that's such a common practice at the datacenter that I work at that the first thing I say to somebody who's having password problems is, "did you roll it back a couple iterations?" About half the time that works, because like I said, everybody does this.
"It is the right of the owner of a property to allow another party to use it at their discretion or not."
OK, fair enough. Now, I own property - an iPod - that I would like to grant Real discretion to use. You see how this logic cuts both ways?
Granted, I dislike Real almost as much as I dislike Apple (hey, at least Real never tried to get me spend money on anything *monochrome*).
I feel strongly that in a contest between property rights of relatively defenseless, mostly technically ignorant consumers, versus the supposed property (but usually really licensing) rights of incredibly well-funded, incredibly litigous, generally irresponsible corporations, even if all things were equal (which they hardly ever are), the rights of the consumers should definately trump those of corporations for one simple reason.
Corporations would not and could not exist without consumers. Consumers can and have existed just fine without corporations, and would cheerfully again. Therefore, while I'm in favor of corporate rights inasmuch as they don't infringe on consumer rights, when corporations choose to align themselves, diametrically, against their consumer base they *need* to be shot down like a rebellious teenager who steals the parents' car *needs* discipline.
Consumers enable the very existance of corporations, and hence should take moral and legal priority in any situation where they're foolish enough to align themselves directly against those without whom they could not exist.
I don't know what's more ironic - the similarity between the two situations, or the fact that a major step toward the standardization of phonograph playback was the intervention of a little thing called the RIAA, who standardized preamps and eq curves for phonograph players (turntables)
Anything with strong crypto is considered, legally, a munition, and requires an export license. This includes, but is not limited to, Lotus, Novell, and anything else that uses RSA, like Internet Explorer.
Yeah, you love debate. Fine, be done with it. For the record, here's a list of the "cogent arguments" you ignored, tried to change the subject from, and took wild, flailing tangents off of.
1) democrats pay taxes too, duh 2) we have the cheapest taxes in the world 3) we have excellent quality of life 4) we have extraordinary business opportunities 5) 2+3+4=our tax rates and systems, while imperfect, are among the best such values in the world if not the best 6) if you are 100% opposed, philosophically, to paying taxes, you can undergo a legal process to disenfranchise yourself from the government, thereby relieving you of any and all tax debt 7) the popular perception (and not, contrary to your assertion, solely among liberals) of the Republican party and the movement conservative in general as "racist and poor hating" - your words, not mine - is directly related to both groups having undertaken actions that had a significant and measurable negative impact on minority and poor/middle class communities 8) you obviously aren't qualified to make the statement that I don't know any conservatives, which is why I'm starting to think you're a highly evolved troll, in which case you done trolled me good... 9) the only diference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want the help that the government gives to be to the people who are poor and actually need it, wheras conservatives want the help that the government gives to be to corporations and rich people who couldn't need it less
they all stand unrefuted, your obfuscation, free-association, and Freudian accusations of obviously projected anger and rage notwithstanding. the issues are what they are, they exist indepentantly of this debate. you can deal with the issues whenever you want.
Son, I have not yet begun to emote. You love debate, you've come to the right place.
"You, Mr. Liberal, truly don't know any conservatives,"
Again, I call bullshit. Prove to me that I don't. You obviously have no idea who I know and who I don't.
"Racist, poor-hating,"
Racist/poor-hating is as racist/poor-hating does. Actions speak louder than words, especially from the reich-wing.
"while for liberals, the virtue is just spending the money."
How would you know the first thing about liberal values? Oh yeah, the same psychic way you magically knew that I don't know any conservatives - never mind my fishing/drinking buddies, my co-workers, my bandmates, my bosses and my entire family except my Mom. Nope, none at all. You got me pegged. Just keep on assuming.
The only diference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want the help that the government gives to be to the people who are poor and actually need it, wheras conservatives want the help that the government gives to be to corporations and rich people who couldn't need it less. Don't pretend for a second you don't believe in wealth redistribution. You just believe in it going from the people who need it to the people who don't.
