By your reasoning, since YOU aren't starving on the streets, you shouldn't need any protection from your boss deciding you don't need to get paid for ALL the hours you work, just enough to keep you off the streets, right?
No, because my reasoning is that music is not the same as a job. If you're going to cleverly use my reasoning against me like that then you should try and figure out what my reasoning is first.
It's preventing them from making money because people are allowed free access to content they would otherwise have to pay for.
Congratulations! There's no one here who doesn't know that! The problem (as I already fucking said) is that even if they kept kids from downloading they wouldn't be buying more music. So they're not losing anything. Because if filesharing didn't exist they wouldn't suddenly start making more money? Do you understand that? As far as profit goes, they're only losing money if they would've had it in the first place. By any other logic you could argue that I'm stealing music by not buying every CD ever recorded, because the music industry could be potentially making more money.
The fact that you CAN get it for free doesn't make it ok for you to do so. This kind of opinion shows that either your taste in music is so shitty that even their fans aren't willing to support them or that you're so self centered you think that you should be able to dictate other people's livelihoods just because your poor ignorant ass is jealous that others have the talents you only wish you could have.
You know what's funny? I don't recall saying the word "ok" [sic] anywhere once in that comment. No, wait. Let me copy-paste it into Word to make sure... Nope, it's not in there at all. I guess you should've done a better job reading, or figuring out my point, which had nothing to do with what's okay. Don't waste my time, please.
Try putting in the work to become a successful musician who puts out quality music and then see if you still think your work should be available for free. It's a whole lot different when it's YOUR ass.
Self-centered? Hey, asshole? Have you ever heard of a guy named Trevor Wilson? He bought all the equipment he records with out of his pocket, with money he makes on his job, and paid another 1200 fucking dollars so he could ship it off to fans for free. As in, they don't pay for the album at all. The other day he encouraged me to download his entire album, and it's costing him (as of now) over a thousand dollars. When's the last time you threw out 1000 dollars on something you could give to somebody else? Fuck you. Just because you're a greedy, capitalist asshole doesn't mean everybody else is. It may come as a shock to someone like you who values money so highly but some people make music because they like music, not because they want to get rich. For your information, I make tons of music, as well as videos, and articles, and other miscellaneous media for entertainment that I give away for free, and pay out of my pocket for. I've spent 100's of dollars on instruments and equipment to record songs I give away for free, and spend hours everyday writing and practicing. Not to mention the comedy related videos or articles or other various performances I make, as well as end up paying for and still give away for free. I spent 20 hours on one video that only about 10 people ever saw. I guess I'll turn into a greedy jerkbag when I get rich, but until then I still don't give a shit about selling my work. I just want people to enjoy it.
And me without any mod points... not like this hasn't been made clear in this very space before, but downloading music and adding it to your damn library, listening to it over and over again is THEFT. If it is worth listening to, you should pay the money... and if it isn't worth listening to, then why do you have it on your hard drive?
While the fact that it's theft is disputable, let's pretend it is. So you think I should pay for it? Well that's great. BUT I WASN'T ARGUING ABOUT WHAT SHOULD OR SHOUL
If they're not starving on the streets then they don't need any damn protection. If they want money let them get a job like everybody else. How is it preventhing them from making money anyway? I download music because I don't want to buy the albums, not because I'd rather have more money. Therefore, if I couldn't hear the music for free I wouldn't be buying it, and they still wouldn't be making the money. And I'd wager that a good majority of all people who use p2p networks download music this way. Now keeping that in mind, it doesn't exactly cost the artist money to have their songs copied all over the net, now does it? So they're not fucking losing anything, are they? So if they want to bitch about money they can either get a job or make music worth buying.
It's great that you think the show sucks now and all, but you're forgetting the fact that it's not your show. It doesn't matter if they're ruining it for you, if Matt Groening wants to do it he's going to. And he shouldn't have to stop because you don't like it now.
He's even been known to say that he likes the later shows more than the new ones. I mean, the first season was pure shit. The second and third season weren't that great either, and the show never got really good until people like O'Brien and David S. Cohen joined the show, and when Fox stopped caring about what it did.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the success of the Simpsons allowed Matt Groening and the other writers more freedom with the show? It's true, compare some of the newer episodes to the older ones, there are crazy gags that could never happen in real life, and much more outlandish storylines.
