't proven until (as the excerpt states) 1998. The only information I've *ever* heard involved studies, and I don't trust studies involving cigarettes since they're usually embarked upon with the intention of creating more FUD about cigarettes.
Emperical (spelling?) proof had yet to be shown to me, and it has to be shown to me because I don't go looking (I don't care :) ).
No, they wouldn't necessarily be very close to a cure. Knowing the cause of a disease doesn't mean that it's easy to eliminate that cause.
I didn't say easy, I said very close. Very close is a relative thing. In my *very* limited experience, it seems that after the cause of a disease is found, it doesn't take long to either contain or eliminate it. AIDS is proof that it's not easy, even after you've picked out the guilty virus/bacteria.
Furthermore, there might not be a cause for some disease; there does not appear to be one single magic cause for cancer - it appears that various environmental causes can cause various cancers, as can various genetic problems.
In the case of cancer, it's particularly difficult to isolate since there are so many kinds of cancer. Of course, the different kinds of cancer seem to be illusory, since they are all (or so I've read) nothing more than human cells growing out of control. (In fact, if your proof didn't fit in with my limited knowledge, I would've rejected it out-of-hand, without doing further research. It's just not one of my interests)
The point of my original post was actually nothing really about existing proof. Mind you, the labels were affixed to cigarettes long LONG before the proof that you have offered to me. Furthermore, I was referring to the Canadian graphic labels, some of which show a number of instances in which it is still debated among scientists whether or not there's any significant risk (second-hand smoke being one of them). Smoking during pregancy is one that I've seen that indicates one thing, but not the other. Basically, a doctor told me while my wife was pregnant that nicotine and the other stuff don't crossover to the baby, but that the reason smoking while pregnant is unhealthy for the baby is because of the way it interferes with the mother's metabolism. I've known quite a few mothers who smoked and gave birth to healthy kids, and I've *never* met a woman who smoked and gave birth to a dead kid (or miscarried, or whatever). However, I have also not known a good statistical sampling of smoking mothers. :)
In some of my other posts about smoking (since this is a common comparison in this forum, for some reason) I have commented that it's stupid to smoke a cigarette, cough your guts out, and conclude that they are healthy. I never *ever* said that smoking is healthy or not dangerous, nor have I attempted to say that it doesn't actually cause the problems people say they cause. I only tried to point out that people have such an adverse opinion about smoking that they believe every so-called study that says something bad about smoking and disbelieve every study that says something good about it. Worse yet, studies are embarked upon for no better reason than to make a big deal out of smoking being unhealthy. Well, guess what? I don't give a shit. :) Show me real proof (as you have) and I'm willing to believe it (especially since I'm not a scientist and I'm not researching it myself). Show me another study, and I don't give a shit. That's all. :)
My point was that he balanced the budget, and the Republicans keep throwing the budget out of balance. It's hard to compare, though, since Clinton is the exception. Otherwise, there's been a republican in office for a LONG TIME now.
Decreasing spending != balancing the budget
Increasing spending and lowering taxes is a sure way to unbalance the budget.
NOrmally, dude, I'm with you. But I have to disagree with this:
I'm a metal/industrial fan. I like Pantera, Biohazard, Megadeth, Metallica, KMFDM/MDFMK, Nine Inch Nails, etc. Yet those aren't marketed by the RIAA member companies.
Metallica, specifically (I don't recall Megadeth taking a stand) took a stand about Napster. At least, Lars Ulrich did. Metallica is a band whose rise to fame is due in LARGE PART to the fact that they encouraged people to copy their stuff and pass it around, going to such lengths as to set aside places in front of the stage for people to record the show. They encouraged bootlegging and promised never to prosecute people who bootleg Metallica music. They promised their fans (in the early days, anyway, all the way up to, and including, ...ANd Justice For All) that they would always support this sort of stuff.
Then they come out against Napster in the ultimate confirmation of their hypocrisy. Metallica has been bought and is no longer the band they once were. To put it simply, *we* paid them and supported them and helped them rise to the top of the metal pile, and in return for our hard work, dedication, and (yes, unfortunately) love, they stuck a knife in our collective back.
If you support Metallica, you are supporting one of the RIAA's spokesgroups, and thus helping to bring the tyranny forward. Fuck Metallica, Fuck 'Em All.
You would think the words "Celine Dion" would be enough of a warning not to buy the CD.
Hell, the fact that you hear them on the radio and a major record store carries their first album when it's new is plenty of warning not to buy it.
Excuse my bad formatting of your post.
