Re:They promote free music, not just filesharing!
on
NYT Promotes File Sharing
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yeah, and maybe Slash will think slashdot is a fan website and he'll happen to read your mention of his band while looking for groupies.
Here's a hint: Velvet Revolver is not some band playing at your local bar in front of 5 people, who are going to be googling their own name and following a link to a geek website and then changing their mind about whther they'd rather give their music away for free or take the millions of dollars they're making. They don't care if you go to their concerts; when you sell all of the available tickets, it doesn't bother you when some guy didn't want a ticket because he's too cheap to pay for your album. Really.
So you want the government to set a minimum wage and overtime pay rules for people who are self-employed? Damn, I guess if I can't make enough profit to pay myself enough, the government's going to have to fine me and I'll have even less money to pay myself. Aiyeee!
Zell Miller is a Democrat because he's one of those southern guys who curses the Republican Party for producing Abe Lincoln every time he has to pay his black servants to get them to work instead of being allowed to beat them. His label is accurate; it's just 50 years out of date. Most of the people who think like him forgave the party, if not Lincoln, when it started opposing civil rights.
I sometimes think that Congress should make all of their votes by secret ballot, so they wouldn't be afraid to cross party lines to defeat any bill with a load of non sequitur garbage riders attached to it, but of course that would completely eliminate accountability to the people, and you know enough of them still wouldn't bother to read what they were voting for anyway.
A line-item veto would be another solution, but it gives the President way too much power. What we really need is a Congress made up of people with the tiniest sense of decency, and a President who will veto any crap bill put before him even if it's 90% good lawmaking and 10% pork. But that's never going to happen.
Of course, when a politician does read a law before voting, he'll be criticized for voting against it based on the crap that was hidden in it. By another politician who voted against it, if that other politician is an asshat like Zell Miller.
These days, sleazy politicians (in both parties, mind you) will do stuff like draft a bill making it a federal crime to rape your grandmother, then attach an amendement requiring a 95% cut in social spending. When someone votes against the amended bill (which they supported before it was amended), they'll be called a flip-flopper who wants your grandmother to be raped.
I don't see how you can blame everyone of voting age. Voting against one sleazy politican almost always means voting for another equally sleazy one. The ones with actual integrity come along so infrequently that you'll be lucky to have a chance to vote for one of them once in your life. Or spot them in the first place through all of the negative campaigning.
Sadly, while a class of plaintiffs can file a lawsuit against an individual or corporation, there's still no way to file a lawsuit against an entire class of defendents.
I think I see a new goal for Tort Reform. It would be wonderful to be able to sue entire groups of annoying people, then have lawyers track them all down to collect fines and bankrupt them all. Sure, the lawyers would end up with billions of dollars and the person filing the lawsuit would get a $5 rebate coupon, but it would be worth the satisfaction.
Well, then the teenagers in the movie theater who imitate MST3K have nothing to worry about, because they're only suing people who don't use their format. But keep believing that the lawsuit is over format.
Excuse me while I quickly produce a brand new format of TV show at home, then sue you for not using it.
Wait, you're suggesting that Bush's plan was to invade Iraq so the terrorists will spend their time killing our soldiers in Iraq instead of attacking the US?
Whether "it's working" or not is a point that's impossible to prove. I'd think that the frequent warnings of impending attacks in the US show it's not working; pointing to the fact that there haven't been any actual attacks in the US as proof is ridiculous, when you consider the overall frequency of actual foreign terrorist attakcs against the US. I'm aware of just 1 moderately successful one (the bombing of the WTC) in the 10 years before 9/11.
And if you think that terrorists who are angry about Iraq aren't going to want to attack American soil to get revenge, you're deluded. Our troops are just coming under attack instead of us because they're easier targets. But anyone who thinks no one is plotting attacks in the US anymore is fooling themselves.
What would I have done? I would have concentrated on winning the war in Afghanistan, which was completely justified, instead of letting the situation there deteriorate so I could settle a score my wimp of a daddy backed away from.
If oil deals with Iraq would keep anyone from invading, do you really think Dick Cheney, who made tons of deals with Iraq through offshore subsidiaries of Halliburton, would have allowed the invasion?
