this would be the case if networks were violating obscenity regulations intentionally, thinking "eh, we'll swallow the fines, the ratings will be worth it" This hasn't happened yet.
Not true. Infinity Brodcasting paid $1.7 million in fines rather than cancel Howard Stern's show or force him to tone it down, because the amount of revenue generated by his show justified the expenditure. When you've got a guy who makes your company millions of dollars by violating FCC regulations, you view the fines as operating costs.
Actually, it's probably more acurate to say at any point in the development when all biological functions are developed and the fetus can survive on it's [sic] own.
Seriously, what am I supposed to see? I am running Firefox and popup blocking and adblock... so I don't see any ads, if that is what you were referring to.
Thank you to you and all the other clever people who bragged about your ad-blocking software. Please remember that the poster I quoted said he "wouldn't care if all the ad-supported content left the internet." The mere fact that there are ads there for your oh-so-marvelous Firefox to block means that Slashdot is, in fact, "ad-supported content." Hence the poster, and those who agreed with him, wouldn't mind if Slashdot disappeared. But they like it enough to read it and post here.
Mod1: Hey Phil, you see that post from the guy telling Americans to rise up?
Mod2: Yeah, I was just about to mark it "Flamebait."
Mod1: And I was gonna mark it "Troll." But check it out: it says "Note to Mods: NOT A FLAME, NOT A TROLL!!!!!!"
Mod2: Yeah, in all caps.
Mod1: And with no less than six exclamation points.
Mod2: And when you've been on the internets as long as we have, you know that anyone who uses all caps and multiple exclamation points just has to be sincere.
Mod1: You certainly do, Phil.
Mod2: I'm marking this one "Informative."
Mod1: And I'm marking it "Insightful."
Mod2: It's a good thing he told us how to moderate his own post, or we could have made a huge mistake.
Mod1: You're certainly right about that, Phil.
Mod2: I think I'll start using heroin.
Mod1: Courtney Love said it makes you cool and moody.
Mod2: She certainly did. (Dies of overdose.)
I take issue with the fraud idea. They aren't charging late fees anymore.
How, exactly, are you defining "late fees"? Maybe I'm not being postmodern enough, but I always thought they were fees you get charged when you're late returning a movie. Under the current plan, if you're late returning a movie, you get charged money. You do get that back if you subsequently return the movie-- minus a "restocking fee." The fact that you don't use the phrase "late fee" to refer to it doesn't change the fact that you're still charged a fee if you're late returning the movie.
If your landlord told you he wasn't charging you rent anymore, and then the next month he demands a "monthly habitation fee" that's twice your former rent, would you think he was being honest?
On top of that, multi-billion dollar corporations are reliant on people paying for voice communication and will stop at nothing to make people believe phones will be needed untill the end of time. This can be parallelled with oil companies trying to stall advancements in alternative fuel production.
Let me tell you how all this works: you see, telephone service providers are funded by the corporations, so they fight for the corporations... while they sit in their corporation buildings... and they're all corporation-y... and they make lots of money!
Without those companies helping, you simply aren't going to see that kind of exposure.
In case you forgot, this article is about an artist who won a Grammy for a web-distributed album which bypassed "those companies" completely. Kind of refutes your claim.
Continue to produce at the level the audiences want, and you're in a position to negotiate a vastly better deal.
Unlike such unknown amateurs as Little Richard, Prince, and Chuck D.
There's nothing forcing people to go this route, but most are WAY too busy being musicians to also be the aggressive marketers, business people and fundraisers to build substantial momentum by any other means.
It seems to me that it's only the "aggressive marketers" who are pissed off at p2p. The actual artists realize that they can't be both musicians and marketers, and that they are actually helped by the greater exposure file-sharing and Web distribution provide.
Pretty obnoxious, expecting to actually get paid for their work.
Almost as obnoxious as expecting to make money on an album, instead of accepting an advance which then gets taken out of album sales and paid back to the record label, so that you never actually see any money from it even if people do buy it. Look at the figures.