You know what liberals do when we don't like our taxes? We don't pay them. Here's your options: 1) disenfranchise youself (unless you're scared, of course... I would be) 2) Move 3) STFU already about your taxes, realize that everybody's got em and nobody wants to hear about yours.
"Oh, I love how Democrats love to congratulate themselves on how terribly compassionate they are. Well, it's easy to be compassionate with someone else's money, right?"
Last time I checked, Democrats paid taxes too. So it's our money just as much as it is yours. Taxes are the rent you pay the country to live or do business here. A good deal, when you consider that we have a) *THE CHEAPEST TAXES IN THE WORLD* and b) *THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY FOR BUSINESS*. Don't like the rent on the America apartments, that's fine, head down the block to the Botswana apartments, or maybe the Lebanaon apartments, or how bout the Pakistan apartments? They've all got higher rents and are in decidedly shabbier neighborhoods. But the burden placed on your poor, rich little shoulders by the American tax system is just too onerous, so have fun there paying more taxes for less benefits, like freedom.
Many states, including the one I live in (WI), allow one to "disenfranchise" themselves from the government. An old co-worker of mine had done this; he showed me the Driver's License they gave him when he did it. You can fill out some forms, and presto chango, no taxes for you! Seriously! Also, no police! Also, no fire department! Thinking about public school for your kids? Think again if you're disenfranchised. Hope you've got a septic tank, because I don't think they let disenfranchised people use the public sewer system. In short, you never pay taxes ever again, and you never benefit from the taxes others pay either. Go ahead, Mr. Conservative, disnefranchise yourself.
We both know you won't, because we both know that, deep beneath the carefully cultivated layers of deep contempt for the American tax system that are so fashionable today, you're well aware that you are afforded more opportunities here as a resident or an enterpreneur than you ever will be anywhere else in the world.
strings... don't those become cumbersome? get snagged on things like your hand?
I just kinda figgered it'd be a hand shaped thing with a rfid tag and three antennae... seems like a perfectly legit use for rfid (for once).
But then, as long as we're being innovative, how about a pair of gloves with an rfid in the tip of each finger, combined with OS's and apps that make use of ten discrete interface points (using a traditional mouse, or even a 3D one, is still like using one finger - why not use all ten?), with distibuted antennae around the edge of the monitor?
Um, the RIAA WERE SUCCESSFUL in outlawing cassette recorders in the late 70's and early 80's. You couldn't get them except to order them from Europe or Japan. The RIAA's claim was that everybody would copy their records for their friends and then the RIAA'd go out of business. Sound familiar?
Only thing that stopped it was enough American's getting pissed off and writing their congressman. And then Congress passed the "mixtape law". How many times do we need to go over this, folks?
They're born and bred to a society that values money and things above people and feelings, and tells us that if we need things like love, respect, or acceptance, that we can simply go out and buy them. So naturally their concern is for themselves alone. I've never met a screwed-up kid that didn't have some pretty screwed-up parents, and I've met a *lot* of screwed-up kids.
"They already do. A cop on the street has a HUGE amount of lattitude over whether or not to arrest someone and what charges they want to file, particuarly for minor offenses."
Just like the prosecutor can choose not to prosecute (though they rarely do) and the judge/jury can choose not to convict or not to punish.
I've been saying this for years, maybe it'll start to catch on someday... but ALL laws need to be REQUIRED to have a damn EXPIRATION DATE. Simple as that. Every single friggin one. And no law should be allowed to be in effect longer than, say, fifty years without explicit Congressional re-authorization. There's a law that's still on the books in Georgia that says it's illegal to walk down the street with an ice cream cone in your back pocket. But only on Sunday. This law: a) wastes taxpayer dollars by it's very existance in a law book somewhere b) inspires contempt for worthwhile and meaningful laws, as all bad laws do, and c) presents, at the very least, something of a conundrum for police officers who actually see somebody walking down the street with an ice cream cone in his back pocket. On Sunday.
