If someone enjoyed the previous movies, then seeing the sequels just because of the name is a perfect reason to see them. What else should you base your desire to see a movie on? Critic reviews? BS. Friend's word-of-mouth? Even more BS. Budget size? BS. Director, Producer, Studio? Wrong again. They all have their own hits and misses.
There is no better reason to see a movie than if you saw a first version and liked it, then of course you should see the next entries.
That would be like saying I liked this can of Chicken Noodle soup, but I'm going to wait and see what Julia Child thinks of this next can before I warm it up.
I'm not saying you have to automatically like the sequel, but it sure as hell is a good enough reason to see them.
I think you mean Diebold Integrated Exit Tracking, or DIET. It reduces and trims votes down to nothing! And literally by the end of the election, you'll have no votes left.
Testimonials -
DIET sure did for me what none of the other voting systems, either manual or electronic, had been able to do. It reduced my 31 votes to 0 votes in no time flat. Thanks, Diebold! - Ron Paul
This is a good catch, and should help solidify the concept that Fair Use is still a viable alternative to buying multiple copies of the same songs. However, I haven't heard yet where the RIAA is suing just because of cd ripping. The problem is in where you store that ripped version. If you store it in your shared folder where other users can download it appears to be the problem the RIAA has with those copies. I really wish we could have a definitive answer on this. It seems different courts view sharing and potential distribution separately. What are the real legal ramifications of just storing your music in a folder on your computer? Can't you store it anywhere you want? Every other day a different court makes a different decision on these types of issues. It is very frustrating.
No, it wasn't. It will just cost you more later, when they have your bank account number, routing number, username, and password, and they happen to accidentally hire Joe Schmoe Just Out of Jail who doesn't give a fuck about his job or anything else, and he drains your account.
Ok, so the author calls Prince a "forward-looking artist" because he gave an album away to promote his concert. I liked that Prince. I don't like the Prince that aggressively scours the internet looking for any instance of his song being used as background music on a personal video of a child dancing and playing, and then sending take-down notices for a 30 second soundbyte.
Prince, aka The Artist Formerly Known as a Forward-Looking Artist
Hey Prince. Let's Go Crazy! Oh, you are already there.
I agree with most everything you said. Except that part where your liberal bias was showing! Cover that up now and then...don't give away everything on the first date.
According to a CBC article, Rogers admits to modifying customers' HTTP data, but says they are merely "trying different things" and testing the customer response.
Oh, well, that's ok then, if you are only trying different...HEY! Wait a minute! You can't do that. Why, I oughta....
If they don't spend thousands if not millions of dollars implementing a prevent p2p defense they will end up losing at least that much in students who won't enroll because they can't aid if they attend that particular university.
Maybe you missed the recent article on slashdot that pointed out that most of the people who enjoy p2p file-sharing are the ones who are actually going out and buying music and DVD's. Your self-righteous attidude that those who file-share give "nothing" back has been proven false already. So, what is your next argument?
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process or DRM anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed or DRM'd, or buy anything sold or processed or DRM'd, or process anything sold, bought, or processed or DRM'd, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed or DRM'd. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.
My concern here is that she was found liable with absolutely no technical proof, other than what the RIAA presented, because she couldn't afford an expert witness.
When you get to the heart of the matter, if she is telling the truth that her hard drive was replaced two weeks after the alleged incident, by Best Buy, not by her own accord, then without that forensic piece of evidence, how can she be found innocent or guilty?
This should have been thrown out. I say this because if she is honest and there was never Kazaa software or other p2p software on her machine, doesn't that automatically make her innocent? How else do you illegally download music files without it? It's like an alibi. Although I think she is very foolish to have let the expert witness testimony go undocumented. I would have paid any amount to beat them. Of course, what was this expert going to say? That on her NEW harddrive, there was no sign of Kazaa? So what? My point again, without that harddrive, she has no defense, and the RIAA has no real proof.
