Thanks to our low-mortgage, you can now enlarge your penis and obain a free degree!
Forward this email to at least ten people, then click that funny URL, and when you're done closing pop-ups, make a whish.
Fads. Yay.
How about Microsoft then, with that part in the EULA that was mentioned a few days ago, in some topic on Slashdot that says something like this: "The user agrees to install patches and upgrades later"?
Actualy, Microsoft is "forcing" the user to accept some terms and conditions that will be published later, in some unknown patch that they will have to install, of which they did not see the EULA yet... Is that valid?
And what if I used a tape-recorder to record a song that was playing on my friend's audio system, from a CD he bought? Is this recording also copyrighted? It was made for myself, and I actualy did not copy anything, and did not violate any copyright. I merely recorded music that was playing. Do I have to pay to listen to that? The sound quality I get is not as good as the CD's and when you buy an album, you expect a minimum quality, which you pay for. What would the RIAA think of that?
And what if artists started recording songs using ASCII caracters instead of magnetic tapes and/or digital equipment? And what if they released their albums in ASCII caracters? Now, would it be legitimate to claim copyrights over the music files I own on my computer because the ASCII caracters are the same? Perhaps so...
Now my point is, the thousands of MP3 files I own were downloaded from the internet, and I don't own all the CDs. BUT, the mp3's do not offer me the same quality of sound as the CD - hence I don't see why I should pay for it. Stealing a CD from a store would be illegal and thieving.
But listening to a song that was playing, and which was converted to a computer file - I don't see the RIAA's legitimacy here. I have so called "audio" files on my computer. Yes. But open them in plain text format, and there's NOTHING in there that is copyrighted. No artist ever created that large ASCII file, and I have never listened to what the artist actualy recorded - and what the RIAA expects me to pay for.
If I remove or modify the ID tags and the headers inside the file (or whatever makes this file "audio", appart from the extension and the title), what is illegal? Can't we share ASCII files anymore?
MS have the right to do whatever they want with their IM. They created it and it's their business. Besides, their EULA probably also gives them the right to burn your computer and rape your sister, so might as well cope with it...
However, what is disapointing is that microsoft somehow forged its place among IM users (and somehow dislodged ICQ), and now they are, as usual, simply abusing the users they got from a free service in order to force them to play by their own rules and probably to pay later. And this happens just a few weeks after their new avatar/eye-candy-ish MSN 6.0, just enough time to let people become addicted to this crap (hey... it's realy cool!)
Another disapointing thing is that I got 7 e-mails from microsoft about this new "rule" of theirs - the same day I read that there's a new worm in town sending fakemails. Well, the mails ended up in the junk folder. Very unprofessional. I can hardly believe that it was not the worm...
So, they're doing it for "security issues"? Yeah, like they're about security anyway... And like MSN messenger is secure... I should stop whining, because someone WILL find a way to use older versions of MSN or Gain, or whatever on their network anyway.
By the way, among home Windows user, did anyone realy pay for anything from microsoft anyway? Should anyone complain?...
First "serious" job was in telemarketing for a telco. Went from there to a more serious job as a sales rep for another company, in which I had to: 1- play the game, meet clients, be happy and sell my stuff or; 2- stay an introvert and quit. I made the first choice, and I now have my own company...
There are lots of motivational books, very popular among sales people, that actualy try to take an often intro person and turn him/her into an extro, successful, rich person. It does not work that much for everybody, but it certainly gives results and gives self-esteem to an intro person that has to speak and sell to many different people, and it definately helps to stay positive during the day (believe me, I am definately "intro", and I needed that kick in the butt when I was a salesman). Now, could this book just be an excuse for introverted people to stay like they are, to make them think it is OK to stay alone? The author himself seems to refer to a "world dominated by extroverts" - why do you think extroverts dominate then? Just asking...
Some people were recently complaining about losing their jobs to robots. Then wouldn't this be a great opportunity to gain money out of gaming?
Basicaly, "geeks" are selling their time to build powerful characters and/or to gain special artefacts, and other people are ready to pay for that time. I can't see where the problem is.
We all know that cocooning is growing with the internet. New "virtual worlds/games" could be created, allowing people to live and work in 100% virtual environments. As long as their is demand, no matter how silly the product is, you can sell it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to our low-mortgage, you can now enlarge your penis and obain a free degree! Forward this email to at least ten people, then click that funny URL, and when you're done closing pop-ups, make a whish. Fads. Yay.