My Sony DVD player will play VCDs on CD-Rs but not Music CD-Rs. My Sony PS2 will play Music CD-Rs but not VCDs on CD-Rs. Furthermore, although the hardware is cabable, it will not play import games or copies of games. If it says "Compact Disc" on the hardware then it damn well better play "Compact Discs"
Simple. A VCD is NOT a CD, or a CD-R. CD-R is a misnomer, but I don't really know what the correct technical term for Compact Disc is, however "Compact Disk" means a disk complying with the Red Book format, and contains music. Video Compact Disc means a disk containing a certain type of filesystem storing video content that consists of a multiplexed MPG and some other stuff.
DVD is also NOT a COmpact Disc, rather it's a disc that contains Digital Video, also complying to a certain format.
Therefore, if your DVD player says it'll play VCDs, then it *must* play them. However, it doesn't mean it'll play them when stored on CD-Rs, it means it'll play them only on discs that comply to the VCD standard (of some version, there are a couple of versions of the standard). A CD-R almost certainly does *not* comply to the standard.
Some older CD players don't play CD-Rs because of the color of the laser and the color of the disc. This happens for purely technical reasons and is not an attempt to oppress you. But you should take steps to learn exactly what is what here, rather than claiming that their hardware will work with other hardware that doesn't comply to the standards they are claiming that the stuff works with.
What would the ANTI-FAIR-USE logo look like?
Just the acronym "AFU", which also means:
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, America fucks YOU!
However.. I'm disappointed at only half of the population voting. It's one thing if they don't care. However, they have no right to criticize any official that they could not have voted for, but instead they didn't vote at all. That's what really annoys me.
The numbers don't reflect those who chose not to vote and make that conscious choice. I will vote, one of these days, if a candidate ever surfaces that warrants my vote. I will *not* vote for a loser (and I'm not talking about someone who's not likely to win the election, I'm talking about someone who won't represent me), and when a candidate runs that can convince me he will represent me, then I will vote for him. I cast my vote by chosing not to vote.
Furthermore, I know quite a few people who feel as I do. We'd prefer to take up arms against our government then vote for a loser.
I realize that the high number of people voting is not comprised of people like me, but it is a failure of reasoning to assume that people who don't vote don't care. We just prefer not to settle with bullshit, as the people who use this reasoning expect us to do.
These should be modeled after Canada's cigarette warning labels [hc-sc.gc.ca], which show graphic images of the effects of cigarettes.
Too bad those labels are based on popular FUD. :) I'm not about to start saying cigarettes are healthy (they're obviously not, with or without a stupid warning label), but many of the links between cigarettes and diseases are just that: links. Yet to be proven. For example: how can scientists say that they don't know what causes cancer and then turn around and say cigarettes cause lung cancer? This is contradictory. IF they really knew what causes cancer, they'd be very close to a cure.
People smoke, people don't smoke. All people, regardless of what the surgeon general says, die.
If I remember, one of the first music albums to sport an explicit lyrics label was by Frank Zappa. It was an instrumental album... meaning no words. Given the state and quality of current copy protection methods, I find that history has a way of repeating itself.
What are you talkin' about? Frank Zappa taught me how to make my guitar say "Fuck me, you ugly son of a bitch."
On a more serious note, there's no comparison between the labels. One label was forced in an attempt to allow parents to provide censorship for their kids, since the people pushing the label failed to bring fascism about. The other label just informs consumers that the technology may not work with their technology. :)
The difference in implementation is important, too. I've seen a few albums that didn't have any swearing or shit on it, but carried the label, because it's a well-known fact that records with the Explicit Lyrics sticker sell better than ones without it. :) I know I don't buy anything that doesn't have one on it....
Tobacco companies had lables that would be right up their ally here. cigarettes have to warn smokers about the bad side effects of their product and use.
No, no, no. There's absolutely no comparison. As I've posted previously, if you really couldn't figure out that inhaling smoke is dangerous, then you're STUPID. With or without the labels, people light up and have EVERY REASON TO THINK that it's going to kill them. The fact that they make a conscious effort, even WITH the labels, to avoid thinking about their own mortality as a result of their own actions demonstrates that people know and don't care. It doesn't prove that they always knew, but shit! How many houses have to get burned down damaging lungs and what-have-you before people get a grip? Fire and smoke are DANGEROUS. What kind of idiot could actually light a cigarette, smoke it, cough his FUCKING GUTS out, and say "It's perfectly safe!"???
