Patrons do not equal record companies. Also, speculating on what someone would or would not have done had things turned out differently is stupid and pointless. We can discuss what DID happen, which is that the people I mentioned composed master works without a record company. That is not in dispute. Thank you, come again.
You are assuming that the downloader would otherwise buy what they downloaded. If they instead chose to forego the purchase, then no revenue is lost. So you are claiming that the theoretical loss of potential future profit is theft, but again, I would refer you to the dictionary. You know, the place that lists definitions of words so that we can all agree on what they mean. Your logic is similar to that governmental logic which calls a smaller increase in spending than previous years a 'reduction in spending'. You and the recording industry may wish to engage in circumlocutory arguments that a theoretical potential future loss of profit is the same thing as physically removing an object, but that doesn't make it true. You can only deprive someone of something that actually exists, theoretical potential profits do not actually exist, and making a perfect copy while leaving the original intact does not necessarily deprive anyone of anything.
No...they would use the computers that just about every library graciously supplies.
And these people are to reproduce exactly the problems they are having on their home desktop on the library-supplied computers? If they don't, how would they know the internet-found solutions work? Or are you suggesting that it would be easier and less costly to make several trips to the library to use their internet rather than one trip to a bookstore?
I'd like to add that there should be no doubt that downloading a song without permission of the artist or distributor(in otherwords(sic), not buying a license to it) is theft.
No, it isn't.
Theft: 1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
And by the social contract, creators do have a legal right to be compensated for their work. We give them that right so they will create more stuff for society. We do not give it to them so they and their heirs to the 7th generation can become fabulously wealthy.
So who was Beethoven's producer? Who did Bach's A&R? What label released Mozart's works? However did we have any music, nay, any art at all before the advent of copyright law? Also, doesn't everyone who posts on slashdot deserve to be compensated for their work? Why or why not?
I would be socialist and say, if you make above a certain amount- we take it as taxes and use it for social services (say college and small business low interest loans) to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
Well, then no one would have any incentive to make more than your 'certain amount'. If you set the cap at $50,000/year, say, you'd find a lot of jobs that paid $49,999 plus bennies. Once you remove the reward for effort, there are very few people who will continue the effort. Think about it this way: If you could make your current salary working one day a week, and could not make any more for working extra, would you come in to work five days a week? You claim that it is not fair that some people have more money than others. Yet, if person A saves his/her money instead of spending it on hookers and beer like person B, is it still not fair that person A has more money than person B? If person A plays everquest 13 hours a day while person B works 13 hours a day, is it not fair for person B to have more money than person A?
BUT if they have the ability to drive to a book store, see the book, and then pay money for the book, then one would assume that they also have the ability to go to a library, some place with wifi (w/wifi capable laptop), or SOMEWHERE that may have an internet connection.
Well, perhaps they do. But are they going to drag their desktop to the library?
People who buy this book for answers probably aren't gunna be sitting down in the living room next to fire all cozy to READ this book.
Is it an invalid purchase if they DO want to cozy up next to a fire with it? There are some strange people out there. I wouldn't claim to know everyone's motivation.
There gunna skim through it, find thier problem, try the solution. And guess what? If the solution(s) don't work, then you're out some hard earned money.
And if the solutions they spend a few hours searching for online don't work, they're out a few hours. For many of us, a few hours' lost pay can buy two or more of these kinds of books. The 'search the net' method only works if your time is less valuable than this book. That's a tradeoff that you'll have to judge for yourself.
Yeah, but anyone with half a brain can Google their Vista annoyance and find a FREE solution.
Without an internet connection? Hey, guess what, you don't need one of those for this book. You can read it on the crapper with no wifi necessary. I'm not saying that's intended as the primary market. I'm just saying that's a reason to use dead trees in a world of PCs. Not everyone has/wants wifi, laptops, or even internet connections. You shouldn't assume that everyone is like you. Hint: If there's no market for this book, then it won't sell very well and you can feel all special for not liking it. HOWEVER, if it sells relatively well, then you should admit you were wrong about it. Not that I'd expect you to. This is the internet, after all.
