I wish people wouldn't say that everything "organic" is good - its a chemistry term
Yeah, I really hate the current trend of calling foods 'organic'. I mean, come on. Who's ever heard of inorganic fruits and vegetables? What, *those* oranges are silicon-based or something? Grumble. I know what it is supposed to represent, so please don't bother posting about it. I just think it's stupid, is all. 'Organically grown' plants. No shit?
You obviously don't have any experience with the types of proprietary applications I was referring to. They mostly run in DOS and run instead of windows. Sure, they aren't the OS, DOS is, but they are the only other thing that ever runs on those machines, and they incorporate many things that windows has. They're meant to be the only thing that computer is used for, and most (old ones) don't run under windows. You'd be surprised how many of these things there are still in use out there, because upgrading can cost many thousands of dollars and just isn't worth it a lot of the time. Especially when you're using a computer dedicated to one thing, like billing or looking up listings or accounting. If you have a computer running only one program and which never runs anything but that one program, it doesn't matter so much what the actual OS is, because the user will never see it.
"pretty good" doesn't cut it when it costs so damn much and you're in a situation where you are practically forced to use it.
Sure it does. When you're forced to use software, it usually doesn't even come *close* to pretty good. I've worked with a ton of proprietary software and it's usually as crappy as the coders felt they could get away with. Being forced to use windows is much better than being forced to use some of the real estate/medical billing/accouting proprietary software out there. At least this has been true in my experience.
Thank you for playing. How about you go back and read the rules sometime though - the dictionary, a grammar guide and a reading primer should be just the thing for you.
Complete bullshit. They make these things called "contracts." Artists willingly sign them.
History is rife with 'contracts' that people willingly signed but which are not legal. If you sign a contract that states you will give up your firstborn child to someone, it is not legal just because it's a contract and you signed it.
They take that much in order to pay:
The studio The artists having a place to stay New equipment for the artists to use during recording The producers The mixers The level of hardware used in the studio The mastering studio they send the music to The art department The marketing department The pressing plant The distributors Coverage of expenses on all the thousands of other acts they fund that don't return on their investment And much, much more
That's funny, I was talking about profit, not total revenue. All of those people/things are paid BEOFRE it becomes PROFIT.
Nobody here knows any artists or has met any or asked them, yet everyone claims to be their guardian angels--somehow accomplished by ripping them off and making sure they don't get paid for their work.
Actually, I do. I know several artists who are doing what they can to make it on their own, because the deals that record companies offer are not fair to them. It's harder to make it on your own, but you can sell cds for 5 bucks each and still make 4 bucks, if you're not chained to a megalabel.
I'm sure John Carmack will thank you so much for "protecting" him from the evil publishers when you pirate Doom 3 to make sure those evil execs don't get a share.
I never said a single thing about game companies. As far as I know, John Carmack is not a member of the RIAA. Also, I never advocated stealing anything. You have attributed that to me because I don't like the RIAA. Yet you talk about knee-jerk reactions. Funny.
So you pirate it instead? Are you implying it's okay if others do as well?
I don't pirate anything. Why do you equate 'I don't buy' with 'I steal?' I never said I get it without paying, I simply don't get music released on megalabels, either by paying for it or by not paying for it.
90% of earnings aren't going to some single record company exec
90% of the PROFIT is not going to the artist. The total earnings figure is different, but the PROFIT structure for those companies is heavily, heavily weighted towards the execs. Sorry if you don't believe it. Ask A Tribe Called Quest about it sometime.
It's funny you rag on nameless execs so much when it's the artists and their gold toilets, huge mansions, classic car collections, and second hummers I see on MTV Cribs all the time. You want to paint this portrait of the evil execs stealing the food right from the poor starving artists' mouths. It's a complete lie and not how the system works at all.
You're the one believing the lie if you think artists really live like that. Sure, if they're a huge, established name with many years of successful records under their belt and smart money managers, they're doing well. However, many of the houses you see on MTV Cribs aren't paid for. Don't you ever watch 'where are they now?'
