I actually LIKE the disagree mail . . . it brightens my day while I'm dealing with technophobes who are no more coherent than the folks writing these rants.
The color matching section was quite impressive given the wide variety of lighting and color temp in the starting photos; if they wrote their own software to do that, it sure counts as R/D.
I wonder if he made sure it was her personal computer. She could have been bringing her husband's computer in instead of her own. Now that would have been amusingly ironic.
He removed himself and his spawn from the gene pool.
You're saying a three year old kid is responsible for the crimes of their father?
Cry if you like but he paid his debt to society back.
If you're arguing that, what debt to society did the child have? Being related to him? Then every time we arrest a criminal, we should also arrest his family and charge them for his crime.
In ancient Japan it was honorable to take one's life after the shame of defeat.
And to kill one's children too? It's a slippery slope to claim that blood relation to a criminal is by itself a valid reason to punish someone for a crime they didn't commit.
We had a pretty vicious troll once on a forum I post on. It's a small forum where most of us have been members for several years so we all know each other pretty well; one day this troll showed up and started ripping into us and the forum topic. The mods banned him, but he kept coming back under different names. So we the posters all began treating him as a joke instead of a troll - he'd post some flame and we'd all post back saying things like: "Ha ha, is that you, [random other poster's name]? You really sound like a troll!" "LOL! That was good! Do it again!" "This has got to be a joke; I bet that's [random poster's name] pretending to be a troll!" "Hey, [random other poster's name], you're arguing with yourself on the forum! That's hilarious!"
It's a/. meme, like "imagine a Beowulf cluster of x" or the CowboyNeal option. I can't think of a really good explanation at the moment, so here's a sort of example:
Poster: "Americans are overweight from eating too much junk food!"
Reply: "In Soviet Russia, junk food eats you!"
It sort of pokes fun at the Communist system, Cold War mentality, etc. I'm doing a bad job of explaining this; someone else want to try?
Good point. A discussion of Ebola would probably have already started some panic, though; it's better known than smallpox thanks to movies, even though smallpox is airborne and has a higher transmission rate. Provided people aren't handling the body/fluids.
I think they're a little premature in claiming smallpox has been eradicated just because it hasn't shown up in half a century. Ebola disappears for a decade or so before popping up again.
So, if everyone on some large forum started talking about, say, measles, would the CDC show up at the server room and demand the names of the users so they can "contain the outbreak"?
I think what people are trying to say is that the *AA are not selling what people want and when people don't buy what they're selling, they're trying to force them to buy it anyway.
The business model that is outdated is the album - most people don't want to buy albums any more, they want individual songs. That's why iTunes sells so much. But the record companies want people to keep buying whole albums at $15-20 a pop regardless of the fact that the market is changing.
It's not really a matter of piracy, it's a matter of people exercising their right to not buy what they don't want to. Whether they buy a single off iTunes or just live without the song (for the purposes of this discussion I'm not saying piracy is a right), the thing is they're not buying the album.
Yes, some people are pirating songs, but even if you could wave a wand and stop all piracy tomorrow a lot of people would still not pay $20 for an album they only want one song from. The record companies want people to continue buying albums and seem to think that if they just stamp out piracy and filesharing in general (legal and illegal) people will go back to buying them.
It's one thing if they want to prosecute real pirates who are making and selling CDs and DVDs for money, but does the fact that they aren't selling what people want give them the right to introduce draconian legislation that will adversely affect many other companies (ISP's) and services (legal filesharing, etc.)?
But once he's seen how much faster pages load on his friend Billy-Bob's broadband connection, will he remain content with his dialup service? And that game Billy-Bob plays with all those folks online is, like, WOW. There's probably even girls on there.
If an American terrorist group was firing rockets at your towns and sending suicide bombers to kill your civilians and our country did nothing to stop them, would you consider it wrong for your country to fight back?
Now if you folks want to launch a strategic strike on the MAFIAA, please do. This intellectual property madness is producing intellectual terrorism.
Suicide bombers give up their lives for their religion. True. But their goal is to kill as many others as possible. Have you ever heard of a martyred missionary who was trying to kill the people around them in the process?
Slashdot Mirror
I actually LIKE the disagree mail . . . it brightens my day while I'm dealing with technophobes who are no more coherent than the folks writing these rants.
If he has problems keeping his entries up, could /. arrange to host them for him? This is a news site, and that's news, right?
I kinda like my membership in the "Download Once, Play Anywhere" Group.
If I don't, I'll get dragged out of the basement by trolls. The ponies told me so.
