Jenna, is that you?? Just tell your parents that if you did convert it would probably keep you out of the bars, and thereby avoid those embarrasing underage drinking stories.
huh. at first I thought, well what if you broke your tv, you can't go back and get a replacement, (warranties excluded), but your point was you bought THE LICENSE and the physical CD is just the medium on which you listen to the music that is licensed. good point. I'm a little slow to think and quick to repsond, apparently. someone might further add that ok you are just buying the license, but that the company is not giving away the physical media either and that part of the cost is for the physical media; even so, how much is that? you could tell them ok how about I give you 0.25 to replace the media? seems fair to me.
and that will probably be by design from I've read recently on their recent patent filing; they mention those three OSs specifically; don't have the reference handy;
They would know that a kind and loving god is punishing unbelievers by killing them.
Because, that's the best way to make believers, by killing unbelievers.
HA! Sounds like natural selection. Applying the environmental pressure of the kind and loving God killing nonbelievers, then over generations you get some really strong believers. So you are correct: "the best way to make believers is to kill the unbelievers." And the more they unbelieve, the more you kill them. (uh,...yeah).
Just to clarify, the Nano replaces the Mini, and I guess the Ipod Video replaces iPod Photo. But then I think they had already merged the iPod with the iPod Photo, and the Photo was no longer a separate model. Right now they are only selling: Shuffle, Nano, iPod (which does video), so there are only 3 being sold by Apple. It is of course true that there are more varieties out in consumers' hands, but they are only selling 3 models. They are not calling it "iPod Video", just "now the iPod plays video".
Right, but don't come up and try to say "it isn't fair for the artists". They knew what they were getting into when they signed off on it. And if they are so up about s/d then how about making the price adjust down? S/D works both ways, and.99 US is not a hard lower bound.
hey, while we are at it, my higher range hearing has been adversely affected by, um, maybe age, (ahem), and I know for sure one certain Ted Nugent concert, (WAY to close to the speakers), gunfire, etc., so if my ability to hear and enjoy the music is not the same as the average person, shouldn't I pay less?? Hell, it should be on a graduated scale where my cost is directly proportional to the amount of the music that is in the range of my hearing. Cheap grozny bastards.
Aren't they already getting the majority, like, I don't know, maybe 90% of the iTMS sales? Wasn't iTMS at least originally just trying to get to break-even point? Apple may be making some profit off iTMS sales now, but hardly like anything this guy is talking about. Now the music publishers are wanting that for those songs that are selling more, they want to charge and make more, and claiming it is more fair for the artist. Yeah, right, like the artist will see 2 cents of that. Hey, if the work is more popular it will sell more, if not it will sell less. They are only wanting to charge more because they think the market pay it, judging by the apparent demand for the work. Even so, online music sales are at least at preset such a small, small piece of the music sales pie, how much more would they really expect to get. The more I think about it, the more they do sound like greedy bastards afterall.
Slashdot Mirror
Jenna, is that you?? Just tell your parents that if you did convert it would probably keep you out of the bars, and thereby avoid those embarrasing underage drinking stories.
huh. at first I thought, well what if you broke your tv, you can't go back and get a replacement, (warranties excluded), but your point was you bought THE LICENSE and the physical CD is just the medium on which you listen to the music that is licensed. good point. I'm a little slow to think and quick to repsond, apparently. someone might further add that ok you are just buying the license, but that the company is not giving away the physical media either and that part of the cost is for the physical media; even so, how much is that? you could tell them ok how about I give you 0.25 to replace the media? seems fair to me.
Somebody PLEASE mod the parent Funny. It's scaring me to think it might not be intended to be funny.
and that will probably be by design from I've read recently on their recent patent filing; they mention those three OSs specifically; don't have the reference handy;
That's meant to be a joke. Um, on the parent post. I mean, TBL/WWW was clearly innovation, and was not by government fiat.
May have been talking about what some grad student did at CERN a few years ago.
Vote for Pedro. GOSH!!!
Not to be pedantic, but I believe the correct spelling/phrasing of "sucks and that Linux rules" is :
"5uXxorz and that L1nux Rul3Z".
Thank you, please drive through.
They would know that a kind and loving god is punishing unbelievers by killing them.
Because, that's the best way to make believers, by killing unbelievers.
HA! Sounds like natural selection. Applying the environmental pressure of the kind and loving God killing nonbelievers, then over generations you get some really strong believers. So you are correct: "the best way to make believers is to kill the unbelievers." And the more they unbelieve, the more you kill them. (uh,...yeah).
Are YOU the gatekeeper???
Damn, but that was brilliant. Thanks. And I already burned all my moddies on another thread. Damn!
Just to clarify, the Nano replaces the Mini, and I guess the Ipod Video replaces iPod Photo. But then I think they had already merged the iPod with the iPod Photo, and the Photo was no longer a separate model. Right now they are only selling: Shuffle, Nano, iPod (which does video), so there are only 3 being sold by Apple. It is of course true that there are more varieties out in consumers' hands, but they are only selling 3 models. They are not calling it "iPod Video", just "now the iPod plays video".
Right, but don't come up and try to say "it isn't fair for the artists". They knew what they were getting into when they signed off on it. And if they are so up about s/d then how about making the price adjust down? S/D works both ways, and .99 US is not a hard lower bound.
hey, while we are at it, my higher range hearing has been adversely affected by, um, maybe age, (ahem), and I know for sure one certain Ted Nugent concert, (WAY to close to the speakers), gunfire, etc., so if my ability to hear and enjoy the music is not the same as the average person, shouldn't I pay less?? Hell, it should be on a graduated scale where my cost is directly proportional to the amount of the music that is in the range of my hearing. Cheap grozny bastards.
Aren't they already getting the majority, like, I don't know, maybe 90% of the iTMS sales? Wasn't iTMS at least originally just trying to get to break-even point? Apple may be making some profit off iTMS sales now, but hardly like anything this guy is talking about. Now the music publishers are wanting that for those songs that are selling more, they want to charge and make more, and claiming it is more fair for the artist. Yeah, right, like the artist will see 2 cents of that. Hey, if the work is more popular it will sell more, if not it will sell less. They are only wanting to charge more because they think the market pay it, judging by the apparent demand for the work. Even so, online music sales are at least at preset such a small, small piece of the music sales pie, how much more would they really expect to get. The more I think about it, the more they do sound like greedy bastards afterall.