On the other hand, high worldwide oil prices mean big profits for oil companies, so I guess he couldn't breach his fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the company that's still paying him millions a year.
The First Amendment does not guarantee that Americans have the right to free speech. RTFC. It forbids Congress from making laws that abridge various rights. It doesn't say that anyone has any rights to speech in another country.
The French position may be unenforceable, and even wrong, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
Umm, you do realize that the French sent troops to Afghanistan, to fight against the people who actually attacked the US, and just didn't want to fight a country that was at best posing an imaginary threat to anyone in NATO, right?
Well, the first step in the process is to read the article summary (or, more likely, part of it), then pretending that one can prove a patent is invalid without ever reading the patent itself or understanding anything about patent law except that there might be something called "prior art" involved.
Let's face it... if patent law worked like most slashdotters think it does, the USPTO would have a really easy job. They'd just reject literally every patent application, because every idea you can have is built on the foundation of other ideas. It's like claiming that Einstein didn't come up with anything new because none of his ideas would be possible without Newton's work.
Yeah, and I'm sick of people complaining about the price of Macs. You can buy one on eBay for $20. Granted it will have a 68040 in it, but it will run OS 7.5 just fine. Therefore, the Mac market isn't a niche market, either.
And don't even get me started about the deals you can get on wrecked Ferraris.
Yeah, all those damn safety features in my car make my life significantly worse.
oh, you're talking about how he forced Gore to distance himself from Clinton, and not even bother to campaign in his own home state. Sorry. yeah, all Nader's fault.
So Fox news was right to sue Al Franken for using 'Fair & Balanced' in his book title, and unless he gives away every copy of his book for free the judge in the case was wrong?
Yes, that's very similar. Obviously someone other than the owners of homestead.com registered the name of a host in their domain, and was just nice enough to provide a link. Or maybe [some other explanation that isn't completely ignorant about how DNS works].
Oh come on. Everyone knows that open source software like libpng couldn't possibly have a single security-related bug because the billions of people reading the code every day would have found it before it was even released. You must have imagined the update.
Of course not. They've already examined our solar system, and found that the only planet here, Jupiter, would be inhospitable to any sort of life, so they didn't bother.
I'll start calling law schools and telling them to cancel all of their tort law classes, since you've just proven that tort law doesn't exist, merely by asserting it.
I'm sure the law library at the university where I work will be happy that they can throw out half of their books, too, because I hear they're hurting for space on their shelves.
No, actually, they'd be stupidly assuring that no one would ever buy a Ford product ever again, and they'd go out of business within a year.
"'car' is to 'gasoline' as 'some electronic device' is to 'some type of data'" type analogies are not only cliched, but they almost always miss the differences between the 2 industries. People buy Apple products because they perceive them to be better in various ways. I find it hard to believe that even a huge Mustang fan could perceive a Ford that could only use their own brand of gas to be better than a Chevy in any way at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a hint: Velvet Revolver is not some band playing at your local bar in front of 5 people, who are going to be googling their own name and following a link to a geek website and then changing their mind about whther they'd rather give their music away for free or take the millions of dollars they're making. They don't care if you go to their concerts; when you sell all of the available tickets, it doesn't bother you when some guy didn't want a ticket because he's too cheap to pay for your album. Really.
So you want the government to set a minimum wage and overtime pay rules for people who are self-employed? Damn, I guess if I can't make enough profit to pay myself enough, the government's going to have to fine me and I'll have even less money to pay myself. Aiyeee!
Zell Miller is a Democrat because he's one of those southern guys who curses the Republican Party for producing Abe Lincoln every time he has to pay his black servants to get them to work instead of being allowed to beat them. His label is accurate; it's just 50 years out of date. Most of the people who think like him forgave the party, if not Lincoln, when it started opposing civil rights.
A line-item veto would be another solution, but it gives the President way too much power. What we really need is a Congress made up of people with the tiniest sense of decency, and a President who will veto any crap bill put before him even if it's 90% good lawmaking and 10% pork. But that's never going to happen.