Unfortunately when you're old and wrinkly, no amount of Viagra is going to get girls to sleep with you so it doesn't matter anyway:)
Fortunately, old people generally have more wealth than youngsters, and if you have money, you can get your old, wrinkly ass some girls. Works for ugly guys too.
Take it up with Merriam or Webster. Their dictionary was my source. Fortunately, m-w.com is currently available. In the battle of available evidence, at least, I win.
usage In forte we have a word derived from French that in its "strong point" sense has no entirely satisfactory pronunciation. Usage writers have denigrated \for-t\ and \for-t\ because they reflect the influence of the Italian-derived 2forte. Their recommended pronunciation \fort\, however, does not exactly reflect French either: the French would write the word le fort and would rhyme it with English for. So you can take your choice, knowing that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose. All are standard, however.
I live in Austin, TX. The home of the University of Texas. You can't throw a rock without hitting two or three of them. I do, however, acknowledge that my experience is not universal. I was really just presenting a counter-case to show that the OP's wasn't either.
Sorry, but you've hit a pet peeve here. The gateway drug effect is ridiculous and retarded. There is no magical quality about marijuana that causes users to seek other drugs. The sum total of the evidence for it appears to be, "Well many hard drug users started with marijuana, alcohol, and cigarettes." However, it's just as correct to state that 100% of all hard drug users used sugar before any hard drugs, therefore sugar is the ULTIMATE gateway drug. Also note that two of the "big three" gateway drugs are legal, and therefore are more readily available to younger people, and the only illegal one on the list is also easily available to young people. So, the gateway drug effect is stupid. Let's move on.
Even were there a death or two attributable to marijuana, who cares? That isn't the real issue. If it were, alcohol would still be illegal. Heroin is perceived to be such a threat, but it kills fewer people each year than bathtubs, and certainly fewer than alcohol, but those two things are in no danger of being outlawed. The detrimental physical and mental effects of alcohol are not only more severe than those of marijuana, they are also more disruptive to society at large. Someone who has overconsumed marijuana is not nearly as likely to start fights, try to drive home, or void bodily fluids in public places. Also, while the concept of a 'mean drunk' is centuries old, there is no corresponding concept of a 'mean stoner'. In fact, that's nearly an oxymoron. Opponents of marijuana legalization have very little ground to stand on, but the fact of strong governmental support for the ineffective and exhorbitantly expensive War Against Some Drugs means that they do not need it. The DEA can get away with saying, "Marijuana is bad because it is illegal, and it is illegal because it is bad." This is the world we live in, and these are the cards we're given. I thought all those 60s radicals would be taking power about now, sticking it to the man...but the unpleasant fact is that even that radical generation grew up to BE 'the man'.
That's kind of sad actually. I know more atheists that are accepting of different religious beliefs than I do religious people who are accepting of other beliefs. I guess that says it all.
I don't believe you. Agnostics, maybe, but although I certainly concede that what you are saying is technically possible, my experiece doesn't jibe at all with your statement. As an agnostic, I am regularly ridiculed by atheists for adopting an agnostic point of view, while most religious people I talk to seem more interested in convincing me than disparaging my beliefs. Again, however, I am not saying that you can't possibly be right. I suppose, at the least, I can say that my experience is completely opposite from yours.
A 'well regulated milita' != 'every monkey on the street'.
A well-regulated militia isn't given the right to keep and bear arms. The people are. Unless you would argue that 'a well-regulated militia' may be subbed in for 'the people' anywhere in the Constitution, your argument is a non-starter. If you DO want to argue that, you're welcome to try.
Well, technically anyone can claim a victory on the internet at any time. However, the real reason you 'choose not' to debate this issue is because you know you will lose. I recommend the book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg for your further edification.
