"Yeah? Well music played from an LP on a good turntable is worse than crap compared to the band playing live in my living room! I admit that when Bono and the boys come over they sure do eat a lot of food, and I sure do miss listening to George Harrison, but it's worth it to know that I am apparently the only one here who truly knows how to not disrepect my music!
I think tonight, I'm going to listen to some Clapton. Sorry for cutting this message short, but I've got a few phone calls to make..."
-I agree whole hartedly, I've never heard a recording as good as live (not sound quality so much as quality of the music, though you can learn a *lot* about a band by hearing them live...like if they are actually talented or just good with postprocessing)...now time for some Hendrix!! (Doh!)
" 'listening to music on anything *other* then that is doing a disrespect to your music.'
Isn't that as bad or worse then what the first guy wrote? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!"
That exactly was my point. I'm sorry I didn't iterate properly, but what I meant to say was that it's a very arrogant position to take (one that I believe is unsustainible) (his position was that people who use no name mp3 players don't respect or love their music), and my response was meant to be that while he may believe that, there are others who look down on him as well and view his ipod the same way as he views generic mp3 players. Can't remember if I mentioned it but I own and use both (turntable and ipod) and it's not a matter to me of respecting my music, but what ever happens to be convenient at the time. Sorry about the confusion, I'm not the most articulate person around.
Basicly it just raised the cost of imported steel, by taxing it, (In your words "prevent buisnesses from" importing steel) to protect the US Steel Industry, and the Rust Belt States.
"If you can't afford an ipod, you probbaly can't afford to buy music online either. The ipod is in the highest bracket of the market, they sell their product to people who can afford the best product and who can afford to buy music. The cheap knock off mp3 players are generally only used by people who pirate all their music, so I don't see the point in opening up the Itunes market to them anyway...."
Nice broad sweeping generalizations there.
"Also, people who don't use ipods generally don't have as much love for music as ipod users. Basically, buying a stripped down no-name mp3 player is doing a disrespect to the music you listen to. I for one am I big U2 fan, so I bought the U2 ipod to listen to U2 and show my love for this talented Irish Group."
Also nice to know that if you don't have the money for an iPod you obviously don't have nearly the love of music as someone who does. (Yes I've got an iPod, the yearly AppleTax Came due).
But here's the thing, you say that listening to your music on a "no-name mp3 player" is doing a "disrespect" to the music you listen to. Well all I've got to say is *all* mp3 players (iPod included) sound like crap next to a good LP on a good turntable, and that listening to music on anything *other* then that is doing a disrespect to your music.
I'm not a gun owner, but what the heck man? What god-given right do you have to say if he is or is not a safe gun owner? What right do you have to tell him that he shouldn't be allowed to own or operate a gun provided it was in a safe manner? I don't like it when people shoot each other either but I think the last thing this country needs is the government telling people how to live.
"If, on the other hand, you think a 17-year-old girl is old enough to consent, then change the law - and accept the simple fact that if she's old enough to consent to a 19-year-old, she's also old enough to consent to the 45-year-old. Either way 17-year-old girls are not the 'private hunting ground' of college twats who can't keep their cocks in their pants and who're too immature to actually interest a woman their own age."
You've made my point exactly. Please don't think that I support 17 year olds and 45 year olds having sex because that's not at all what I mean, and Please don't think that I'm some 19 year old wanting to bang 17 year olds, I'm not. The isssue I am concerned with this next sentence.
"if she's old enough to consent to a 19-year-old, she's also old enough to consent to the 45-year-old."
--Why is that? Because it is the law? I really don't think that this should be about a few words on paper, this is a moral issue. That's where the problem is. Some people don't feel that it is nearly as morally wrong for a 19 year old to be with a 17 year old, then a 45 year old with a 17 year old. Quite obviously you feel differently. Let me say that I agree with you in that it is morally wrong, and illegal, for 19 year olds to be with 17 year olds. However I don't feel that hard and fast judgements are what society needs in moral issues such as this. The world is not simply black and white, as much as we wish it could be.
In short, nobody can make a judgement about this issue that isn't arbitrary(why not 19? or 20?), and that is largly a moral issue. All I mean to say is that we need to recognize that.
I find that view to be somewhat arbitrary. Who are you to decide that 18 is the magical age? Who are the politicians to decide that? My point is that while I agree that sexual predators should be shot and quartered, 18 is quite an arbitrary number, and I'm not sure if it is fair for you, or anyone else to make hard and fast decisions that drasticly affect peoples lives is reasonable. That being said 19 year olds should be carful about being with 17 year olds, though it isn't anywhere close to being as bad as a 45 year old with a 17 year old.
Slashdot Mirror
(thinks to himself...have I been thinking out loud???)
I don't know man, I once recieved an email that was nearly three years old. (no joke)
It's already in there this year...right next to oppressing Computer Science Majors 1013, and Ingnoring Common Sense 2301...
;)
(p.s. I am one, and I've got the "I survived" t-shirt
"Yeah? Well music played from an LP on a good turntable is worse than crap compared to the band playing live in my living room! I admit that when Bono and the boys come over they sure do eat a lot of food, and I sure do miss listening to George Harrison, but it's worth it to know that I am apparently the only one here who truly knows how to not disrepect my music!
I think tonight, I'm going to listen to some Clapton. Sorry for cutting this message short, but I've got a few phone calls to make..."
