I didn't mean that describing a persons is always bad, but in cases where it is irrelevant, such as laws regarding civil rights, I don't think it has an appropriate place.
Now on a person-to-person level, such as your example, that information can be necessary. But in cases prone to confusion, that person propably expects it and shouldn't--not always--get too upset. I just graduated from college and applied to a lot of jobs posted on Monster. Believe me, there were a few times that I wish I knew whether or not Terry Johnson should be addressed to Ms. or that Shannon Smith should be addressed to Mr.
i would like to see a seperate term that means a man and man or a woman and woman. like gay, lesbian, heterosexual. it tells us something, it is more precise.
Kinda like we have seperate terms to distinguish race. We also used to have seperate schools based on your race... and then we realized that seperate but equal is not equal.
Why do we need to note the difference anyway? I saw an interesting highway sign once, it read: "He was a very articulate black man." With 'black' crossed out. Think about it.
magine you get a speeding ticket. You follow 'due process' and fight the ticket. Let's say you win (I have done this). You will be made to pay court costs, which are probably as much as the ticket.
Where do you live? I've gotten out of a ticket for running a stop sign in Ohio and a speeding ticket in North Carolina. In Ohio, the cop didn't show up in court, so I said I didn't do, and that was the end of it. In NC, I was doing 58 in a 35 and the cop decided to be nice and write it for 55 in a 35, but he screwed up and wrote 55 in a 58. So that got thrown out for being invalid. In both cases, I didn't have to pay the court fee.
So... 'Kill the president' is bad, but "Kill the President" By The Offspring, is okay?
That's a song they did in 89/90 that's very much about the U.S. president. As far as I know, nothing ever happened to them regarding it. Unfortunatly, after 9/11, they removed the name from the discography section of the webpage--which was disappointing to me--but it's still on the album.
There's your BIG mistake. People and corporations own radio stations to make money. Some may be run like charities, e.g., WRKP, but other than fiction, I've never heard of one.
If you want to live in some la-la land where radio is about the music, that's fine. I'll be here in the real world if you ever want to have a serious discussion.
For a moment there I thought I was haveing a debate with a reasonable and intelligent person; instead I find out that your just a stubborn jackass who refuses to concede--or at minimum, accept that this is not a black and white issue. I provided valid arguements and your only rebuttal was commenting on a quote taken out of context and then using 'la-la land' followed by "if you ever want to have a serious discussion." My impression of you is that your a money grubbing contemptible person who's okay with screwing over anyone so long as there's minuscule gain... such an honorable person to be!
Imagine if I'm selling my house. Many people make offers, but one offers me more money, so I sell to that person. Every single one had an opportunity to be heard, but I picked the one who was willing to pay more.
Again... your selling your house to make to make the money. A radio station exists to play music. Yeah, they want to make a profit, but that needs to be made legally and morally. A payola is nothing more than a bribe to keep the radio station from playing anyone else's music. Or can you explain a pay-to-play system that then has royalties collected per play?
And should I only be allowed to sell my land to those willing to build the most quality house?!
Your selling your land to make money.
What is the difference between my house/land and radio?
You seem to be under the impression that musicians have a right to be heard on the radio. They don't.
Your house is your private property. Radio is public property with exclusive rights granted to broadcast. Regardless of this right, it is still public property and they therefore have an obligation to listen to the public.
"There's a difference between thousdands of resturants and car dealerships making a deal with only one business AND one company with a stanglehold on 70% of the market excluding all but the big 5.?
Where is the difference?!
The effect doesn't scale the same. If a resturant chooses Pepsi over Coke, Coke still has 200 other resturants in the area to try and sell to. When Clear Channel only plays music from the big 5, they blockout 70% of the national market.
Can you give me an objective standard for "quality" music?! I'd love to hear it.
How about letting that decision be made by the people in the broadcast range. Here's a test: listen to any CCC owned station in the country during the afternoon; they'll all have the same 15 songs on loop. Now listen to them after hours, when they're allowed to play call-in requests; everyone will be different. Now can you give me an objective reason why a few exec's at the CCC headquarters should be allowed to dictate what is quality music to all of america? And I doubt they even care for much of the music; they pick what was written on the memo that comes with their payola.
I'll say it again, after three decades (heck, it's actually been FOUR decades) how has the little guy been helped?
A law is only effective if it's enforced. That's kinda what that lawsuit is about.
And secondly, why does he deserve help?!
I think now your going into free market theory. My belief is that the little guy can only make it so far when the big guy has a monopoly.
Thanks for proving my point. The vast majority of mainstream radio stations do not play independent music because it is not their target audience.
You're right. There IS much more music available in the world that could possibly be played on the radio.
Like you said, a jazz station doesn't have to play hard rock. But what about the inde bands who's music fits the mainstream, are you saying that they shouldn't have an equal opportunity to be heard?
"You still have the right to do what you want with your property, but you don't have a right to use that property as an incentive for someone else to not do business with me."
That makes NO sense. You seem to imply that a property owner has to accept contracts with EVERYONE.