If you're concerned that this joke might be anti-Semitic, I think it's just the opposite: a joke about a Jew and a banking system that doesn't involve an international Zionist conspiracy.
I read the first paragraph, which made some valid points, and wondered if it was just the prevailing Slashdot opinion that RFID tags are evil which caused this post to be modded flamebait.
Then I read the second paragraph, and I realized the moderators were right.
Those who think it's evil to advocate the enforcement of copyrights on commercial software should bear in mind that it is this same copyright law which is at the center of IBM's defence against SCO, which, if you need a reminder, is not "Copyrights are evil, man, and SCO needs to like, chill out and let it be free," but "Linux was copyrighted according to the GPL, and SCO violated those terms."
You can't apply copyright law only to those things which you, personally, want copyrighted.
Those who think "found objects" like unmade beds and urinals are a disgrace to the word "art" should check out the Stuckists.
From one of their manifestos: "Declaring a dead horse hung from the ceiling of a gallery not to be art is not racism or hatred of dead horses. It is a value judgement, and here on earth value judgements are of value."
Slashdot Mirror
They're seperate of any nuclear commission. Why compare the two?
Because the relative severity of the punishments meted out gives us a good idea of how seriously those crimes are perceived by the government.
this would be the case if networks were violating obscenity regulations intentionally, thinking "eh, we'll swallow the fines, the ratings will be worth it" This hasn't happened yet.
Not true. Infinity Brodcasting paid $1.7 million in fines rather than cancel Howard Stern's show or force him to tone it down, because the amount of revenue generated by his show justified the expenditure. When you've got a guy who makes your company millions of dollars by violating FCC regulations, you view the fines as operating costs.
Actually, it's probably more acurate to say at any point in the development when all biological functions are developed and the fetus can survive on it's [sic] own.
Does that mean premature babies aren't alive?
Seriously, what am I supposed to see? I am running Firefox and popup blocking and adblock... so I don't see any ads, if that is what you were referring to.
Thank you to you and all the other clever people who bragged about your ad-blocking software. Please remember that the poster I quoted said he "wouldn't care if all the ad-supported content left the internet." The mere fact that there are ads there for your oh-so-marvelous Firefox to block means that Slashdot is, in fact, "ad-supported content." Hence the poster, and those who agreed with him, wouldn't mind if Slashdot disappeared. But they like it enough to read it and post here.
Note to Mods: NOT A FLAME, NOT A TROLL!!!!!!
Mod1: Hey Phil, you see that post from the guy telling Americans to rise up?
Mod2: Yeah, I was just about to mark it "Flamebait."
Mod1: And I was gonna mark it "Troll." But check it out: it says "Note to Mods: NOT A FLAME, NOT A TROLL!!!!!!"
Mod2: Yeah, in all caps.
Mod1: And with no less than six exclamation points.
Mod2: And when you've been on the internets as long as we have, you know that anyone who uses all caps and multiple exclamation points just has to be sincere.
Mod1: You certainly do, Phil.
Mod2: I'm marking this one "Informative."
Mod1: And I'm marking it "Insightful."
Mod2: It's a good thing he told us how to moderate his own post, or we could have made a huge mistake.
Mod1: You're certainly right about that, Phil.
Mod2: I think I'll start using heroin.
Mod1: Courtney Love said it makes you cool and moody.
Mod2: She certainly did. (Dies of overdose.)
Honestly i wouldn't care if all the ad-supported content left the internet.
Would the author of this post, and everyone who modded him "Interesting," please look up at the top of your browser window and tell me what you see?
I take issue with the fraud idea. They aren't charging late fees anymore.
How, exactly, are you defining "late fees"? Maybe I'm not being postmodern enough, but I always thought they were fees you get charged when you're late returning a movie. Under the current plan, if you're late returning a movie, you get charged money. You do get that back if you subsequently return the movie-- minus a "restocking fee." The fact that you don't use the phrase "late fee" to refer to it doesn't change the fact that you're still charged a fee if you're late returning the movie.