The reason there's no comparison is because when you buy a CD, you have every reason to expect it to behave like other CDs you have bought. There is a standard that dictates how it will behave because the standard dictates how it is formatted. You get gipped if you buy a CD intending to play in your computer (I don't have a regular CD player anymore, I use my computer for my home stereo) and you expect it to play like an ordinary CD, but it doesn't because some record-label executive decided you were a PIRATE for using a computer to listen to CDs (nevermind the fact that I've got $500 worth of equipment doing the jobs of $1500 worth of equipment, by using a computer). Then you have been totally ripped off because you had EVERY REASON to believe that it would work! The label tells you that it "might not work after all" and gives you a chance to steer clear.
There's no comparison here.
Inapplicable comparision. Cigarettes are highly addictive both physically and psychologically, and damn near everybody who is now smoking is smoking despite the knowlege that it is incredibly bad for them. Many of them rationalize the issue away, or build a defense through denial, but on one level or another they are aware of this, and the addiction overpowers that knowlege.
Furthermore, (as a smoker I say this :) ), I fail to see how people would smoke for a few years and start coughing up mucous and shit all the time without ever thinking "Gee, maybe this isn't healthy for me." If common sense were really as common as people say it is, people don't need to be told that inhaling smoke into their lungs (which can KILL QUICKLY in a burning house) is unhealthy.
I say that those who claim that they didn't know cigarettes were dangerous are STUPID. Anybody want to disagree with this? ;)
to get the average consumer to understand what is going on here. Once enough people realise what is being done to prevent us from making fair use of the content that we have paid for we might get some balance back. I suspect most people who have problems with a copy protected CD on their PC will blame the hardware and Microsoft first. So this is a great idea!
The flip side is this:
The record companies that are chickenshit about file sharing will use copy protection (generalization for the sake of making my point).
Consumers will either know already (as we do) or will learn through experience not to buy the CDs labeled with copy protection.
Less CDs will be sold with copy protection than without.
Record companies claim record losses and point to the fact that non-copy-protected CDs sell more than copy-protected CDs, and that the *only* people who buy CDs without copy protection are pirates.
What happens next? Beats me. :) Further predictions will likely be biased by the level of paranoia in the predicter. :)
a well-written troll... SOMEBODY went to high school! ;)
He probly dropped out and learned to read and write on his own, since schools don't teach that stuff anymore.
This legislation is a good idea ... but it still doesn't address the issue of copy-protection or my ability to make a backup copy of something I purchase.
This is all the addressing that is needed. Smart consumers, like you or I, will just buy the ones that don't carry this label. Dumb consumers will buy them still, and when they notice that the ones with this label give them trouble while the ones without this label don't give them trouble, they'll start gravitating towards the ones without the label.
The label will affect sales just as much as the explicit lyrics labels affected sales, but in the opposite way. People will actually be driven away from the CDs that are labeled, which is the opposite of what happened with explicit lyrics stickers (I was among the kids that used those stickers as a way of determining which records were most likely to piss off my parents, and bought them).
It also fully addresses the issue because you will have a choice at the critical moment - the sale - whether or not to buy it because it is protected.
Let it be known that you do not have a *right* to the music to be delivered how you want it. Fair use says you can put it on different media to satisfy your needs, but you don't get to choose how it's delivered to you. You only get to choose whether or not to buy it. Copy-protection disclosure gives you the ability to make that choice.
How about cutting expenses to lower the deficit? Has anyone ever thought about that option?
Didn't Clinton, a Democrat, do exactly that? Then this here fucking Republican comes in and says "Tax cut, more deficit, more spending, don't worry, we don't know how to do addition and subtraction since we were publically educated by the schools we set up. Oh yeah, and while wars are expensive, my goal is to win at least 3 before I'm kicked out of office."
It's like the conspicuous flags. If your car sports more than five American flags, I can almost guarantee you couldn't name a single item on the bill of rights. Except maybe the second.
5 or more, eh? My experience shows that 1 flag usually indicates ignorance. But since 1 flag could be a whim, it's safer to use 2 flags since that's less likely to be a whim.
In my experience, also, "constitutional rights" has become a buzzword that actual means "I don't want to be responsible for myself, so I will claim that what I want to do is a constitutional right, although I've never read any part of the constitution since I can't read anyway. Then, when I am held responsible for what I've done, I'll fight back over my constitutional rights."
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, give up one, lose the other automatically.
On that note, I think that his secret source of information is CURE, but the President is fucking up big by not sending Sinanju [slashdot.org] after him.