You've got to be kidding me. Pirates aren't acting like pirates? It most certainly is the pirates exhibiting pirate-like behavior. Man, what a spin.
Yeah. It's so much like taking over another ship at sea and relieving them of physical goods. Arr! You must realize by now that calling copyright infringement (and I'm only loosely using *that* definition) 'piracy' is ludicrous. Of course you will keep doing it, because it connotes what you would like to convey. Just don't accuse *me* of spin when I don't want to call an apple an orange.
That entire rant about where you want to put your money was pointless. Why would I give a shit if you buy RIAA or non-RIAA? It's irrelevant to the discussion.
And here we have the typical pirate mindset rebuttal. Somehow that 10% to the artist magically disappears.
I said 'mostly.' 90% is most. The 10% did not disappear, you chose to read it that way.
And somehow the fact that the artists sign contracts... wait for it... WITHOUT GUNS TO THEIR HEADS... makes them "ripe for the screwing," be it by the record execs, or pirates, or both.
People have signed contracts containing all sorts of illegal clauses. Just because they signed a piece of paper does not make what the RIAA is doing to them right. However, It's not my job to make their decisions for them. I just don't feel morally or legally obligated to support them, just because they made a stupid decision. I'm also not advocating piracy, as you would know if you *read* my post, I'm advocating NOT buying from megalabels. You're the one equating 'not buying from megalabels' with 'piracy.'
Feel free to copy and distribute free music, even donate to the artists! But when it comes to pirating music, that is, copying it for distribution without the copyright holder's permission, you'd rather give the artists a 10% dicking just to stick it to the RIAA? And if you are going to claim that donating to RIAA-signed artists in order to ease the conscience of the pirate is actually occuring, let's see some examples.
No, I'd rather give all artists who sign with megalabels a 'dicking' as you put it by just not buying anything from them. I'm not advocating piracy, as I've noted before. I'm just advocating NOT BUYING from them. Who said anything about donating to RIAA-signed artists? The whole point of my post was *not* to donate anything to the RIAA *or* their stable of artists.
By the way, it's "fair use" not "free use." The copyright holder still owns the work, not the public. There is a subtle difference, but an important one.
"Copyright holder" is an important phrase, because all too often it's used interchangeably with "artist." Personally, I do not believe that copyrights for artistc work (I'm not including jingles or logos or things an artistic person has specially made for a business at their request and to their specs) should be able to be transferred or sold from the creator. Once that creator is dead, there should be a reasonable period (which is 5-10 years max in my opinion) during which said creator's heirs (if any) receive the copyright. Thereafter the product goes into the public domain. Right now, many works are not in the public domain, even though their creators have been dead longer than they were alive. This is asinine. If copyright is to protect the creator of content, stop letting people other than that creator get the protection. Also, stop trying to pretend that the RIAA cares about artists. Their own history should be enough to correct that misapprehension.
Count me among the many. Whilst I agree entirely with your first two points, making any copies for friends is copyright infringement (I still think it's theft, but I get beaten with metaphorical sticks if I try that line!).
What right do you have to make a copy for your friend? True, you own that CD, and I agree that you should be able to make a copy for your car or rip it to your HDD jukebox, just so long as it remains single use only (ie. don't rip it then give the CD to a friend!).
Would you also think it's right to scan and reprint a magazine or book for a friend?
Copying for a friend is called 'fair use'. Copying for yourself is also fair use. Copying for the purpose of SELLING is *not* fair use. If you give a friend a copy of your CD, you aren't making money on it. Do you think it is wrong to play a CD in your car while someone who does not own that CD is riding in it? Should you kick everyone out of your house who has not purchased a CD you are playing? Of course not. Therefore, the idea of someone else listening to a CD you bought is not inherently wrong. However, timeshifting this occurance gets people all up in arms. What's the difference? You're not making any money, and the record company isn't making any money (unless your friend buys the CD also) either way. What difference could it possibly make to the record companies if your friend listens to that same music in your house or in their own? All that matters is that you are not undertaking to profit off someone else's music (which the RIAA should be ashamed of telling *anyone* not to do, but that's another matter). Now, should your friend be allowed to copy his/her copy for his/her friends? Personally I think so, but I can see where an argument can be made for the negative. However, if *I* paid for a CD, I should be able to make copies for my friends, just like I can with anything else, as long as I am not selling or claiming credit for it. Yes, that includes books, although the more common practice in that instance is just to lend the original rather than making a copy. However, the end result is the same: a person or persons who have not paid for the book have read it. What difference does it make if it's a copy or not? Should you not be able to lend a CD or a book to a friend? I'm really confused as to your reasoning here.