If your landlord told you he wasn't charging you rent anymore, and then the next month he demands a "monthly habitation fee" that's twice your former rent, would you think he was being honest?
Ask the Welsh if they're British.
Better yet, ask them that in Welsh. They'll probably ask you to repeat it in English.
On top of that, multi-billion dollar corporations are reliant on people paying for voice communication and will stop at nothing to make people believe phones will be needed untill the end of time. This can be parallelled with oil companies trying to stall advancements in alternative fuel production.
Let me tell you how all this works: you see, telephone service providers are funded by the corporations, so they fight for the corporations... while they sit in their corporation buildings... and they're all corporation-y... and they make lots of money!
Without those companies helping, you simply aren't going to see that kind of exposure.
In case you forgot, this article is about an artist who won a Grammy for a web-distributed album which bypassed "those companies" completely. Kind of refutes your claim.
Continue to produce at the level the audiences want, and you're in a position to negotiate a vastly better deal.
Unlike such unknown amateurs as Little Richard, Prince, and Chuck D.
There's nothing forcing people to go this route, but most are WAY too busy being musicians to also be the aggressive marketers, business people and fundraisers to build substantial momentum by any other means.
It seems to me that it's only the "aggressive marketers" who are pissed off at p2p. The actual artists realize that they can't be both musicians and marketers, and that they are actually helped by the greater exposure file-sharing and Web distribution provide.
Two words: Kurt Cobain
They'll force her to marry a whiny neurotic heroin addict who'll drive her to suicide and then keep all her remaining songs tied up in legal limbo?
Pretty obnoxious, expecting to actually get paid for their work.
Almost as obnoxious as expecting to make money on an album, instead of accepting an advance which then gets taken out of album sales and paid back to the record label, so that you never actually see any money from it even if people do buy it. Look at the figures.
I don't think you should include Bono in your argument. He has done more to help out the poor in this world than just about anybody.
um... how?
does he have to be jewish?
If you're concerned that this joke might be anti-Semitic, I think it's just the opposite: a joke about a Jew and a banking system that doesn't involve an international Zionist conspiracy.
Well, if a Wikipedia article whose neutrality and facticity have been disputed says it, that tears it. That's almost as infallible as Usenet.
Which is why I do my part by never RTFA. Mostly cuz the articles are usually basically what the summary says
Wait, are you reading the same slashdot I'm reading?
Each country in the EU is sovereigen and has their own government, which is controlled by their own parliament.
Yeah, they're sovereign on paper.
Hopefully Libertarians will take power before all is lost.
Sure. Then it will be the legally unaccountable corporations, rather than the Big Evil Government, who spy on our every move. And everybody is happy!
3 kids were punished for possessing pornography because they had a drawing of a stick figure with breasts and a penis.
Serves 'em right. Pre-op transexual porn does not belong in our schools.
I read the first paragraph, which made some valid points, and wondered if it was just the prevailing Slashdot opinion that RFID tags are evil which caused this post to be modded flamebait.
Then I read the second paragraph, and I realized the moderators were right.
Those who think it's evil to advocate the enforcement of copyrights on commercial software should bear in mind that it is this same copyright law which is at the center of IBM's defence against SCO, which, if you need a reminder, is not "Copyrights are evil, man, and SCO needs to like, chill out and let it be free," but "Linux was copyrighted according to the GPL, and SCO violated those terms."
You can't apply copyright law only to those things which you, personally, want copyrighted.
Maybe Scott Adams is not as brave as Bill Waterson.
Come on. If Waterson had balls, he'd be taking a crowbar to the windshield of every El Camino with a sticker of Calvin pissing on a Ford logo.
Those who think "found objects" like unmade beds and urinals are a disgrace to the word "art" should check out the Stuckists.
From one of their manifestos: "Declaring a dead horse hung from the ceiling of a gallery not to be art is not racism or hatred of dead horses. It is a value judgement, and here on earth value judgements are of value."
If DeNiro shows up to fix my toilet I'm moving to Canada.
Canada? Surely you mean Brazil...
Hey, any computer endorsed by the Cheat can't be all bad.