I fucked up, here's the link:
Sinanju
What's more, the First Gulf War wasn't ended with a peace treaty, it was ended with a cease fire. Which means if either side were to violate the terms of the cease fire, the war starts up again. Since the President has determined that Iraq violated the terms of the agreement, bingo!, the war is hot. No declaration is needed, since this isn't a new war.
All agreeable, in fact I have to cede the point that the first one ended in a cease fire because I don't know and don't feel the need to confirm it. :)
The place where it gets muddy isn't whether or not there is legal precedent for war right now, nor is it how long Bush can keep up the fighting (although your point does defeat my statement that Bush can't keep us over there for long). The place it gets muddy is whether or not we could have achieved the disarming of Iraq without war. I say war was inevitable, but I would've preferred holding out a bit longer for the sake of thoroughness. Others say a diplomatic solution could have been reached.
*sigh* For all that can be said, Bush did take quite a bit of initiative and use up quite a bit of balls in going in anyway. I find that an admirable act, even if I think that more thoroughness was called for.
I'd like to point out that we, as regular average everyday folk, do NOT have access to the same kinds of information the President has. He didn't start this war and thus endanger the rest of his political career and possibly his own life on a whim. He was well-informed, and well-informed in such a way that if he told us *what* he knew, it might have revealed *how* he knew it, and we can't compromise our intelligence sources.
On that note, I think that his secret source of information is CURE, but the President is fucking up big by not sending Sinanju after him.
Why would you want to do that? Don't you understand that this connection would be much, much faster than your current modem? It would be at least 24 times faster, with the potential of being up to 57 times faster. Especially during off-peak hours like Thursday at 8pm.
That would make me 24 times the pirate I am today, with the potential to be up to 57 times the pirate I am today. Then they would use that peculiar method of reasoning to assign me a sentence that would require 24 lifetimes to serve, with the potential of requiring up to 57 lifetimes to serve.
Of course, I'm all for upping the stakes, here.
Mod me flamebait, why the fuck is that flamebait? I guess slashdot mods don't know that Kiss put the X in sex, eh?
Heh, well, the mods who modded me flamebait can just refer to my username. :)
So, are you actually saying that being reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving are bad things?
No, I'm saying that our country is none of these.
Sorry, just a bit sick of people on both sides arguing only to win the argument, would be nice if they would actually listen to each other for a change..
It's alright. In another one of my posts your reasons for the reaction would've been totally justified. I've been trolling all night as a result of insomnia.
For me, though, it's not typical trolling. I'm arguing both sides here and there not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of understanding. My feelings are very mixed on the matter. I simply think that we need to topple Hussein. I also simply think that this strike is a little too pre-emptive. But it's not that clear cut a case, so as I usually do when trying to understand a multi-faceted issue, I'm going around arguing all the different sides to see what I come up with.
Seems a lot of people just ignore things they don't have good answers for.. :)
I did ignore the rest of your post because I didn't have good answers for it. :) Of course, I didn't actually address any of the meaningful part of your post either....
I am getting a bit sick of people thinking that we owe France for our freedom, which is the point I *did* address in your post. There's 200 years of history being ignored by the statement during which many old alliances were broken, reformed, broken with war, etc. Those 200 years are also the years that led this country to where it is today, and a close examination of those years turns up some amazing things. Mass destruction of American citizens by the American army (aka the Civil War, the Indian Wars, etc). Religious and cultural persecution, attempted genocide (the Indian Wars). I'm too tired to list anything from the last century, sorry. You can probably dig up some history to show my point, provided I made my point clear enough, if I even have a point.
Good night. :)
Firsty I assume you did know that Iraq is secular rather than islamic.
A good assumption, since every 3rd or 4th post around here is a post saying that "Iraq is secular".
Secondly, there are protestors in Iraq, 100 or so of them that are perfectly alive.
Haven't heard about that, but when I go looking for news I'm looking for explosions, because explosions are cool. ;)
Sure saddam is an asshole, but hes not the bogeyman.
Of course he's not the bogeyman, the bogeyman is a fictional character invented to scare kids.
Dispite how much the Iraqi people dislike him, on the whole it would seem most would prefer not to be "freed" by bombs.
Completely and utterly false, as a generalization. When people commit to freeing themselves, the phrase "by any means necessary" typically comes up. In this day and age, any means necessary can very well include bombs, getting the US to come free you, and so forth. When it's time to fight for freedom, you go for broke hoping to win, or you lose.
In Soviet Russia, BUSH'S propaganda swallows YOU.