It is my understanding that Ajax is really about bringing new/fresh data based on things like user-input without having to reload the page, thus making the web experience much faster and more user-friendly. So, it would seem to me that it doesn't necessarily mean the page(s) or site(s) can't be simple and useful regardless of whether or not they incorporate Ajax. Am I wrong on this analysis?
No, she did not clearly download these songs. Is it not possible she created a Kazaa account to look for and exchange LEGAL songs or media? And then that someone else with access to her computer used her account to download these 24 of some 1700 songs on her machine? I know it has happened at my house. They did not prove that it was her at the computer and that should be the only test of guilt or innocence in cases like these....who was sitting at the fucking computer when the songs were shared, distributed, or downloaded.
Parent's comments are right on. Why is it physically stealing something tangible, and taking away a definite sale the record label stood to make, is so much less important than a potential sale, the copying of a song, in this case about one album's worth, especially for no monetary gain? If we and Jammie Thompson aren't being strong-armed into submission by those with money and lawyers, no one ever has been or will be.
listening to a song more than once is basically stealing, unless you pay for it each time you listen to it.
The music industry fucked itself when they agreed to let radio stations play their music with no charge to the end-user. People expect music to be free because it has always been free. They can't change that now, at least not quickly.
No, you smell hypocrite burning...which is an important distinction. Hypocrites naturally smell like the Carrion Flower, which emits a kind of rotting flesh smell. Burning hypocrite smells sweet, like roses, or daisies, or some such shit that smells good.
Ok, but playing the devil's advocate...it appears in this case to be protecting the little guy against a big bully. Otherwise, how can thousands of individuals with little or no money for a trial even consider going all the way to the discovery phase? They will just settle and the RIAA wins everytime and makes money simply by implying that someone broke the law having no real evidence, yet, to prove it. And that brings us full circle to the problems we have now. Bullies vs. the little guys. They would ALWAYS win if not for judgments like this.
"Plaintiffs have presented no facts." This is exactly right, and can likely be far more broadly applied than just this case. I think the best argument most folks have is that it is very hard to tie an IP address to a specific user. And they think that just because they provide a screenshot with a list of songs on it that that is damning evidence. Hooray for this judge who has seen through the rhetoric.
this came up because I was wondering how to get rid of that annoying advertisement at the top of every slashdot article. Installed afore mentioned blocker, and wala. Thanks Zonk!
Based on the titles, if these aren't RIAA anthem songs, I don't know what would be. No wonder they want to get her!
Also...
A handful of defendants have managed to be exonerated, most notably Debbie Foster, Patricia Santangelo, and Tanya Andersen--who is now suing the RIAA for malicious prosecution. Why are all the women getting off? If Jammie Thomas wins, there's another one! I am pretty sure men are being discriminated against...or are only women actually fighting the RIAA?
Correct. I think that Mr. Patrick Ross, Executive Director of the Copyright Alliance read this article a few days ago and he had an epiphany...of the worst kind.
"I know, I'll get it out there that fair use is not a right, get lots of press on it, see? And then, before long, every average joe will just sort of internalize it and never question again that they can do what they want with other people's IP. Muwhahahahaha! It's so easy...why didn't I think of this sooner?"
So, what we need is a morphing database structure depending on need. While I am writing, I want it to be row-based. As soon as I am done and ready for reading, it should switch to a column-based structure. Who's up for starting a new project on sourceforge.net? The shape-shifting relational database! SSRD is the wave of the future!
Slashdot Mirror
Do tell how you decide which movies you want to see.
If someone enjoyed the previous movies, then seeing the sequels just because of the name is a perfect reason to see them. What else should you base your desire to see a movie on? Critic reviews? BS. Friend's word-of-mouth? Even more BS. Budget size? BS. Director, Producer, Studio? Wrong again. They all have their own hits and misses.
There is no better reason to see a movie than if you saw a first version and liked it, then of course you should see the next entries.