Actually, either way works. Think of 'fat chance' and 'slim chance', they should be opposite but they are instead equivalent. This is due to sarcasm implied in the 'opposite' form. Thank you for playing, however. Better luck next time.
Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating an artist's music.
So does the RIAA. They 'give' artists up to a buck a cd sold. They take 9 at least for themselves. Yet there's rarely bitching about that. You people claiming that 'pirates' are stealing from artists are only partially correct. They're mostly stealing from record company executives. I don't personally think it's ok to steal music from anyone, and I think any artist who gives up 90% of their earnings to some record company exec deserves to get screwed, but really it isn't the downloaders who are exhibiting 'pirate'-like behavior. Who cares if the music is good or bad or indifferent? If it's distributed by the major labels, a.k.a. head ripoff practitioners, I don't buy it. I buy only from independant artists because they get more of my money. If you want to truly support artists, rather than help some exec buy his second hummer, buy independant. Many terrific artists, such as MC Frontalot for example, give you their music for free. I personally would rather give my money to someone who paradoxically isn't making music to make money. I realize that's a twisted view, at least from the RIAA's perspective, but it's how I see things.
Why would we bother restarting a hardcore gamer's heart?
Well, if they have to save someone, I'd rather it be the hardcore gamer than you. Too many haters in this world. I'm sorry you got touched in a bad place or whatever happened to you. You can make it, keep trying.
Riiiight. Insurance companies are notorious for using anyting that happens as either - a) a reason to jack up premiums, or b) a reason to not pay out. or both.
Generally, insurance companies write clauses into their contracts to weasel out of paying in the 2-3 most likely circumstances. and compulsory insurance is just a license for them to print money.
Yeah. Like the time they told me that my not-at-fault accident was an act of God because God made the guy that hit me. It didn't help when I told them he was an atheist. Bastards.
Unlike cloning dinosaurs and time travel, this isn't sci-fi BS that they are talking about. They aren't looking into grey goo or other technophobic crap like that, the article is simply about the effects of nanoscopic particles on living tissue. There is evidence to show that nanodust could cause lung problems or worse, and research needs to be done before nanotech starts being widely used.
What I want to know is why don't they just plan on using nanotech to make nanomachines capable of fixing the damage caused by making the nanomachine-making machines? Then we'd all just take our 'bots instead of our vitamins every day, and we'd be fine. Plus I want the nano-skin care bots Popular Science promised me back in the '80s.
He said "Here in NYC, the first fire companies were..." This indicates not that he believes they were the first fire companies in existence, but that he is referring to the first fire companies that existed in NYC.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think most organic farms use lots of shit for fertilizer. ;-)
True. I suppose the inorganic ones use...sand? Or maybe the excretions from inorganic animals...
I wish people wouldn't say that everything "organic" is good - its a chemistry term
Yeah, I really hate the current trend of calling foods 'organic'. I mean, come on. Who's ever heard of inorganic fruits and vegetables? What, *those* oranges are silicon-based or something? Grumble. I know what it is supposed to represent, so please don't bother posting about it. I just think it's stupid, is all. 'Organically grown' plants. No shit?
WTF. LOL. STFU. USA!! USA!! USA!!
Sincerely,
Not Afraid To Post As Himself Guy.
Original. Let me see...yeah, I remember now.
I'm rubber, you're...ah fuck it you aren't worth it.
it's an OS!!! it's not an application. please.