"iTunes has detected illegal music files. Now trashing your computer . . . please wait for the lawyers to show up."
The new address was in a locked file cabinet in a disused bathroom in the basement with a sign on the door that said "Beware of the leopard".
Nice reference.
Doesn't anyone else get it?
The color matching section was quite impressive given the wide variety of lighting and color temp in the starting photos; if they wrote their own software to do that, it sure counts as R/D.
Shoggoths.
I wonder if he made sure it was her personal computer. She could have been bringing her husband's computer in instead of her own. Now that would have been amusingly ironic.
Punishing the killers won't stop murders. While we're at it, let's make all crime legal.
It'll stop them from committing more.
He removed himself and his spawn from the gene pool.
You're saying a three year old kid is responsible for the crimes of their father?
Cry if you like but he paid his debt to society back.
If you're arguing that, what debt to society did the child have? Being related to him? Then every time we arrest a criminal, we should also arrest his family and charge them for his crime.
In ancient Japan it was honorable to take one's life after the shame of defeat.
And to kill one's children too? It's a slippery slope to claim that blood relation to a criminal is by itself a valid reason to punish someone for a crime they didn't commit.
We had a pretty vicious troll once on a forum I post on. It's a small forum where most of us have been members for several years so we all know each other pretty well; one day this troll showed up and started ripping into us and the forum topic. The mods banned him, but he kept coming back under different names. So we the posters all began treating him as a joke instead of a troll - he'd post some flame and we'd all post back saying things like:
"Ha ha, is that you, [random other poster's name]? You really sound like a troll!"
"LOL! That was good! Do it again!"
"This has got to be a joke; I bet that's [random poster's name] pretending to be a troll!"
"Hey, [random other poster's name], you're arguing with yourself on the forum! That's hilarious!"
After a week or so, he disappeared for good.
Wow, posterity will say, only three posts to Asimov's Law.
It's a /. meme, like "imagine a Beowulf cluster of x" or the CowboyNeal option. I can't think of a really good explanation at the moment, so here's a sort of example:
Poster: "Americans are overweight from eating too much junk food!"
Reply: "In Soviet Russia, junk food eats you!"
It sort of pokes fun at the Communist system, Cold War mentality, etc. I'm doing a bad job of explaining this; someone else want to try?
In Soviet Russia, "Lindor's legal team" is you!
Good point. A discussion of Ebola would probably have already started some panic, though; it's better known than smallpox thanks to movies, even though smallpox is airborne and has a higher transmission rate. Provided people aren't handling the body/fluids.
I think they're a little premature in claiming smallpox has been eradicated just because it hasn't shown up in half a century. Ebola disappears for a decade or so before popping up again.
So, if everyone on some large forum started talking about, say, measles, would the CDC show up at the server room and demand the names of the users so they can "contain the outbreak"?
Good news: the AIDS virus is eradicated
Bad news: we're all UV allergic zombies
You win some, you lose some, eh?
I think what people are trying to say is that the *AA are not selling what people want and when people don't buy what they're selling, they're trying to force them to buy it anyway.
The business model that is outdated is the album - most people don't want to buy albums any more, they want individual songs. That's why iTunes sells so much. But the record companies want people to keep buying whole albums at $15-20 a pop regardless of the fact that the market is changing.
It's not really a matter of piracy, it's a matter of people exercising their right to not buy what they don't want to. Whether they buy a single off iTunes or just live without the song (for the purposes of this discussion I'm not saying piracy is a right), the thing is they're not buying the album.
Yes, some people are pirating songs, but even if you could wave a wand and stop all piracy tomorrow a lot of people would still not pay $20 for an album they only want one song from. The record companies want people to continue buying albums and seem to think that if they just stamp out piracy and filesharing in general (legal and illegal) people will go back to buying them.
It's one thing if they want to prosecute real pirates who are making and selling CDs and DVDs for money, but does the fact that they aren't selling what people want give them the right to introduce draconian legislation that will adversely affect many other companies (ISP's) and services (legal filesharing, etc.)?
But once he's seen how much faster pages load on his friend Billy-Bob's broadband connection, will he remain content with his dialup service? And that game Billy-Bob plays with all those folks online is, like, WOW. There's probably even girls on there.
My keyboard is now covered in coffee. That was beautiful.
If an American terrorist group was firing rockets at your towns and sending suicide bombers to kill your civilians and our country did nothing to stop them, would you consider it wrong for your country to fight back?
Now if you folks want to launch a strategic strike on the MAFIAA, please do. This intellectual property madness is producing intellectual terrorism.