Maybe you should've finished reading the paragraph: "In this case, the incentive is not better music, it's a bribe." Of course you have a right to except or reject, but it needs to be with regards to the ends. If you sell a house, your going to sell to the highest bidder. That's the purpose of selling--to make the most money. The purpose of these radio stations is to play music. Therefore they should except or reject based on the quality of the music, not on who has to most money.
Restaurants makes deals with specific soda bottlers to the exclusion of others. That's legal. Car dealerships makes deals with specific automobile manufacturers at the exclusion of others.
There's a difference between thousdands of resturants and car dealerships making a deal with only one business AND one company with a stanglehold on 70% of the market excluding all but the big 5.
Thus, as I've asked before: Who gets to decide? The owner of the station or the government?
With or without anti-payola laws, the station still chooses; these laws don't ban certain types of music. They are simply there to help the little guy.
It is unfair for jazz stations not to play hard Rock?
Why doesn't the Disney channel play movies portraying sex and violence? Because it does not target there intended audience.
We used to live in a country we owned what we owned and had the right to make contracts regarding our property, obviously those days are gone.
You still have the right to do what you want with your property, but you don't have a right to use that property as an incentive for someone else to not do business with me. Let's avoid responses about 'the better product'. In this case, the incentive is not better music, it's a bribe.
And after decades of anti-payola laws on the books, exactly where are all these profitable stations playing independent music?!
There is a plethora of inde bands that create mainstream style music, but radio play isn't even considered if their not on a major label. Not because the music is bad and won't maintain/increase listeners, but because the bands and there independent labels cannot match the major labels payolas.
The point of anti-payola laws were an attempt to kill rock and roll.
The music industry has always paid to get air play. The states and the feds thought that if rock and roll radio stations were forbidden to take payola, through laws selectively enforced against those stations, they'd be forced to stop playing rock and roll. It didn't work.
Why those laws are still on the books are beyond me.
That may have been how it started, but I think it's evolved into an anti-'unfair business practice' law. What about all the small inde labels creating rock and roll, how do they pay-for-play? I bet it's pretty easy to turn down $5000 when the major labels are saying "If you take it, we won't give you our $100,000!"
Most of my music is imported from my native country anyway.
But government's meddling in what businesses can pay to each other seems wrong to me.
I'll go along with the 'you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours' tactic when you explain how fair competition works when the mega corporations can simply out-bribe the small business.
What do they mean ?
No update for Win2000 which is still used by my 50000-employees company ?
I'm in the same situation. My *new* computer is an old computer with a memory upgrade, running windows2000, but it's fast enough to due what I need to do; upgrading to XP would probably be more buggy due to lack of processing power. So there's no reason what-so-ever to buy a new computer/upgrade to xp. Besides, I've already gotten a few people to start using Firefox, maybe with this, I'll get the managers to do the same.
Zombie victim Carty took matters into her own hands: She did research on how to clean up and protect her PC and diligently updates programs that scan her computer for various types of malicious code. Her PC now runs clean. "I had no clue at Christmas that I would become a security expert," she says.
So running windows update and a firewall makes you a security expert? Can I put that on my resume?
The only events that need to be online are the less popular ones that don't get airtime; other than that, I don't care. First of all, I hardly consider it censorship. You can still watch the Olympics on NBC. If you don't have NBC, you don't have a tv! So no arguement there. Secondly, it's not just NBC and corporate America that will lose out. Small business that are depending on local commercials will lose out, too. And thirdly, what's the big deal anyway? Why am I gonna watch coverage on a 15" monitor, when I can watch it on a 60" tv that'll be better quality?
They say it's optional now, but what happens when they make it mandatory?
Insurance Agent: Before you failed to stop in time and rear-ended someone, you were going 36 in a 35. I'm sorry, your full coverage policy doesn't cover speeding!
How ironic, that a site that complains about (mainly American) tech workers losing their jobs to Indians gives favourable coverage to an inventor who made thousands of bank workers lose their jobs to a machine....
Not exactly... from page 3 of the article:
According to the FDIC's count, there are close to 75,000 branches today, up from under 58,000 in 1985. Tellers number 539,000, vs. the 484,000 in 1985--though many of them now also function as retailers, cross-selling IRAs and mortgages to customers who come in with a big deposit.
So, instead of losing their jobs, they've been given more responsibilities.
Meanwhile, average users are no longer tech savvy.' Which is to say that they at one point were?
He was going for 'increased popularity' not a dumber average joe. When it was new, only tech savvy people used it, but now that its cheaper/easier to setup, everybodys getting. Hell, I think my grandma installed a Linksys network.
The ACM Contest is similiar; it's linked at the bottom of the IPSC website. You have 5 hours to do 6-9 problems. Most are a real pain and brute force usually won't work... it needs to be time and memory efficient. But it's fun.
Their website has a ton of problems, like 10,000+, and you can submit to there online judge... it always gives me something to do on Friday/Saturday nights.
Historically, there have been many pogroms and a lot of anti-sematism which stemmed from the notion that 'the Jews killed Jesus' and should collectivly be punished for it till they convert.