You obviously don't have any experience with the types of proprietary applications I was referring to. They mostly run in DOS and run instead of windows. Sure, they aren't the OS, DOS is, but they are the only other thing that ever runs on those machines, and they incorporate many things that windows has. They're meant to be the only thing that computer is used for, and most (old ones) don't run under windows. You'd be surprised how many of these things there are still in use out there, because upgrading can cost many thousands of dollars and just isn't worth it a lot of the time. Especially when you're using a computer dedicated to one thing, like billing or looking up listings or accounting. If you have a computer running only one program and which never runs anything but that one program, it doesn't matter so much what the actual OS is, because the user will never see it.
So is "ain't". Do you use "ain't" in formal speech?
Of course not. I use the proper "ai not" instead.
"pretty good" doesn't cut it when it costs so damn much and you're in a situation where you are practically forced to use it.
Sure it does. When you're forced to use software, it usually doesn't even come *close* to pretty good. I've worked with a ton of proprietary software and it's usually as crappy as the coders felt they could get away with. Being forced to use windows is much better than being forced to use some of the real estate/medical billing/accouting proprietary software out there. At least this has been true in my experience.
Thank you for playing. How about you go back and read the rules sometime though - the dictionary, a grammar guide and a reading primer should be just the thing for you.
You mean like this one?
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/078.html
I don't mean to offend you personally, but you're a fucking dolt.
Complete bullshit. They make these things called "contracts." Artists willingly sign them.
History is rife with 'contracts' that people willingly signed but which are not legal. If you sign a contract that states you will give up your firstborn child to someone, it is not legal just because it's a contract and you signed it.
They take that much in order to pay:
The studio
The artists having a place to stay
New equipment for the artists to use during recording
The producers
The mixers
The level of hardware used in the studio
The mastering studio they send the music to
The art department
The marketing department
The pressing plant
The distributors
Coverage of expenses on all the thousands of other acts they fund that don't return on their investment
And much, much more
That's funny, I was talking about profit, not total revenue. All of those people/things are paid BEOFRE it becomes PROFIT.
Nobody here knows any artists or has met any or asked them, yet everyone claims to be their guardian angels--somehow accomplished by ripping them off and making sure they don't get paid for their work.
Actually, I do. I know several artists who are doing what they can to make it on their own, because the deals that record companies offer are not fair to them. It's harder to make it on your own, but you can sell cds for 5 bucks each and still make 4 bucks, if you're not chained to a megalabel.
I'm sure John Carmack will thank you so much for "protecting" him from the evil publishers when you pirate Doom 3 to make sure those evil execs don't get a share.
I never said a single thing about game companies. As far as I know, John Carmack is not a member of the RIAA. Also, I never advocated stealing anything. You have attributed that to me because I don't like the RIAA. Yet you talk about knee-jerk reactions. Funny.
So you pirate it instead? Are you implying it's okay if others do as well?
I don't pirate anything. Why do you equate 'I don't buy' with 'I steal?' I never said I get it without paying, I simply don't get music released on megalabels, either by paying for it or by not paying for it.
90% of earnings aren't going to some single record company exec
90% of the PROFIT is not going to the artist. The total earnings figure is different, but the PROFIT structure for those companies is heavily, heavily weighted towards the execs. Sorry if you don't believe it. Ask A Tribe Called Quest about it sometime.
It's funny you rag on nameless execs so much when it's the artists and their gold toilets, huge mansions, classic car collections, and second hummers I see on MTV Cribs all the time. You want to paint this portrait of the evil execs stealing the food right from the poor starving artists' mouths. It's a complete lie and not how the system works at all.
You're the one believing the lie if you think artists really live like that. Sure, if they're a huge, established name with many years of successful records under their belt and smart money managers, they're doing well. However, many of the houses you see on MTV Cribs aren't paid for. Don't you ever watch 'where are they now?'
You've got to be kidding me. Pirates aren't acting like pirates? It most certainly is the pirates exhibiting pirate-like behavior. Man, what a spin.
Yeah. It's so much like taking over another ship at sea and relieving them of physical goods. Arr!