That would be like saying I liked this can of Chicken Noodle soup, but I'm going to wait and see what Julia Child thinks of this next can before I warm it up.
I'm not saying you have to automatically like the sequel, but it sure as hell is a good enough reason to see them.
I think you mean Diebold Integrated Exit Tracking, or DIET. It reduces and trims votes down to nothing! And literally by the end of the election, you'll have no votes left.
Testimonials -
DIET sure did for me what none of the other voting systems, either manual or electronic, had been able to do. It reduced my 31 votes to 0 votes in no time flat. Thanks, Diebold! - Ron Paul
This is a good catch, and should help solidify the concept that Fair Use is still a viable alternative to buying multiple copies of the same songs. However, I haven't heard yet where the RIAA is suing just because of cd ripping. The problem is in where you store that ripped version. If you store it in your shared folder where other users can download it appears to be the problem the RIAA has with those copies. I really wish we could have a definitive answer on this. It seems different courts view sharing and potential distribution separately. What are the real legal ramifications of just storing your music in a folder on your computer? Can't you store it anywhere you want? Every other day a different court makes a different decision on these types of issues. It is very frustrating.
No, it wasn't. It will just cost you more later, when they have your bank account number, routing number, username, and password, and they happen to accidentally hire Joe Schmoe Just Out of Jail who doesn't give a fuck about his job or anything else, and he drains your account.
Is that going too far?
Ok, so the author calls Prince a "forward-looking artist" because he gave an album away to promote his concert. I liked that Prince. I don't like the Prince that aggressively scours the internet looking for any instance of his song being used as background music on a personal video of a child dancing and playing, and then sending take-down notices for a 30 second soundbyte.
Prince, aka The Artist Formerly Known as a Forward-Looking Artist
Hey Prince. Let's Go Crazy! Oh, you are already there.
I agree with most everything you said. Except that part where your liberal bias was showing! Cover that up now and then...don't give away everything on the first date.
According to a CBC article, Rogers admits to modifying customers' HTTP data, but says they are merely "trying different things" and testing the customer response.
Oh, well, that's ok then, if you are only trying different...HEY! Wait a minute! You can't do that. Why, I oughta....
If they don't spend thousands if not millions of dollars implementing a prevent p2p defense they will end up losing at least that much in students who won't enroll because they can't aid if they attend that particular university.
Maybe you missed the recent article on slashdot that pointed out that most of the people who enjoy p2p file-sharing are the ones who are actually going out and buying music and DVD's. Your self-righteous attidude that those who file-share give "nothing" back has been proven false already. So, what is your next argument?
here is the L337 Speak version, courtesy of http://www.brenz.net/l337Maker.asp.
/\/\1|\|1573R: 7|-|3 /\/\07|-|3R j00R \/1517 1|\| 15R43L 15 4 5L33P 70 7|-|3 Ph4\/0R 0R 70 7|-|3 b3D j00R /\/\1|\|D 0|\| 7|-|3 (0|\|PhL1(7 r 15R43L1 p4L3571|\|14|\|
|-|3LL0|-| bUD, 3|\|(L053D Ph1\/3 0Ph 7|-|3 QU35710|\|5 1|\| |-|0|\|0R 0Ph 7|-|3 Ph0R319|\|
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process or DRM anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed or DRM'd, or buy anything sold or processed or DRM'd, or process anything sold, bought, or processed or DRM'd, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed or DRM'd. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.
My fault. You are correct. But, how does she share them on a p2p network and upload them without p2p software?
My concern here is that she was found liable with absolutely no technical proof, other than what the RIAA presented, because she couldn't afford an expert witness. When you get to the heart of the matter, if she is telling the truth that her hard drive was replaced two weeks after the alleged incident, by Best Buy, not by her own accord, then without that forensic piece of evidence, how can she be found innocent or guilty? This should have been thrown out. I say this because if she is honest and there was never Kazaa software or other p2p software on her machine, doesn't that automatically make her innocent? How else do you illegally download music files without it? It's like an alibi. Although I think she is very foolish to have let the expert witness testimony go undocumented. I would have paid any amount to beat them. Of course, what was this expert going to say? That on her NEW harddrive, there was no sign of Kazaa? So what? My point again, without that harddrive, she has no defense, and the RIAA has no real proof.