As an aside, I can't tell you how often the excuse of, "I really could provide facts to back up my assertions, I just can't be bothered" comes up when weak-minded idiots get in over their heads, intellectually speaking. If it were really so easy to prove your assertion, you would have taken the 5 minutes to do that rather than explain how you just can't be bothered. That's ok, run away, little one. When you're all growed up you can speak with the adults.
Also, just something you might want to watch: When people start a sentence with 'honestly' or 'frankly' or the like, they are almost invariably lying. Truthfully, I think you're a wonderful person. (See?)
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? I never said you BROUGHT HIM UP, I said you RANTED ABOUT HIM in a thread completely unrelated to the candidates. Which you surely did. You may not have brought him up, but you also didn't have to respond, and yet you did. Almost like someone with a compulsion would. Hey, nice try, though, cockass.
and all-around psychos who couldn't stop ranting about him in some way.
Um, isn't ranting about him what you just did? Oh, I know. You can quit any time. You don't have a problem. I mean, why would it be a problem when you have to rant about him in a thread dedicated to an anonymous internet group's attack on scientology? Seems like the perfect place to slam Ron Paul to me...NOT.
Well, unless they've deviated from formula, you'll pay your money, and yes, do everything you've done in previous versions....plus a whole bunch of new stuff that will be old hat by the time the next one comes out. For example, motorcycles in Vice City and bike racing, city-travelling, jumbo jet flying, and parachuting in San Andreas. Obv I did not create a complete list.
The level of intelligence required to beat Ninja Gaiden far exceeds the amount of intelligence needed to watch Jerry Springer. Those who look upon video games as 'dumb' tend to be those who don't posess the intelligence necessary to navigate the average video game.
I never said the Nazis were socialists because they called themselves that. I said the Nazis were socialists *and* they called themselves socialists, as well. They were nationalistic socialists, and because of that, they called their party the National Socialist German Worker's Party. I can't think of a right-wing party that would call itself either socialist or a 'worker's party'. Socialism is and has always been left-wing, and right-wingers are not known for wanting to be perceived as left-wing.
I notice how you left out the Mussolini quote. Mussolini, who COINED THE TERM FACISM, was a dedicated and well-known socialist throghout his career. He frequently made reference to being socialist and pushed socialist programs constantly. I am pretty sure that the person who came up with the fucking term knew exactly what it meant.
Maybe you are confused because you assume that anti-communist means right wing. Socialism and communism are NOT equivalent terms. Hey, but keep insisting you're right, contrary to readily available evidence. I mean, after all, if you believe something, it must be true.
Sorry about the fanboy moderation, that was total crap. I certainly don't see anything trolling in your response. However, I do take issue a bit with it. With media center/internet browser software becoming more common on consoles, and 'convergence' as the buzzword of the day, I feel that the modern generation of consoles can function as a computer replacement for many people, not for everyone. Obviously, posters to forums such as slashdot are more likely to need capabilities other than simple email/web browsing/media and game playing, but there is a large group of users for whom this limited functionality is more than sufficient. Although I agree that it will be a few more generations, I can see a point at which consoles compete directly with computers for this crowd. Maybe just one more revision, who knows?
As another poster rightly pointed out, the Fascists considered themselves Right.
Uh...of course they considered themselves 'right' as in correct, but they were not from the "right wing" of politics, at least as it is commonly understood today.
Example:
"The Socialist party reaffirms its eternal faith in the future of the Workers' International, destined to bloom again, greater and stronger, from the blood and conflagration of peoples. It is in the name of the International and of Socialism that we invite you, proletarians of Italy, to uphold your unshakeable opposition to war". - Benito Mussolini, Avant, 22 September 1947
So what, Mussolini wasn't a Fascist?
The Nazi party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
Are you seriously calling socialism a 'right-wing' ideology?
And in the context of George Orwell, calling Fascism 'Totalitarian Right' is using his own words.