Even disregarding the fact that laws are based on the will of the people and the mores of society - both of which can change at a moment's notice - the tendency of legislators to consistantly and wildly over-legislate can be taken as given based on ample historical data. This problem can and should be addressed by changing the legislative process so that no bill is signed into law but that it has an expiration date.
When they start censoring political mesasges, you won't have any idead they're doing it because you'll never see them, and since people protesting it would also be a political message they'll just censor that too. So how will you know when to start getting upset?
Typical right-wing response, lie, exaggerate and distract... that's OK though, we can deal with that easily enough with a little truth and honesty. Those seem to be the things you're never prepared for.
"he doesnt want to end the war in iraq."
#1: Lie. What possible basis could you have for making such a ridiculous statement? Seriously, whatever yer smokin', pass some my way...
"he wasnts to destroy bush."
#2: Exaggerate. He doesn't want to destroy Bush, unless you're speaking metaphorically. His objective is not the death or physical dismemberment of Bush. His goal is to get people to register to vote, and then vote the bastard out. This is called democracy.
"i dont remember moore a few years ago during "operation perversion diversion""
#3: Distract and change the subject (if at all possible, use the Clintons). Congratulations! You've hit the trifecta. Now that you've exhausted your standard arsenal of right-wing disinformation, would you care to explain exactly *what the hell* Bill Clinton has to do with the war in Iraq? Or Michael Moore? Please?
Oh wait, that's right, you can't.
Your arguments are tired. Tell your overlords you need some new ones.
And the fact still remains, hating Micahel Moore will not make your world a better place. Going to see his movie and make up your mind for yourself just might. (Oh, I can just hear all the knees jerking...)
True, most companies (large ones anyway) tend to place a little more importance on their affairs than they might deserve. But very very few go the drastic and draconian lengths that the __AA organizations do. The company I work for might, at times, have been guilty of taking itself a little bit too seriously, but we don't engage in massive, nationwide propaganda wars (as opposed to ad campaigns, fine line I know) directed at actively destroying our competition. We hype the good points of our products versus our competitors, we aren't afraid of honest, capitalistic competition - and we're making money hand over fist.
Imagine if, instead of just saying they made better burgers, McDonald's made commercials saying that Burger King was immoral, that eating burgers from BK was a high crime punishable by years in the slammer, that if you ate from Burger King you are the scum of the earth and are taking food from the BK exec's mouths, and that McDonalds is actively searching for any eaters of BK food to turn in to the government. (Or, if you don't feel like taxing your imagination to that extent, just read the book)
All Burger King is to McDonald's is competition. And that's all online music distribution is to the record companies - competition. Somebody else here once said it best - "they are a cartel seeking to defend their monopoly on distribution". As an artist myself, I'd prefer a system that compensates the artist to one that doesn't, but I also prefer the system of download-for-free-and-the-artist-doesn't-get-paid to the system of pay-18.99-for-a-cd-and-the-artists-STILL-don't-get -paid.
Well, I always thought that was the case, and technically it may be the law, but it doesn't always work out that way. Basically, the police, once summoned, have the task of making a judgement call. If the proprietor has a reason (and not a silly one) for making the customer leave then the cops will cheerfully enforce it. But here's what happened to me...
I was working at a popular pizza joint on the east side of Milwaukee. We had big sign that said we reserved the right. A customer came in claiming she had a carryout order when her order wasn't in our system and her number wasn't on our caller id. No such order existed. Then when we told her we had no record of her order she became very belligerant very quickly, started demanding money, etc. We kicked her out. She went down to her car and called the cops, and waited until they showed up. She cried racism, and was convincing enough that not only did the cops say we had to serve her belligerant ass but we had to *re-imburse* her for the order she never placed and never paid for. The cops said if we didn't like it to file a grievance with the credit card company (which isn't worth it) or a complaint with the city (which nobody ever does). The letter of the law may be one thing, but when the cops take sides it doesn't matter what the law is until you get to court, months later. In a crunch, the law is what the cops say it is, practically. They have to make a snap decision, usually based on their gut instincts, and they do. And they let the courts sort out the legality of it afterward. Other employees at the same restaurant had the same experience with different customers, apparently this scam was well known to everybody except the cops.
