"No music exists independent of what came before."
Guess you never heard of John Cage,Glenn Branca,Conrad Schnitzler or many other artists,obscured by the pop industry,pushing music in NEW directions and forms.
And those people wrote completely new music that had zero inheritance from previous music? Gaaak, you are musically naive if you believe that. Broaden your horizons.
As for better or worse, only fools think in those terms. Different is the only term that counts.
And what is better? Is it music as it was a hundred years ago or music as it is now?
How dense are you, really? No music exists independent of what came before. All music is variations on what came before. Music now is music past plus a smidge, always has been, always will be. Music now is not better than music then, or worse, it is only music different. If you truly think music now is always better than music past, you are one sorry sucker.
You miss my point. Up until about 100 years ago at most, musicians made their money off their own performances, not others playing their music. There was plenty of music without royalties and copyright.
Music existed long before Hollywood came on the scene and will exist long after they have disappeared. Hollywood doesn't give a crap about music, only about controlling it via extortion "on their behalf".
Information and knowledge is what makes the world go round. It is no coincidence that the printing press spread literacy and knowledge and broke down centralized power -- broke up the Christian church, broke up kingdoms and leagues, spread power within countries from kings and aristocracy down to merchants and craftsmen and individual peasants and even (gasp!) women eventually.
Knowledge is power, always has been. Spreading that knowledge to all without having to pay a fortune scares politicians of all stripes around the world.
There are VERY few open software projects that even begin to compare to their commercial equivalents.
What commercial projects are even vaguely similar to Bash, Perl, Python, Ruby? I'd like to see you mention Visual Basic with a straight face.
Commercial apps -- well, some of them have some fancy features that free source apps don't, but those features are only used by 1% of their users. Your favorite subject (photoshop vs gimp) is like comparing a Rolls-Royce to a Camry. Very few people need either the Rolls-Royce or photoshop.
I get the impression here that by settling, even though she lost some money, she also made her legal contributions permanent precedents available for use by other cases. But if she had kept on, she risked backtracking and upsetting those precedents on appeal. Now that it is over, the RIAA can't appeal the precedents.
Is this even close to correct? If it is, then it is probably much better to have settled for such a paltry sum.
Related to that, is there any way for strangers to contribute to her payments?
WW I: Interlocking treaties, an assassin, and countries with long winded mobilization plans which were rooted in old ways and could not be stopped once started, at least without losing way too much face.
South Ossetia: No treaties, just power hungry personalities (Russia, USA, Georgia) pushing and nibbling at each other until one of them (Georgia) did something really stupid which made it too tempting for a second (Russia) to resist tweaking the nose of the third (USA) in some weird personal tit-for-tat scheme.
Yup, plenty of similarities there. Why don't you list them for us?
I need government to protect me from assholes like you, who will steal, speed, drive drunk, etc. When you endanger my safety or property, that's when I need government. That big metal sign isn't from the nanny state, it protects me from irresponsible fucktard anarchists like you. SLOW IT DOWN, DUMBASS.
Hey, DUMBASS, have you been paying attention? Speed kills only if you get in an accident, which is more likely when individual cars vary speed too much. The number of accidents goes down when cars are going roughly the same speed. You go slow when everyone else is going fast? Then YOU are causing the accidents. SPEED IT UP, DUMBASS.
It's also obvious that what I said is non-controversial. Survivability drops off steeply with speed.
Non-controversial?!? My how you have grand delusions!
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between driving safely and surviving crashes. Driving safely means avoiding crashes, and is best done by going with the flow. If you go slow and cause accidents, maybe your chances of surviving are better, but they would have been better still if you hadn't caused the accident in the first place.
I drive safe because I couldn't live with killing someone.
Nice idea, but your anecdotes do not make a scientific study. Numerous studies have shown it is the difference in speed that causes accidents. You can make all the feel good statements you want if that's what makes you feel better, but you aren't driving safely when most of the other drivers are piling up behind you and swerving around you just because it makes you feel better.
I drive safely because I know what safe is, not because I let gut instinct run my logic.
You can have that attitude and that big fucking metal sign. I'd rather not be a nanny stater and try to run other people's lives. That's the true anti-social attitude.
Dang, hit SUBMIT too soon. It's wonderful when a nanny stater, who indubitably hates the idea of civilians owning guns, relies on the guns of government thugs to back up the big fucking metal sign of his anti-freedom nanny state. It shows your incredible arrogance that you rely on the metal sign and the government guns which back it up rather than any kind of logic or truth.
I think you know that you're cherry-picking one obscure study, from 1992... Inappropriate speed is anti-social. You want to make yourself the sole arbiter of what the safe speed of a road is. I think you're wrong, and I've got the law and that big fucking metal sign on my side.