And if he had called Fascism the "Freedom-loving Centrists", would that make it true? Besides, I can't find where he said that. If you could provide me the quote, I'd admit that he said it, but that still wouldn't make Fascism right-wing, nor would it indicate that totalitarianism is particular to the right.
Slashdot Mirror
Patrons do not equal record companies. Also, speculating on what someone would or would not have done had things turned out differently is stupid and pointless. We can discuss what DID happen, which is that the people I mentioned composed master works without a record company. That is not in dispute. Thank you, come again.
You are assuming that the downloader would otherwise buy what they downloaded. If they instead chose to forego the purchase, then no revenue is lost. So you are claiming that the theoretical loss of potential future profit is theft, but again, I would refer you to the dictionary. You know, the place that lists definitions of words so that we can all agree on what they mean. Your logic is similar to that governmental logic which calls a smaller increase in spending than previous years a 'reduction in spending'. You and the recording industry may wish to engage in circumlocutory arguments that a theoretical potential future loss of profit is the same thing as physically removing an object, but that doesn't make it true. You can only deprive someone of something that actually exists, theoretical potential profits do not actually exist, and making a perfect copy while leaving the original intact does not necessarily deprive anyone of anything.
No...they would use the computers that just about every library graciously supplies.
And these people are to reproduce exactly the problems they are having on their home desktop on the library-supplied computers? If they don't, how would they know the internet-found solutions work? Or are you suggesting that it would be easier and less costly to make several trips to the library to use their internet rather than one trip to a bookstore?
No, it isn't.
from m-w.com
Here are some relevant portions:
taking and removing
intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Neither of these occurs when a copy is created. The original still exists, thus no one was deprived of anything, and there is no removing.
So, by definition, you are wrong.
And by the social contract, creators do have a legal right to be compensated for their work. We give them that right so they will create more stuff for society. We do not give it to them so they and their heirs to the 7th generation can become fabulously wealthy.
So who was Beethoven's producer? Who did Bach's A&R? What label released Mozart's works? However did we have any music, nay, any art at all before the advent of copyright law? Also, doesn't everyone who posts on slashdot deserve to be compensated for their work? Why or why not?
I would be socialist and say, if you make above a certain amount- we take it as taxes and use it for social services (say college and small business low interest loans) to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
Well, then no one would have any incentive to make more than your 'certain amount'. If you set the cap at $50,000/year, say, you'd find a lot of jobs that paid $49,999 plus bennies. Once you remove the reward for effort, there are very few people who will continue the effort. Think about it this way: If you could make your current salary working one day a week, and could not make any more for working extra, would you come in to work five days a week? You claim that it is not fair that some people have more money than others. Yet, if person A saves his/her money instead of spending it on hookers and beer like person B, is it still not fair that person A has more money than person B? If person A plays everquest 13 hours a day while person B works 13 hours a day, is it not fair for person B to have more money than person A?
BUT if they have the ability to drive to a book store, see the book, and then pay money for the book, then one would assume that they also have the ability to go to a library, some place with wifi (w/wifi capable laptop), or SOMEWHERE that may have an internet connection.
Well, perhaps they do. But are they going to drag their desktop to the library?
People who buy this book for answers probably aren't gunna be sitting down in the living room next to fire all cozy to READ this book.
Is it an invalid purchase if they DO want to cozy up next to a fire with it? There are some strange people out there. I wouldn't claim to know everyone's motivation.
There gunna skim through it, find thier problem, try the solution. And guess what? If the solution(s) don't work, then you're out some hard earned money.
And if the solutions they spend a few hours searching for online don't work, they're out a few hours. For many of us, a few hours' lost pay can buy two or more of these kinds of books. The 'search the net' method only works if your time is less valuable than this book. That's a tradeoff that you'll have to judge for yourself.
Yeah, but anyone with half a brain can Google their Vista annoyance and find a FREE solution.