I know, "they reserve the right". And once you get to court it's all well and good. But from a practical standpoint, you might well have a very hard time just making somebody leave a store for no reason at all, because the natural assumption on the part of the cops is going to be that you do have a reason, it's just racism or sexism or some other ism that you don't want to admit to.
Most cops I've associated with, if called to remove a paying customer from a store because they went to too many sales, would not only let the customer stay, but have a few choice words (or blows) for the idiot who called them for something so stupid when they could have been busting a crack house or a kiddie porn ring. Or at least eating a donut.
The letter of the law is interpreted in the courts by judges and juries. The spirit of the law is interpreted and enforced, day in and day out, by the police. And, say what you will about police, they can smell bullshit a mile away.
"He's cashing in. Oh, but it's okay because he makes "interesting points" and because he has "a quirky sense of humor"."
No, it's OK because he's trying to *stop* those deaths. He's trying to *end* the war in Iraq. Trying to *stop* innocent civilians from being killed in Iraq and jailed without charges or counsel in America.
Now, CNN and fox, OTOH, *they're* just cashing in. As if there's anything wrong with that.
Look, those solders and civilians are already dead. If F911 never was made - THEY'D STILL BE DEAD. Not making controversial movies never brought anybody back to life. Are historians who write books on the Civil War just "cashing in" on the deadliest war America ever fought? Is Mel Gibson just "cashing in" on the death of Jesus?
"Makes me want to vomit."
Here we get to the real meat of your post. Why didn't you just skip to this to begin with? Like the vast majority of people who are scared to see his movies, you hate MM just because he's unpopular, it's safe and socially acceptable to hate him. Just like Jim Crow, just like people were murdering Sikhs and Hispanics afater 9/11, just like "Americans" slaughtered the native people of this land to the point that their gene pool is no longer viable, the recurring and overriding message of American morality is this: if everybody else is doing it it must be OK.
And it's bullshit. Hating Michael Moore isn't going to make your world a better place.
you make some good points (I don't agree, but I can see your point of view). I'm not gonna get into the IP debate here cuz I'm frankly tired of it. The market, black or otherwise, will be the final arbiter of what socially acceptable behavior is (see also: prohibition). Also I think you and I could go back and forth for years on that debate.
But I think the main thing those of us on "my side" are chafing at is the *trend* of the __AA's to paint downloading as morally equivalent to eating live babies while their profits *keep* setting records, again and again and again. And again!. It's just a *little* disingenuous.
>>If you release movies that people WANT to see >>(Harry Potter, Spiderman, Shrek); than people >>will pay to see a movie?"
>Ahh, so people are only >stealing..er..downloading the movies that they >don't want to see? Wait, that makes no sense..."
How convenient that you've already limited anybody considering this question to two simple options: agree with you, or agree with you in a different way. And here I was with all these ideas about nuances and shades of grey, and how many problems might have a great number of solutions.... but no, thankfully you came along to remind everybody that there's only your two possibilities. Thanks.
How bout this one, Einstein: people download *indiscriminately*. They download *whatever they can*. Quality becomes a concern only after they've seen the downloaded version, when they're deciding whether it's worth $15 to see in the theatre.
Or you could just go on locking yourself into a on/off, zero/one, black/white world, where you don't have to consider, reflect or think about anything.
Slashdot Mirror
"They might be giants..." ...but they might be men.
Offtopic, I know. But if the word "large" didn't imply numerical largess, the word "international" surely did...
that's such a common practice at the datacenter that I work at that the first thing I say to somebody who's having password problems is, "did you roll it back a couple iterations?" About half the time that works, because like I said, everybody does this.