My understanding is that Jesus HAD to die in order to save us from our sins. This implies that somebody HAD to kill him. So, doesn't that make the role of the executer just as important as Jesus?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean that describing a persons is always bad, but in cases where it is irrelevant, such as laws regarding civil rights, I don't think it has an appropriate place.
Now on a person-to-person level, such as your example, that information can be necessary. But in cases prone to confusion, that person propably expects it and shouldn't--not always--get too upset. I just graduated from college and applied to a lot of jobs posted on Monster. Believe me, there were a few times that I wish I knew whether or not Terry Johnson should be addressed to Ms. or that Shannon Smith should be addressed to Mr.
Why do we need to note the difference anyway? I saw an interesting highway sign once, it read: "He was a very articulate black man." With 'black' crossed out. Think about it.
So... 'Kill the president' is bad, but "Kill the President" By The Offspring, is okay?
That's a song they did in 89/90 that's very much about the U.S. president. As far as I know, nothing ever happened to them regarding it. Unfortunatly, after 9/11, they removed the name from the discography section of the webpage--which was disappointing to me--but it's still on the album.
Bush does?
Your selling your land to make money.
Your house is your private property. Radio is public property with exclusive rights granted to broadcast. Regardless of this right, it is still public property and they therefore have an obligation to listen to the public.
The effect doesn't scale the same. If a resturant chooses Pepsi over Coke, Coke still has 200 other resturants in the area to try and sell to. When Clear Channel only plays music from the big 5, they blockout 70% of the national market.
How about letting that decision be made by the people in the broadcast range. Here's a test: listen to any CCC owned station in the country during the afternoon; they'll all have the same 15 songs on loop. Now listen to them after hours, when they're allowed to play call-in requests; everyone will be different. Now can you give me an objective reason why a few exec's at the CCC headquarters should be allowed to dictate what is quality music to all of america? And I doubt they even care for much of the music; they pick what was written on the memo that comes with their payola.
A law is only effective if it's enforced. That's kinda what that lawsuit is about.
I think now your going into free market theory. My belief is that the little guy can only make it so far when the big guy has a monopoly.
Maybe you should've finished reading the paragraph: "In this case, the incentive is not better music, it's a bribe." Of course you have a right to except or reject, but it needs to be with regards to the ends. If you sell a house, your going to sell to the highest bidder. That's the purpose of selling--to make the most money. The purpose of these radio stations is to play music. Therefore they should except or reject based on the quality of the music, not on who has to most money.
There's a difference between thousdands of resturants and car dealerships making a deal with only one business AND one company with a stanglehold on 70% of the market excluding all but the big 5.
With or without anti-payola laws, the station still chooses; these laws don't ban certain types of music. They are simply there to help the little guy.
You still have the right to do what you want with your property, but you don't have a right to use that property as an incentive for someone else to not do business with me. Let's avoid responses about 'the better product'. In this case, the incentive is not better music, it's a bribe.
There is a plethora of inde bands that create mainstream style music, but radio play isn't even considered if their not on a major label. Not because the music is bad and won't maintain/increase listeners, but because the bands and there independent labels cannot match the major labels payolas.
So running windows update and a firewall makes you a security expert? Can I put that on my resume?
The only events that need to be online are the less popular ones that don't get airtime; other than that, I don't care. First of all, I hardly consider it censorship. You can still watch the Olympics on NBC. If you don't have NBC, you don't have a tv! So no arguement there. Secondly, it's not just NBC and corporate America that will lose out. Small business that are depending on local commercials will lose out, too. And thirdly, what's the big deal anyway? Why am I gonna watch coverage on a 15" monitor, when I can watch it on a 60" tv that'll be better quality?
That's my 10 cents.
They say it's optional now, but what happens when they make it mandatory?
Insurance Agent: Before you failed to stop in time and rear-ended someone, you were going 36 in a 35. I'm sorry, your full coverage policy doesn't cover speeding!
Not exactly... from page 3 of the article: So, instead of losing their jobs, they've been given more responsibilities.
A rental store depends on 4 things.
- Making back the money they spend on the movie after a few rentals
- Late fees
- Impulse rental. i.e. seeing the new movie you want when you return a movie.
- Selling the 50 extra movies they bought after its hype is over.
Rental stores have to refuse or they're finished.How could you not like a language whose syntax is > < + - . , [ ]
Its also the smallest compiler ever written.
Why play on a 1x1 screen with the keypad when you can by the controller and tv adaptor?
~ JK
The ACM Contest is similiar; it's linked at the bottom of the IPSC website. You have 5 hours to do 6-9 problems. Most are a real pain and brute force usually won't work... it needs to be time and memory efficient. But it's fun. Their website has a ton of problems, like 10,000+, and you can submit to there online judge... it always gives me something to do on Friday/Saturday nights.
My understanding is that Jesus HAD to die in order to save us from our sins. This implies that somebody HAD to kill him. So, doesn't that make the role of the executer just as important as Jesus?