It is my understanding that Ajax is really about bringing new/fresh data based on things like user-input without having to reload the page, thus making the web experience much faster and more user-friendly. So, it would seem to me that it doesn't necessarily mean the page(s) or site(s) can't be simple and useful regardless of whether or not they incorporate Ajax. Am I wrong on this analysis?
No, she did not clearly download these songs. Is it not possible she created a Kazaa account to look for and exchange LEGAL songs or media? And then that someone else with access to her computer used her account to download these 24 of some 1700 songs on her machine? I know it has happened at my house. They did not prove that it was her at the computer and that should be the only test of guilt or innocence in cases like these....who was sitting at the fucking computer when the songs were shared, distributed, or downloaded.
Parent's comments are right on. Why is it physically stealing something tangible, and taking away a definite sale the record label stood to make, is so much less important than a potential sale, the copying of a song, in this case about one album's worth, especially for no monetary gain? If we and Jammie Thompson aren't being strong-armed into submission by those with money and lawyers, no one ever has been or will be.
listening to a song more than once is basically stealing, unless you pay for it each time you listen to it. The music industry fucked itself when they agreed to let radio stations play their music with no charge to the end-user. People expect music to be free because it has always been free. They can't change that now, at least not quickly.
No, you smell hypocrite burning...which is an important distinction. Hypocrites naturally smell like the Carrion Flower, which emits a kind of rotting flesh smell. Burning hypocrite smells sweet, like roses, or daisies, or some such shit that smells good.
Did someone say molotov cocktail?
Ok, but playing the devil's advocate...it appears in this case to be protecting the little guy against a big bully. Otherwise, how can thousands of individuals with little or no money for a trial even consider going all the way to the discovery phase? They will just settle and the RIAA wins everytime and makes money simply by implying that someone broke the law having no real evidence, yet, to prove it. And that brings us full circle to the problems we have now. Bullies vs. the little guys. They would ALWAYS win if not for judgments like this.
"Plaintiffs have presented no facts." This is exactly right, and can likely be far more broadly applied than just this case. I think the best argument most folks have is that it is very hard to tie an IP address to a specific user. And they think that just because they provide a screenshot with a list of songs on it that that is damning evidence. Hooray for this judge who has seen through the rhetoric.
this came up because I was wondering how to get rid of that annoying advertisement at the top of every slashdot article. Installed afore mentioned blocker, and wala. Thanks Zonk!
- "Appetite for Destruction"
- "The Comfort Zone"
- "Control"
- "Frontiers"
- "Let it Loose"
- "Get a Grip"
- "Hysteria"
- "If You See Him"
Based on the titles, if these aren't RIAA anthem songs, I don't know what would be. No wonder they want to get her!Also... A handful of defendants have managed to be exonerated, most notably Debbie Foster, Patricia Santangelo, and Tanya Andersen--who is now suing the RIAA for malicious prosecution. Why are all the women getting off? If Jammie Thomas wins, there's another one! I am pretty sure men are being discriminated against...or are only women actually fighting the RIAA?
"I know, I'll get it out there that fair use is not a right, get lots of press on it, see? And then, before long, every average joe will just sort of internalize it and never question again that they can do what they want with other people's IP. Muwhahahahaha! It's so easy...why didn't I think of this sooner?"
So, what we need is a morphing database structure depending on need. While I am writing, I want it to be row-based. As soon as I am done and ready for reading, it should switch to a column-based structure. Who's up for starting a new project on sourceforge.net? The shape-shifting relational database! SSRD is the wave of the future!