From the new school:
Simcity 4
Civ 3
Mechwarrior 4
Sims whatever
but the best video game ever was by far.... JUMPMAN.
um, GNU colon?
My old one's working just fine for right now, thanks.
"It is the right of the owner of a property to allow another party to use it at their discretion or not."
OK, fair enough. Now, I own property - an iPod - that I would like to grant Real discretion to use. You see how this logic cuts both ways?
Granted, I dislike Real almost as much as I dislike Apple (hey, at least Real never tried to get me spend money on anything *monochrome*).
I feel strongly that in a contest between property rights of relatively defenseless, mostly technically ignorant consumers, versus the supposed property (but usually really licensing) rights of incredibly well-funded, incredibly litigous, generally irresponsible corporations, even if all things were equal (which they hardly ever are), the rights of the consumers should definately trump those of corporations for one simple reason.
Corporations would not and could not exist without consumers. Consumers can and have existed just fine without corporations, and would cheerfully again. Therefore, while I'm in favor of corporate rights inasmuch as they don't infringe on consumer rights, when corporations choose to align themselves, diametrically, against their consumer base they *need* to be shot down like a rebellious teenager who steals the parents' car *needs* discipline.
Consumers enable the very existance of corporations, and hence should take moral and legal priority in any situation where they're foolish enough to align themselves directly against those without whom they could not exist.
I don't know what's more ironic - the similarity between the two situations, or the fact that a major step toward the standardization of phonograph playback was the intervention of a little thing called the RIAA, who standardized preamps and eq curves for phonograph players (turntables)
Your statement is incorrect.
Anything with strong crypto is considered, legally, a munition, and requires an export license. This includes, but is not limited to, Lotus, Novell, and anything else that uses RSA, like Internet Explorer.
Yeah, you love debate. Fine, be done with it. For the record, here's a list of the "cogent arguments" you ignored, tried to change the subject from, and took wild, flailing tangents off of.
1) democrats pay taxes too, duh
2) we have the cheapest taxes in the world
3) we have excellent quality of life
4) we have extraordinary business opportunities
5) 2+3+4=our tax rates and systems, while imperfect, are among the best such values in the world if not the best
6) if you are 100% opposed, philosophically, to paying taxes, you can undergo a legal process to disenfranchise yourself from the government, thereby relieving you of any and all tax debt
7) the popular perception (and not, contrary to your assertion, solely among liberals) of the Republican party and the movement conservative in general as "racist and poor hating" - your words, not mine - is directly related to both groups having undertaken actions that had a significant and measurable negative impact on minority and poor/middle class communities
8) you obviously aren't qualified to make the statement that I don't know any conservatives, which is why I'm starting to think you're a highly evolved troll, in which case you done trolled me good...
9) the only diference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want the help that the government gives to be to the people who are poor and actually need it, wheras conservatives want the help that the government gives to be to corporations and rich people who couldn't need it less
they all stand unrefuted, your obfuscation, free-association, and Freudian accusations of obviously projected anger and rage notwithstanding. the issues are what they are, they exist indepentantly of this debate. you can deal with the issues whenever you want.
or, not.
Son, I have not yet begun to emote. You love debate, you've come to the right place.
"You, Mr. Liberal, truly don't know any conservatives,"
Again, I call bullshit. Prove to me that I don't. You obviously have no idea who I know and who I don't.
"Racist, poor-hating,"
Racist/poor-hating is as racist/poor-hating does. Actions speak louder than words, especially from the reich-wing.
"while for liberals, the virtue is just spending the money."
How would you know the first thing about liberal values? Oh yeah, the same psychic way you magically knew that I don't know any conservatives - never mind my fishing/drinking buddies, my co-workers, my bandmates, my bosses and my entire family except my Mom. Nope, none at all. You got me pegged. Just keep on assuming.
The only diference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want the help that the government gives to be to the people who are poor and actually need it, wheras conservatives want the help that the government gives to be to corporations and rich people who couldn't need it less. Don't pretend for a second you don't believe in wealth redistribution. You just believe in it going from the people who need it to the people who don't.