You must realize by now that calling copyright infringement (and I'm only loosely using *that* definition) 'piracy' is ludicrous. Of course you will keep doing it, because it connotes what you would like to convey. Just don't accuse *me* of spin when I don't want to call an apple an orange.
That entire rant about where you want to put your money was pointless. Why would I give a shit if you buy RIAA or non-RIAA? It's irrelevant to the discussion.
Maybe to your side of it.
And here we have the typical pirate mindset rebuttal. Somehow that 10% to the artist magically disappears.
I said 'mostly.' 90% is most. The 10% did not disappear, you chose to read it that way.
And somehow the fact that the artists sign contracts... wait for it... WITHOUT GUNS TO THEIR HEADS... makes them "ripe for the screwing," be it by the record execs, or pirates, or both.
People have signed contracts containing all sorts of illegal clauses. Just because they signed a piece of paper does not make what the RIAA is doing to them right. However, It's not my job to make their decisions for them. I just don't feel morally or legally obligated to support them, just because they made a stupid decision. I'm also not advocating piracy, as you would know if you *read* my post, I'm advocating NOT buying from megalabels. You're the one equating 'not buying from megalabels' with 'piracy.'
Feel free to copy and distribute free music, even donate to the artists! But when it comes to pirating music, that is, copying it for distribution without the copyright holder's permission, you'd rather give the artists a 10% dicking just to stick it to the RIAA? And if you are going to claim that donating to RIAA-signed artists in order to ease the conscience of the pirate is actually occuring, let's see some examples.
No, I'd rather give all artists who sign with megalabels a 'dicking' as you put it by just not buying anything from them. I'm not advocating piracy, as I've noted before. I'm just advocating NOT BUYING from them.
Who said anything about donating to RIAA-signed artists? The whole point of my post was *not* to donate anything to the RIAA *or* their stable of artists.
By the way, it's "fair use" not "free use." The copyright holder still owns the work, not the public. There is a subtle difference, but an important one.
"Copyright holder" is an important phrase, because all too often it's used interchangeably with "artist." Personally, I do not believe that copyrights for artistc work (I'm not including jingles or logos or things an artistic person has specially made for a business at their request and to their specs) should be able to be transferred or sold from the creator. Once that creator is dead, there should be a reasonable period (which is 5-10 years max in my opinion) during which said creator's heirs (if any) receive the copyright. Thereafter the product goes into the public domain. Right now, many works are not in the public domain, even though their creators have been dead longer than they were alive. This is asinine. If copyright is to protect the creator of content, stop letting people other than that creator get the protection. Also, stop trying to pretend that the RIAA cares about artists. Their own history should be enough to correct that misapprehension.
Count me among the many. Whilst I agree entirely with your first two points, making any copies for friends is copyright infringement (I still think it's theft, but I get beaten with metaphorical sticks if I try that line!).
What right do you have to make a copy for your friend? True, you own that CD, and I agree that you should be able to make a copy for your car or rip it to your HDD jukebox, just so long as it remains single use only (ie. don't rip it then give the CD to a friend!).
Would you also think it's right to scan and reprint a magazine or book for a friend?
Copying for a friend is called 'fair use'. Copying for yourself is also fair use. Copying for the purpose of SELLING is *not* fair use. If you give a friend a copy of your CD, you aren't making money on it. Do you think it is wrong to play a CD in your car while someone who does not own that CD is riding in it? Should you kick everyone out of your house who has not purchased a CD you are playing? Of course not. Therefore, the idea of someone else listening to a CD you bought is not inherently wrong. However, timeshifting this occurance gets people all up in arms. What's the difference? You're not making any money, and the record company isn't making any money (unless your friend buys the CD also) either way. What difference could it possibly make to the record companies if your friend listens to that same music in your house or in their own? All that matters is that you are not undertaking to profit off someone else's music (which the RIAA should be ashamed of telling *anyone* not to do, but that's another matter). Now, should your friend be allowed to copy his/her copy for his/her friends? Personally I think so, but I can see where an argument can be made for the negative. However, if *I* paid for a CD, I should be able to make copies for my friends, just like I can with anything else, as long as I am not selling or claiming credit for it. Yes, that includes books, although the more common practice in that instance is just to lend the original rather than making a copy. However, the end result is the same: a person or persons who have not paid for the book have read it. What difference does it make if it's a copy or not? Should you not be able to lend a CD or a book to a friend? I'm really confused as to your reasoning here.
they could care less.