Without an internet connection? Hey, guess what, you don't need one of those for this book. You can read it on the crapper with no wifi necessary. I'm not saying that's intended as the primary market. I'm just saying that's a reason to use dead trees in a world of PCs. Not everyone has/wants wifi, laptops, or even internet connections. You shouldn't assume that everyone is like you. Hint: If there's no market for this book, then it won't sell very well and you can feel all special for not liking it. HOWEVER, if it sells relatively well, then you should admit you were wrong about it. Not that I'd expect you to. This is the internet, after all.
Unfortunately when you're old and wrinkly, no amount of Viagra is going to get girls to sleep with you so it doesn't matter anyway :)
Fortunately, old people generally have more wealth than youngsters, and if you have money, you can get your old, wrinkly ass some girls. Works for ugly guys too.
Wow, I thought you LIKED Safire. Now here you are insulting him. What gives?
Take it up with Merriam or Webster. Their dictionary was my source. Fortunately, m-w.com is currently available.
In the battle of available evidence, at least, I win.
From m-w.com:
Welcome to the internet, you must be new here.
I live in Austin, TX. The home of the University of Texas. You can't throw a rock without hitting two or three of them. I do, however, acknowledge that my experience is not universal. I was really just presenting a counter-case to show that the OP's wasn't either.
Whether that be the gateway drug effect,
Sorry, but you've hit a pet peeve here. The gateway drug effect is ridiculous and retarded. There is no magical quality about marijuana that causes users to seek other drugs. The sum total of the evidence for it appears to be, "Well many hard drug users started with marijuana, alcohol, and cigarettes." However, it's just as correct to state that 100% of all hard drug users used sugar before any hard drugs, therefore sugar is the ULTIMATE gateway drug. Also note that two of the "big three" gateway drugs are legal, and therefore are more readily available to younger people, and the only illegal one on the list is also easily available to young people. So, the gateway drug effect is stupid. Let's move on.
Even were there a death or two attributable to marijuana, who cares? That isn't the real issue. If it were, alcohol would still be illegal. Heroin is perceived to be such a threat, but it kills fewer people each year than bathtubs, and certainly fewer than alcohol, but those two things are in no danger of being outlawed. The detrimental physical and mental effects of alcohol are not only more severe than those of marijuana, they are also more disruptive to society at large. Someone who has overconsumed marijuana is not nearly as likely to start fights, try to drive home, or void bodily fluids in public places. Also, while the concept of a 'mean drunk' is centuries old, there is no corresponding concept of a 'mean stoner'. In fact, that's nearly an oxymoron. Opponents of marijuana legalization have very little ground to stand on, but the fact of strong governmental support for the ineffective and exhorbitantly expensive War Against Some Drugs means that they do not need it. The DEA can get away with saying, "Marijuana is bad because it is illegal, and it is illegal because it is bad." This is the world we live in, and these are the cards we're given. I thought all those 60s radicals would be taking power about now, sticking it to the man...but the unpleasant fact is that even that radical generation grew up to BE 'the man'.
That's kind of sad actually. I know more atheists that are accepting of different religious beliefs than I do religious people who are accepting of other beliefs. I guess that says it all.
I don't believe you. Agnostics, maybe, but although I certainly concede that what you are saying is technically possible, my experiece doesn't jibe at all with your statement. As an agnostic, I am regularly ridiculed by atheists for adopting an agnostic point of view, while most religious people I talk to seem more interested in convincing me than disparaging my beliefs. Again, however, I am not saying that you can't possibly be right. I suppose, at the least, I can say that my experience is completely opposite from yours.
A 'well regulated milita' != 'every monkey on the street'.
A well-regulated militia isn't given the right to keep and bear arms. The people are. Unless you would argue that 'a well-regulated militia' may be subbed in for 'the people' anywhere in the Constitution, your argument is a non-starter. If you DO want to argue that, you're welcome to try.
Well, technically anyone can claim a victory on the internet at any time. However, the real reason you 'choose not' to debate this issue is because you know you will lose. I recommend the book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg for your further edification.