You know what liberals do when we don't like our taxes? We don't pay them. Here's your options: 1) disenfranchise youself (unless you're scared, of course... I would be) 2) Move 3) STFU already about your taxes, realize that everybody's got em and nobody wants to hear about yours.
Which is why we should start trademarking our SSN's. Then they're ours, right?
I call bullshit.
"Oh, I love how Democrats love to congratulate themselves on how terribly compassionate they are. Well, it's easy to be compassionate with someone else's money, right?"
Last time I checked, Democrats paid taxes too. So it's our money just as much as it is yours. Taxes are the rent you pay the country to live or do business here. A good deal, when you consider that we have a) *THE CHEAPEST TAXES IN THE WORLD* and b) *THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY FOR BUSINESS*. Don't like the rent on the America apartments, that's fine, head down the block to the Botswana apartments, or maybe the Lebanaon apartments, or how bout the Pakistan apartments? They've all got higher rents and are in decidedly shabbier neighborhoods. But the burden placed on your poor, rich little shoulders by the American tax system is just too onerous, so have fun there paying more taxes for less benefits, like freedom.
Many states, including the one I live in (WI), allow one to "disenfranchise" themselves from the government. An old co-worker of mine had done this; he showed me the Driver's License they gave him when he did it. You can fill out some forms, and presto chango, no taxes for you! Seriously! Also, no police! Also, no fire department! Thinking about public school for your kids? Think again if you're disenfranchised. Hope you've got a septic tank, because I don't think they let disenfranchised people use the public sewer system. In short, you never pay taxes ever again, and you never benefit from the taxes others pay either. Go ahead, Mr. Conservative, disnefranchise yourself.
We both know you won't, because we both know that, deep beneath the carefully cultivated layers of deep contempt for the American tax system that are so fashionable today, you're well aware that you are afforded more opportunities here as a resident or an enterpreneur than you ever will be anywhere else in the world.
So I call bullshit.
"Microsoft resembles the government."
Where do you think the scrutiny is coming from? They're both monopolies who can't stand competition, let alone from each other.
strings... don't those become cumbersome? get snagged on things like your hand?
I just kinda figgered it'd be a hand shaped thing with a rfid tag and three antennae... seems like a perfectly legit use for rfid (for once).
But then, as long as we're being innovative, how about a pair of gloves with an rfid in the tip of each finger, combined with OS's and apps that make use of ten discrete interface points (using a traditional mouse, or even a 3D one, is still like using one finger - why not use all ten?), with distibuted antennae around the edge of the monitor?
Um, patent pending, or something...
Um, the RIAA WERE SUCCESSFUL in outlawing cassette recorders in the late 70's and early 80's. You couldn't get them except to order them from Europe or Japan. The RIAA's claim was that everybody would copy their records for their friends and then the RIAA'd go out of business. Sound familiar?
Only thing that stopped it was enough American's getting pissed off and writing their congressman. And then Congress passed the "mixtape law". How many times do we need to go over this, folks?
They're born and bred to a society that values money and things above people and feelings, and tells us that if we need things like love, respect, or acceptance, that we can simply go out and buy them. So naturally their concern is for themselves alone. I've never met a screwed-up kid that didn't have some pretty screwed-up parents, and I've met a *lot* of screwed-up kids.
Um, some of us still decorate that way, you insensitive clod!
"They already do. A cop on the street has a HUGE amount of lattitude over whether or not to arrest someone and what charges they want to file, particuarly for minor offenses."
Just like the prosecutor can choose not to prosecute (though they rarely do) and the judge/jury can choose not to convict or not to punish.