These days, sleazy politicians (in both parties, mind you) will do stuff like draft a bill making it a federal crime to rape your grandmother, then attach an amendement requiring a 95% cut in social spending. When someone votes against the amended bill (which they supported before it was amended), they'll be called a flip-flopper who wants your grandmother to be raped.
I don't see how you can blame everyone of voting age. Voting against one sleazy politican almost always means voting for another equally sleazy one. The ones with actual integrity come along so infrequently that you'll be lucky to have a chance to vote for one of them once in your life. Or spot them in the first place through all of the negative campaigning.
I think I see a new goal for Tort Reform. It would be wonderful to be able to sue entire groups of annoying people, then have lawyers track them all down to collect fines and bankrupt them all. Sure, the lawyers would end up with billions of dollars and the person filing the lawsuit would get a $5 rebate coupon, but it would be worth the satisfaction.
Excuse me while I quickly produce a brand new format of TV show at home, then sue you for not using it.
You probably want to fire that one. Problem solved.
Whether "it's working" or not is a point that's impossible to prove. I'd think that the frequent warnings of impending attacks in the US show it's not working; pointing to the fact that there haven't been any actual attacks in the US as proof is ridiculous, when you consider the overall frequency of actual foreign terrorist attakcs against the US. I'm aware of just 1 moderately successful one (the bombing of the WTC) in the 10 years before 9/11.
And if you think that terrorists who are angry about Iraq aren't going to want to attack American soil to get revenge, you're deluded. Our troops are just coming under attack instead of us because they're easier targets. But anyone who thinks no one is plotting attacks in the US anymore is fooling themselves.
What would I have done? I would have concentrated on winning the war in Afghanistan, which was completely justified, instead of letting the situation there deteriorate so I could settle a score my wimp of a daddy backed away from.
On the other hand, high worldwide oil prices mean big profits for oil companies, so I guess he couldn't breach his fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the company that's still paying him millions a year.
The French position may be unenforceable, and even wrong, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
Umm, you do realize that the French sent troops to Afghanistan, to fight against the people who actually attacked the US, and just didn't want to fight a country that was at best posing an imaginary threat to anyone in NATO, right?
And yet we still elect them to national office.
Let's face it... if patent law worked like most slashdotters think it does, the USPTO would have a really easy job. They'd just reject literally every patent application, because every idea you can have is built on the foundation of other ideas. It's like claiming that Einstein didn't come up with anything new because none of his ideas would be possible without Newton's work.
And don't even get me started about the deals you can get on wrecked Ferraris.
oh, you're talking about how he forced Gore to distance himself from Clinton, and not even bother to campaign in his own home state. Sorry. yeah, all Nader's fault.
So Fox news was right to sue Al Franken for using 'Fair & Balanced' in his book title, and unless he gives away every copy of his book for free the judge in the case was wrong?
Yes, that's very similar. Obviously someone other than the owners of homestead.com registered the name of a host in their domain, and was just nice enough to provide a link. Or maybe [some other explanation that isn't completely ignorant about how DNS works].
Then it can't possibly run under GNU/Linux, because, repeat after me, GNU's Not Unix.
Damn hypocritical pedants.
Yeah, but the people running the networks would rather have a million people who like TV watching their shows than a dozen people who hate TV.
Oh come on. Everyone knows that open source software like libpng couldn't possibly have a single security-related bug because the billions of people reading the code every day would have found it before it was even released. You must have imagined the update.
Of course not. They've already examined our solar system, and found that the only planet here, Jupiter, would be inhospitable to any sort of life, so they didn't bother.
I'll start calling law schools and telling them to cancel all of their tort law classes, since you've just proven that tort law doesn't exist, merely by asserting it.
I'm sure the law library at the university where I work will be happy that they can throw out half of their books, too, because I hear they're hurting for space on their shelves.
"'car' is to 'gasoline' as 'some electronic device' is to 'some type of data'" type analogies are not only cliched, but they almost always miss the differences between the 2 industries. People buy Apple products because they perceive them to be better in various ways. I find it hard to believe that even a huge Mustang fan could perceive a Ford that could only use their own brand of gas to be better than a Chevy in any way at all.
Please show me the part of the Constitution that says that Congress can only pass laws about criminal cases. Get a clue yourself, dumbass.