Heh, you start out implying you have the study on your side, then degenerate into the typical nanny state "You are anti-social and I know better than you what's good for everybody" when the proper response is to let people think for themselves, which, in that study, they do remarkably consistently and safely.
You can have that attitude and that big fucking metal sign. I'd rather not be a nanny stater and try to run other people's lives. That's the true anti-social attitude.
Speed variance is a bigger killer than raw speed, but our speed limits are generally set lower than most drivers can handle.
If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.
If you actually research this statement instead of taking a knee jerk reaction, I know you'll find that speed variance IS the culprit, established by many studies. You might also find that the recommended speed limits are at a speed such that 85% of the cars will be under it, that raising and lowering speed limits away from that 85% level has very little effect on speeds, and that jurisdictions set speed limits away from the 85% level as a response to lack of revenue or to give residents a false sense of something being done.
Go ahead. Look it up. Here's a clue: FHWA-RD-92-084
All politicians by definition think they are better than everybody else, that they alone know what is best for everybody else.
Right wing politicians got that way from too many rough dealings with other people. Therefore they think people are too evil to be allowed to think for themselves.
Left wing politicians got that way by watching others make mistakes and do dumb things. Therefore they think people are too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves.
But all politicians think people should not be allowed to think for themselves, that they should do all the thinking for everybody, whether as part of the government or business.
I don't know, dude. This is the Caucasus [wikipedia.org] we're talking about. Lots of Caucasians there.
Yah, but they're mostly self-loathing caucasians, as opposed to white supremacists.
You think white supremacists don't loathe themselves? I always figured those who have to denigrate others to feel better about themselves must have a pretty low opinion of themselves to start with.
Slashdot Mirror
"No music exists independent of what came before."
Guess you never heard of John Cage,Glenn Branca,Conrad Schnitzler or many other artists,obscured by the pop industry,pushing music in NEW directions and forms.
And those people wrote completely new music that had zero inheritance from previous music? Gaaak, you are musically naive if you believe that. Broaden your horizons.
As for better or worse, only fools think in those terms. Different is the only term that counts.
And what is better? Is it music as it was a hundred years ago or music as it is now?
How dense are you, really? No music exists independent of what came before. All music is variations on what came before. Music now is music past plus a smidge, always has been, always will be. Music now is not better than music then, or worse, it is only music different. If you truly think music now is always better than music past, you are one sorry sucker.
You miss my point. Up until about 100 years ago at most, musicians made their money off their own performances, not others playing their music. There was plenty of music without royalties and copyright.
Do you make pictures of Rolls-Royces?
Music existed long before Hollywood came on the scene and will exist long after they have disappeared. Hollywood doesn't give a crap about music, only about controlling it via extortion "on their behalf".
Too bad you got marked as flamebait.
Information and knowledge is what makes the world go round. It is no coincidence that the printing press spread literacy and knowledge and broke down centralized power -- broke up the Christian church, broke up kingdoms and leagues, spread power within countries from kings and aristocracy down to merchants and craftsmen and individual peasants and even (gasp!) women eventually.
Knowledge is power, always has been. Spreading that knowledge to all without having to pay a fortune scares politicians of all stripes around the world.
There are VERY few open software projects that even begin to compare to their commercial equivalents.
What commercial projects are even vaguely similar to Bash, Perl, Python, Ruby? I'd like to see you mention Visual Basic with a straight face.
Commercial apps -- well, some of them have some fancy features that free source apps don't, but those features are only used by 1% of their users. Your favorite subject (photoshop vs gimp) is like comparing a Rolls-Royce to a Camry. Very few people need either the Rolls-Royce or photoshop.
don't go full retard
Too late for you! Whoosh!
I get the impression here that by settling, even though she lost some money, she also made her legal contributions permanent precedents available for use by other cases. But if she had kept on, she risked backtracking and upsetting those precedents on appeal. Now that it is over, the RIAA can't appeal the precedents.
Is this even close to correct? If it is, then it is probably much better to have settled for such a paltry sum.
Related to that, is there any way for strangers to contribute to her payments?
WW I: Interlocking treaties, an assassin, and countries with long winded mobilization plans which were rooted in old ways and could not be stopped once started, at least without losing way too much face.
South Ossetia: No treaties, just power hungry personalities (Russia, USA, Georgia) pushing and nibbling at each other until one of them (Georgia) did something really stupid which made it too tempting for a second (Russia) to resist tweaking the nose of the third (USA) in some weird personal tit-for-tat scheme.
Yup, plenty of similarities there. Why don't you list them for us?
I always figured those who have to denigrate others to feel better about themselves must have a pretty low opinion of themselves to start with.
Pot. Kettle. Gun toting Republican Nazi.