I've been saying this for years, maybe it'll start to catch on someday... but ALL laws need to be REQUIRED to have a damn EXPIRATION DATE. Simple as that. Every single friggin one. And no law should be allowed to be in effect longer than, say, fifty years without explicit Congressional re-authorization. There's a law that's still on the books in Georgia that says it's illegal to walk down the street with an ice cream cone in your back pocket. But only on Sunday. This law: a) wastes taxpayer dollars by it's very existance in a law book somewhere b) inspires contempt for worthwhile and meaningful laws, as all bad laws do, and c) presents, at the very least, something of a conundrum for police officers who actually see somebody walking down the street with an ice cream cone in his back pocket. On Sunday.
Even disregarding the fact that laws are based on the will of the people and the mores of society - both of which can change at a moment's notice - the tendency of legislators to consistantly and wildly over-legislate can be taken as given based on ample historical data. This problem can and should be addressed by changing the legislative process so that no bill is signed into law but that it has an expiration date.
When they start censoring political mesasges, you won't have any idead they're doing it because you'll never see them, and since people protesting it would also be a political message they'll just censor that too. So how will you know when to start getting upset?
My guess is, you won't.
Typical right-wing response, lie, exaggerate and distract... that's OK though, we can deal with that easily enough with a little truth and honesty. Those seem to be the things you're never prepared for.
"he doesnt want to end the war in iraq."
#1: Lie. What possible basis could you have for making such a ridiculous statement? Seriously, whatever yer smokin', pass some my way...
"he wasnts to destroy bush."
#2: Exaggerate. He doesn't want to destroy Bush, unless you're speaking metaphorically. His objective is not the death or physical dismemberment of Bush. His goal is to get people to register to vote, and then vote the bastard out. This is called democracy.
"i dont remember moore a few years ago during "operation perversion diversion""
#3: Distract and change the subject (if at all possible, use the Clintons). Congratulations! You've hit the trifecta. Now that you've exhausted your standard arsenal of right-wing disinformation, would you care to explain exactly *what the hell* Bill Clinton has to do with the war in Iraq? Or Michael Moore? Please?
Oh wait, that's right, you can't.
Your arguments are tired. Tell your overlords you need some new ones.
And the fact still remains, hating Micahel Moore will not make your world a better place. Going to see his movie and make up your mind for yourself just might. (Oh, I can just hear all the knees jerking...)
True, most companies (large ones anyway) tend to place a little more importance on their affairs than they might deserve. But very very few go the drastic and draconian lengths that the __AA organizations do. The company I work for might, at times, have been guilty of taking itself a little bit too seriously, but we don't engage in massive, nationwide propaganda wars (as opposed to ad campaigns, fine line I know) directed at actively destroying our competition. We hype the good points of our products versus our competitors, we aren't afraid of honest, capitalistic competition - and we're making money hand over fist.
t -paid.
Imagine if, instead of just saying they made better burgers, McDonald's made commercials saying that Burger King was immoral, that eating burgers from BK was a high crime punishable by years in the slammer, that if you ate from Burger King you are the scum of the earth and are taking food from the BK exec's mouths, and that McDonalds is actively searching for any eaters of BK food to turn in to the government. (Or, if you don't feel like taxing your imagination to that extent, just read the book)
All Burger King is to McDonald's is competition. And that's all online music distribution is to the record companies - competition. Somebody else here once said it best - "they are a cartel seeking to defend their monopoly on distribution". As an artist myself, I'd prefer a system that compensates the artist to one that doesn't, but I also prefer the system of download-for-free-and-the-artist-doesn't-get-paid to the system of pay-18.99-for-a-cd-and-the-artists-STILL-don't-ge
Well, I always thought that was the case, and technically it may be the law, but it doesn't always work out that way. Basically, the police, once summoned, have the task of making a judgement call. If the proprietor has a reason (and not a silly one) for making the customer leave then the cops will cheerfully enforce it. But here's what happened to me...