-I agree whole hartedly, I've never heard a recording as good as live (not sound quality so much as quality of the music, though you can learn a *lot* about a band by hearing them live...like if they are actually talented or just good with postprocessing)...now time for some Hendrix!! (Doh!)
"
'listening to music on anything *other* then that is doing a disrespect to your music.'
Isn't that as bad or worse then what the first guy wrote? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!"
That exactly was my point. I'm sorry I didn't iterate properly, but what I meant to say was that it's a very arrogant position to take (one that I believe is unsustainible) (his position was that people who use no name mp3 players don't respect or love their music), and my response was meant to be that while he may believe that, there are others who look down on him as well and view his ipod the same way as he views generic mp3 players. Can't remember if I mentioned it but I own and use both (turntable and ipod) and it's not a matter to me of respecting my music, but what ever happens to be convenient at the time. Sorry about the confusion, I'm not the most articulate person around.
I decided to try it for a while due to the whole NSA phonetapping deal...it ended after 3 days. Life without a phone isn't fun.
Ok, Steel Tariffs.
t ariff_2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_steel_
Basicly it just raised the cost of imported steel, by taxing it, (In your words "prevent buisnesses from" importing steel) to protect the US Steel Industry, and the Rust Belt States.
"If you can't afford an ipod, you probbaly can't afford to buy music online either. The ipod is in the highest bracket of the market, they sell their product to people who can afford the best product and who can afford to buy music. The cheap knock off mp3 players are generally only used by people who pirate all their music, so I don't see the point in opening up the Itunes market to them anyway...."
Nice broad sweeping generalizations there.
"Also, people who don't use ipods generally don't have as much love for music as ipod users. Basically, buying a stripped down no-name mp3 player is doing a disrespect to the music you listen to. I for one am I big U2 fan, so I bought the U2 ipod to listen to U2 and show my love for this talented Irish Group."
Also nice to know that if you don't have the money for an iPod you obviously don't have nearly the love of music as someone who does. (Yes I've got an iPod, the yearly AppleTax Came due).
But here's the thing, you say that listening to your music on a "no-name mp3 player" is doing a "disrespect" to the music you listen to. Well all I've got to say is *all* mp3 players (iPod included) sound like crap next to a good LP on a good turntable, and that listening to music on anything *other* then that is doing a disrespect to your music.
Just shoot me a ring when they've got my flying car out of the shop.
Due to the very inelastic demand for a cure for cancer, people would pay as much as it costs (mortgages etc)
Crap! Now he expects it!
Everybody Loves Mr.53! (DNS)
Check mate! that's a pretty good one, has a nice sounding abbrevation too (LHL)
I'm not a gun owner, but what the heck man? What god-given right do you have to say if he is or is not a safe gun owner? What right do you have to tell him that he shouldn't be allowed to own or operate a gun provided it was in a safe manner? I don't like it when people shoot each other either but I think the last thing this country needs is the government telling people how to live.
Modestly Small Linux?
Somewhat Smallish Liunx?
Could be Smaller Linux?
"Rivers of the strong eating the weak, or something like that."
Sounds like a bad zombie flick....
Dude your right!! it's only 85F here in dallas now at 10pm!! around 5pm it was like 99F-100F!! that's a 15F drop in 5 hours!!
Dude! you've got a low enough UID to know not to mention Aliens on /.
It frightens the tinfoil hat crowd!
"If, on the other hand, you think a 17-year-old girl is old enough to consent, then change the law - and accept the simple fact that if she's old enough to consent to a 19-year-old, she's also old enough to consent to the 45-year-old. Either way 17-year-old girls are not the 'private hunting ground' of college twats who can't keep their cocks in their pants and who're too immature to actually interest a woman their own age."
You've made my point exactly. Please don't think that I support 17 year olds and 45 year olds having sex because that's not at all what I mean, and Please don't think that I'm some 19 year old wanting to bang 17 year olds, I'm not. The isssue I am concerned with this next sentence.
"if she's old enough to consent to a 19-year-old, she's also old enough to consent to the 45-year-old."
--Why is that? Because it is the law? I really don't think that this should be about a few words on paper, this is a moral issue. That's where the problem is. Some people don't feel that it is nearly as morally wrong for a 19 year old to be with a 17 year old, then a 45 year old with a 17 year old. Quite obviously you feel differently. Let me say that I agree with you in that it is morally wrong, and illegal, for 19 year olds to be with 17 year olds. However I don't feel that hard and fast judgements are what society needs in moral issues such as this. The world is not simply black and white, as much as we wish it could be.
In short, nobody can make a judgement about this issue that isn't arbitrary(why not 19? or 20?), and that is largly a moral issue. All I mean to say is that we need to recognize that.
I find that view to be somewhat arbitrary. Who are you to decide that 18 is the magical age? Who are the politicians to decide that? My point is that while I agree that sexual predators should be shot and quartered, 18 is quite an arbitrary number, and I'm not sure if it is fair for you, or anyone else to make hard and fast decisions that drasticly affect peoples lives is reasonable. That being said 19 year olds should be carful about being with 17 year olds, though it isn't anywhere close to being as bad as a 45 year old with a 17 year old.
*cough* Colloquialism *cough*
Right, cause I was talking about Fortune 500 Korean companies
OMG PONIES!!!1
Ohh common, since when has "not allowed in the license" ever stopped a chineese company?
ding dong the witch is dead........