You mean they couldn't care less?
Actually, either way works. Think of 'fat chance' and 'slim chance', they should be opposite but they are instead equivalent. This is due to sarcasm implied in the 'opposite' form. Thank you for playing, however. Better luck next time.
Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating an artist's music.
So does the RIAA. They 'give' artists up to a buck a cd sold. They take 9 at least for themselves. Yet there's rarely bitching about that. You people claiming that 'pirates' are stealing from artists are only partially correct. They're mostly stealing from record company executives. I don't personally think it's ok to steal music from anyone, and I think any artist who gives up 90% of their earnings to some record company exec deserves to get screwed, but really it isn't the downloaders who are exhibiting 'pirate'-like behavior. Who cares if the music is good or bad or indifferent? If it's distributed by the major labels, a.k.a. head ripoff practitioners, I don't buy it. I buy only from independant artists because they get more of my money. If you want to truly support artists, rather than help some exec buy his second hummer, buy independant. Many terrific artists, such as MC Frontalot for example, give you their music for free. I personally would rather give my money to someone who paradoxically isn't making music to make money. I realize that's a twisted view, at least from the RIAA's perspective, but it's how I see things.
Any time, any place.
Don't like ppl pickin' on the cousin.
Anyonymous Coward is your cousin? Your cousin is a wildly inconsistent poster, mang.
How about 12:00 midnight on June 12th at City Hall in Fairbanks, Alaska? See you there.
The irony!
Oh...so close. you *almost* got it! keep trying!
Actually, I did, and it ain't too fuckin' funny, and making jokes about it ain't too fuckin' cool.
Maybe not to you, but to me it is.
Why would we bother restarting a hardcore gamer's heart?
Well, if they have to save someone, I'd rather it be the hardcore gamer than you. Too many haters in this world. I'm sorry you got touched in a bad place or whatever happened to you. You can make it, keep trying.
Obligatory.
Homer: Canada? Why should we leave America to visit America Junior?
Actually, we should put them all on a big spaceship and send them to colonize another planet somewhere.
Especially the lawyers.
Don't forget the telephone sanitizers and the marketing execs.
There is probably some privately funded lab somewhere doing all sorts of research.
You don't say?
Riiiight.
Insurance companies are notorious for using anyting that happens as either -
a) a reason to jack up premiums, or
b) a reason to not pay out.
or both.
Generally, insurance companies write clauses into their contracts to weasel out of paying in the 2-3 most likely circumstances.
and compulsory insurance is just a license for them to print money.
Yeah. Like the time they told me that my not-at-fault accident was an act of God because God made the guy that hit me. It didn't help when I told them he was an atheist. Bastards.
Unlike cloning dinosaurs and time travel, this isn't sci-fi BS that they are talking about. They aren't looking into grey goo or other technophobic crap like that, the article is simply about the effects of nanoscopic particles on living tissue. There is evidence to show that nanodust could cause lung problems or worse, and research needs to be done before nanotech starts being widely used.
What I want to know is why don't they just plan on using nanotech to make nanomachines capable of fixing the damage caused by making the nanomachine-making machines? Then we'd all just take our 'bots instead of our vitamins every day, and we'd be fine. Plus I want the nano-skin care bots Popular Science promised me back in the '80s.
Since, as we all know, capitalism is so much better than government, in every single way.
Since, as we all know, comparing economic theory to government is valid.
Oh, wait....
He said "Here in NYC, the first fire companies were..."
This indicates not that he believes they were the first fire companies in existence, but that he is referring to the first fire companies that existed in NYC.