I was working at a popular pizza joint on the east side of Milwaukee. We had big sign that said we reserved the right. A customer came in claiming she had a carryout order when her order wasn't in our system and her number wasn't on our caller id. No such order existed. Then when we told her we had no record of her order she became very belligerant very quickly, started demanding money, etc. We kicked her out. She went down to her car and called the cops, and waited until they showed up. She cried racism, and was convincing enough that not only did the cops say we had to serve her belligerant ass but we had to *re-imburse* her for the order she never placed and never paid for. The cops said if we didn't like it to file a grievance with the credit card company (which isn't worth it) or a complaint with the city (which nobody ever does). The letter of the law may be one thing, but when the cops take sides it doesn't matter what the law is until you get to court, months later. In a crunch, the law is what the cops say it is, practically. They have to make a snap decision, usually based on their gut instincts, and they do. And they let the courts sort out the legality of it afterward. Other employees at the same restaurant had the same experience with different customers, apparently this scam was well known to everybody except the cops.
I know, "they reserve the right". And once you get to court it's all well and good. But from a practical standpoint, you might well have a very hard time just making somebody leave a store for no reason at all, because the natural assumption on the part of the cops is going to be that you do have a reason, it's just racism or sexism or some other ism that you don't want to admit to.
Most cops I've associated with, if called to remove a paying customer from a store because they went to too many sales, would not only let the customer stay, but have a few choice words (or blows) for the idiot who called them for something so stupid when they could have been busting a crack house or a kiddie porn ring. Or at least eating a donut.
The letter of the law is interpreted in the courts by judges and juries. The spirit of the law is interpreted and enforced, day in and day out, by the police. And, say what you will about police, they can smell bullshit a mile away.
"He's cashing in. Oh, but it's okay because he makes "interesting points" and because he has "a quirky sense of humor"."
No, it's OK because he's trying to *stop* those deaths. He's trying to *end* the war in Iraq. Trying to *stop* innocent civilians from being killed in Iraq and jailed without charges or counsel in America.
Now, CNN and fox, OTOH, *they're* just cashing in. As if there's anything wrong with that.
Look, those solders and civilians are already dead. If F911 never was made - THEY'D STILL BE DEAD. Not making controversial movies never brought anybody back to life. Are historians who write books on the Civil War just "cashing in" on the deadliest war America ever fought? Is Mel Gibson just "cashing in" on the death of Jesus?
"Makes me want to vomit."
Here we get to the real meat of your post. Why didn't you just skip to this to begin with? Like the vast majority of people who are scared to see his movies, you hate MM just because he's unpopular, it's safe and socially acceptable to hate him. Just like Jim Crow, just like people were murdering Sikhs and Hispanics afater 9/11, just like "Americans" slaughtered the native people of this land to the point that their gene pool is no longer viable, the recurring and overriding message of American morality is this: if everybody else is doing it it must be OK.
And it's bullshit. Hating Michael Moore isn't going to make your world a better place.
you make some good points (I don't agree, but I can see your point of view). I'm not gonna get into the IP debate here cuz I'm frankly tired of it. The market, black or otherwise, will be the final arbiter of what socially acceptable behavior is (see also: prohibition). Also I think you and I could go back and forth for years on that debate.
But I think the main thing those of us on "my side" are chafing at is the *trend* of the __AA's to paint downloading as morally equivalent to eating live babies while their profits *keep* setting records, again and again and again. And again!. It's just a *little* disingenuous.
>>If you release movies that people WANT to see
>>(Harry Potter, Spiderman, Shrek); than people
>>will pay to see a movie?"
>Ahh, so people are only
>stealing..er..downloading the movies that they
>don't want to see? Wait, that makes no sense..."
How convenient that you've already limited anybody considering this question to two simple options: agree with you, or agree with you in a different way. And here I was with all these ideas about nuances and shades of grey, and how many problems might have a great number of solutions.... but no, thankfully you came along to remind everybody that there's only your two possibilities. Thanks.
How bout this one, Einstein: people download *indiscriminately*. They download *whatever they can*. Quality becomes a concern only after they've seen the downloaded version, when they're deciding whether it's worth $15 to see in the theatre.
Or you could just go on locking yourself into a on/off, zero/one, black/white world, where you don't have to consider, reflect or think about anything.