As an aside, I can't tell you how often the excuse of, "I really could provide facts to back up my assertions, I just can't be bothered" comes up when weak-minded idiots get in over their heads, intellectually speaking. If it were really so easy to prove your assertion, you would have taken the 5 minutes to do that rather than explain how you just can't be bothered. That's ok, run away, little one. When you're all growed up you can speak with the adults.
Also, just something you might want to watch: When people start a sentence with 'honestly' or 'frankly' or the like, they are almost invariably lying. Truthfully, I think you're a wonderful person. (See?)
I wasn't the one who brought him up, assnugget.
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? I never said you BROUGHT HIM UP, I said you RANTED ABOUT HIM in a thread completely unrelated to the candidates. Which you surely did. You may not have brought him up, but you also didn't have to respond, and yet you did. Almost like someone with a compulsion would. Hey, nice try, though, cockass.
and all-around psychos who couldn't stop ranting about him in some way.
Um, isn't ranting about him what you just did? Oh, I know. You can quit any time. You don't have a problem. I mean, why would it be a problem when you have to rant about him in a thread dedicated to an anonymous internet group's attack on scientology? Seems like the perfect place to slam Ron Paul to me...NOT.
Well, unless they've deviated from formula, you'll pay your money, and yes, do everything you've done in previous versions....plus a whole bunch of new stuff that will be old hat by the time the next one comes out. For example, motorcycles in Vice City and bike racing, city-travelling, jumbo jet flying, and parachuting in San Andreas. Obv I did not create a complete list.
The level of intelligence required to beat Ninja Gaiden far exceeds the amount of intelligence needed to watch Jerry Springer. Those who look upon video games as 'dumb' tend to be those who don't posess the intelligence necessary to navigate the average video game.
I never said the Nazis were socialists because they called themselves that. I said the Nazis were socialists *and* they called themselves socialists, as well. They were nationalistic socialists, and because of that, they called their party the National Socialist German Worker's Party. I can't think of a right-wing party that would call itself either socialist or a 'worker's party'. Socialism is and has always been left-wing, and right-wingers are not known for wanting to be perceived as left-wing.
I notice how you left out the Mussolini quote. Mussolini, who COINED THE TERM FACISM, was a dedicated and well-known socialist throghout his career. He frequently made reference to being socialist and pushed socialist programs constantly. I am pretty sure that the person who came up with the fucking term knew exactly what it meant.
Maybe you are confused because you assume that anti-communist means right wing. Socialism and communism are NOT equivalent terms.
Hey, but keep insisting you're right, contrary to readily available evidence. I mean, after all, if you believe something, it must be true.
Sorry about the fanboy moderation, that was total crap. I certainly don't see anything trolling in your response. However, I do take issue a bit with it. With media center/internet browser software becoming more common on consoles, and 'convergence' as the buzzword of the day, I feel that the modern generation of consoles can function as a computer replacement for many people, not for everyone. Obviously, posters to forums such as slashdot are more likely to need capabilities other than simple email/web browsing/media and game playing, but there is a large group of users for whom this limited functionality is more than sufficient. Although I agree that it will be a few more generations, I can see a point at which consoles compete directly with computers for this crowd. Maybe just one more revision, who knows?
Oh goody, another clueless asshole.
As another poster rightly pointed out, the Fascists considered themselves Right.
Uh...of course they considered themselves 'right' as in correct, but they were not from the "right wing" of politics, at least as it is commonly understood today.
Example:
So what, Mussolini wasn't a Fascist?
The Nazi party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
Are you seriously calling socialism a 'right-wing' ideology?
And in the context of George Orwell, calling Fascism 'Totalitarian Right' is using his own words.
And if he had called Fascism the "Freedom-loving Centrists", would that make it true? Besides, I can't find where he said that. If you could provide me the quote, I'd admit that he said it, but that still wouldn't make Fascism right-wing, nor would it indicate that totalitarianism is particular to the right.