How about Microsoft then, with that part in the EULA that was mentioned a few days ago, in some topic on Slashdot that says something like this: "The user agrees to install patches and upgrades later"? Actualy, Microsoft is "forcing" the user to accept some terms and conditions that will be published later, in some unknown patch that they will have to install, of which they did not see the EULA yet... Is that valid?
And what if I used a tape-recorder to record a song that was playing on my friend's audio system, from a CD he bought? Is this recording also copyrighted? It was made for myself, and I actualy did not copy anything, and did not violate any copyright. I merely recorded music that was playing. Do I have to pay to listen to that? The sound quality I get is not as good as the CD's and when you buy an album, you expect a minimum quality, which you pay for. What would the RIAA think of that?
And what if artists started recording songs using ASCII caracters instead of magnetic tapes and/or digital equipment? And what if they released their albums in ASCII caracters? Now, would it be legitimate to claim copyrights over the music files I own on my computer because the ASCII caracters are the same? Perhaps so...
Now my point is, the thousands of MP3 files I own were downloaded from the internet, and I don't own all the CDs. BUT, the mp3's do not offer me the same quality of sound as the CD - hence I don't see why I should pay for it. Stealing a CD from a store would be illegal and thieving.
But listening to a song that was playing, and which was converted to a computer file - I don't see the RIAA's legitimacy here. I have so called "audio" files on my computer. Yes. But open them in plain text format, and there's NOTHING in there that is copyrighted. No artist ever created that large ASCII file, and I have never listened to what the artist actualy recorded - and what the RIAA expects me to pay for.
If I remove or modify the ID tags and the headers inside the file (or whatever makes this file "audio", appart from the extension and the title), what is illegal? Can't we share ASCII files anymore?
This could possible be because the actress who played the Oracle, Gloria Foster [imdb.com] passed away before Revolutions was filmed.
According to the imdb.com, she died on september 29th 2001.... That would even be before Reloaded.
MS have the right to do whatever they want with their IM. They created it and it's their business. Besides, their EULA probably also gives them the right to burn your computer and rape your sister, so might as well cope with it... However, what is disapointing is that microsoft somehow forged its place among IM users (and somehow dislodged ICQ), and now they are, as usual, simply abusing the users they got from a free service in order to force them to play by their own rules and probably to pay later. And this happens just a few weeks after their new avatar/eye-candy-ish MSN 6.0, just enough time to let people become addicted to this crap (hey... it's realy cool!) Another disapointing thing is that I got 7 e-mails from microsoft about this new "rule" of theirs - the same day I read that there's a new worm in town sending fakemails. Well, the mails ended up in the junk folder. Very unprofessional. I can hardly believe that it was not the worm... So, they're doing it for "security issues"? Yeah, like they're about security anyway... And like MSN messenger is secure... I should stop whining, because someone WILL find a way to use older versions of MSN or Gain, or whatever on their network anyway. By the way, among home Windows user, did anyone realy pay for anything from microsoft anyway? Should anyone complain?...
First "serious" job was in telemarketing for a telco. Went from there to a more serious job as a sales rep for another company, in which I had to: 1- play the game, meet clients, be happy and sell my stuff or; 2- stay an introvert and quit. I made the first choice, and I now have my own company...
There are lots of motivational books, very popular among sales people, that actualy try to take an often intro person and turn him/her into an extro, successful, rich person. It does not work that much for everybody, but it certainly gives results and gives self-esteem to an intro person that has to speak and sell to many different people, and it definately helps to stay positive during the day (believe me, I am definately "intro", and I needed that kick in the butt when I was a salesman). Now, could this book just be an excuse for introverted people to stay like they are, to make them think it is OK to stay alone? The author himself seems to refer to a "world dominated by extroverts" - why do you think extroverts dominate then? Just asking...
Some people were recently complaining about losing their jobs to robots. Then wouldn't this be a great opportunity to gain money out of gaming? Basicaly, "geeks" are selling their time to build powerful characters and/or to gain special artefacts, and other people are ready to pay for that time. I can't see where the problem is. We all know that cocooning is growing with the internet. New "virtual worlds/games" could be created, allowing people to live and work in 100% virtual environments. As long as their is demand, no matter how silly the product is, you can sell it.