It is interesting that you didn't finish that pot and kettle saying ...
I need government to protect me from assholes like you, who will steal, speed, drive drunk, etc. When you endanger my safety or property, that's when I need government. That big metal sign isn't from the nanny state, it protects me from irresponsible fucktard anarchists like you. SLOW IT DOWN, DUMBASS.
Hey, DUMBASS, have you been paying attention? Speed kills only if you get in an accident, which is more likely when individual cars vary speed too much. The number of accidents goes down when cars are going roughly the same speed. You go slow when everyone else is going fast? Then YOU are causing the accidents. SPEED IT UP, DUMBASS.
It's also obvious that what I said is non-controversial. Survivability drops off steeply with speed.
Non-controversial?!? My how you have grand delusions!
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between driving safely and surviving crashes. Driving safely means avoiding crashes, and is best done by going with the flow. If you go slow and cause accidents, maybe your chances of surviving are better, but they would have been better still if you hadn't caused the accident in the first place.
I drive safe because I couldn't live with killing someone.
Nice idea, but your anecdotes do not make a scientific study. Numerous studies have shown it is the difference in speed that causes accidents. You can make all the feel good statements you want if that's what makes you feel better, but you aren't driving safely when most of the other drivers are piling up behind you and swerving around you just because it makes you feel better.
I drive safely because I know what safe is, not because I let gut instinct run my logic.
You can have that attitude and that big fucking metal sign. I'd rather not be a nanny stater and try to run other people's lives. That's the true anti-social attitude.
Dang, hit SUBMIT too soon. It's wonderful when a nanny stater, who indubitably hates the idea of civilians owning guns, relies on the guns of government thugs to back up the big fucking metal sign of his anti-freedom nanny state. It shows your incredible arrogance that you rely on the metal sign and the government guns which back it up rather than any kind of logic or truth.
I think you know that you're cherry-picking one obscure study, from 1992 ... Inappropriate speed is anti-social. You want to make yourself the sole arbiter of what the safe speed of a road is. I think you're wrong, and I've got the law and that big fucking metal sign on my side.
Heh, you start out implying you have the study on your side, then degenerate into the typical nanny state "You are anti-social and I know better than you what's good for everybody" when the proper response is to let people think for themselves, which, in that study, they do remarkably consistently and safely.
You can have that attitude and that big fucking metal sign. I'd rather not be a nanny stater and try to run other people's lives. That's the true anti-social attitude.
If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.
If you actually research this statement instead of taking a knee jerk reaction, I know you'll find that speed variance IS the culprit, established by many studies. You might also find that the recommended speed limits are at a speed such that 85% of the cars will be under it, that raising and lowering speed limits away from that 85% level has very little effect on speeds, and that jurisdictions set speed limits away from the 85% level as a response to lack of revenue or to give residents a false sense of something being done.
Go ahead. Look it up. Here's a clue: FHWA-RD-92-084
All politicians by definition think they are better than everybody else, that they alone know what is best for everybody else.
Right wing politicians got that way from too many rough dealings with other people. Therefore they think people are too evil to be allowed to think for themselves.
Left wing politicians got that way by watching others make mistakes and do dumb things. Therefore they think people are too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves.
But all politicians think people should not be allowed to think for themselves, that they should do all the thinking for everybody, whether as part of the government or business.
We need a "hat colour" for a war hacker. This will become a lot more common in the information age.
Any takes on a good colour?
Digital Camo of course. Sheesh, what's your excuse? Your UID isn't THAT high.
I don't know, dude. This is the Caucasus [wikipedia.org] we're talking about. Lots of Caucasians there.
Yah, but they're mostly self-loathing caucasians, as opposed to white supremacists.
You think white supremacists don't loathe themselves? I always figured those who have to denigrate others to feel better about themselves must have a pretty low opinion of themselves to start with.
Redundancy, redundancy, alternate-universe redundancy
There, fixed that for you. Backups aren't worth a damn when the interspatial bypass comes through.
GIVE ME MONEY PLEASE!!!! *Sticks out hand*
Dude, it doesn't work if you include that in your pre-made rhetoric.
Include?!?!
That IS his pre-made rhetoric.
You're clearly an argument troll who makes up bullshit just to rile people up.
Stop bothering me asshole. Fuck, you're a loser.
You're clearly an argument troll who makes up stuff just to rile people up.
Stop bothering me fool. Man, you're losing.
Personally, I have always felt...
Your preferences aren't particularly relevant to one of the historically core events.
You pretend your preferences are global, he doesn't. You lose.
Wasn't it you who accused me of not proving stats and calling you names?
Looks like you are all hot air and no substance. Smoking people out is fun. I've got lots of experience at it.