Maybe this downward spiral in quality to you is just the show becoming more and more the way that the writers want it to go. Just because you think something's getting worse doesn't mean it's being run into the ground for the sake of money. I'm sure Matt Groening still does Life in Hell because he's so obsessed with money. Idiot.
Why do you even care if the stories are recycled anyway? It's a comedy show, the point isn't to write a clever story. And what ripped off Family Guy gags are you talking about? Could you at least name one instead of throwing it out there like that? I mean, I've seen some of MG's stuff really blatantly ripped off by say, South Park, (the "double yes" joke from Where No Fan Has Gone Before of Futurama) but never noticed the Simpsons steal anything.
Any current bands (eg: Blink 182) they only like a couple of songs and those preferences quickly fad away.
Well that's the problem right there. Not all current music sounds like Blink 182. You complain about popular music like it's a brand new thing. Come on, look at the Monkeys. They couldn't even play instruments at first. It doesn't have anything to do with the time period, it has to do with money. There's always going to be some corporate money whore that produces no-talent hacks and sells them all over TV. There's still talent out there, it just doesn't get the kind of publicity that the millions of dollars the RIAA has can buy you.
For the nTH time this is not a democracy.
It is a representive republic.
Looks like you need to get something straight: There's no such thing as a "representative republic," you idiot. We are a representative democracy, which is arguably synonymous with "republic." Who's the "looser" now?
Ignorance makes MutantHamster want smash.
Oh, so what now? You're a fucking martyr because you're sticking up for the rights of the consumer, etc.
It doesn't have anything to do with you trying to "prove" your feelings were hurt (as if I didn't believe your feelings were hurt, I thought this was a scam all along), or how conservative [mutanthamster.tk] I am, the point is the developers of a game should not be restricted to what they can put in it simply because it may hurt your feelings, or inconvenience you.
I could argue that if a game was too hard it was wasting my time because I went through the trouble of creating a character and I couldn't play the game because it was too hard, and I wasn't _told beforehand_ (thank God these underscores are here to add emphasis). Then what? That game should be banned, or I should get my money back?
The fact is it doesn't matter if you were _told beforehand_ or not. They never promised not to put it in the game, and it's not like they're discriminating against actual people -- a female player can still make a character.
At the point where they aren't discriminating against the actual player, all you can prove that they're doing is making a game that you don't like. Well too bad. It's not your game, it's theirs. You were _told beforehand_ that the content of the game was subject to change, and you still went out and paid money for it. You screwed up.
"If you welcome others being abused then by all means continue supporting it and they will likewise decide to stop purchasing the game, and eventually your amusement will end." Wasn't that the entire point of his comment? The developers of this game are not obligated to please everybody because not everyone is forced to play it. To use your own analogy: If you bought a car that didn't turn right or go in reverse the company would GO OUT OF BUSINESS.
If you don't like a game then DON'T PLAY IT. PLAY SOMETHING ELSE. I'm sure you're angry that the developers TRICKED you into buying a game that DISCRIMINATES against you, that's too bad. Seriously. Unless the game promises to not be discriminatory you can't act victimized when it does. Besides which, YOU CAN STILL PLAY A MALE CHARACTER. They aren't hindering YOUR advancement, they're hindering YOUR CHARACTERS. If you want a game where female characters are treated equally then BUY A GAME WHERE THEY ARE, BUT THEY AREN'T IN THIS ONE. You agreed to pay for a game that's content could be changed as you were paying for it. That's your problem. What are you advocating gets done about this game, anyway? The government ban it? Let's have the government ban books that criticize Christianity. And I can't wait for you to revert to calling me a misogynist because I'm not outraged that a game is exercising it's right to free expression.
Want to talk about being a smart guy? Maybe you've been too busy coming up with witty rebuttals to realize that YOU are NOT the CHARACTER YOU PLAY IN A VIDEO GAME.
I don't know if there's some kind of feature in ATITD2 that blocks males from playing females, and vice versa, and I'm assuming it's a roleplaying game, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that there was HORBBILE EVIL FACIST SEXISM in this game because IT'S PART OF THE SETTING THE GAME TAKES PLACE IN. God forbid they portray a world that's not politically correct, historically accurate or not.
Bitching about sexism in a fantasy game is like complaining that the developers comitted murder against you because you got slaughtered by orcs.
Re:My first conscious thought during the review
on
Web Search Garage
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, because all us 'young people' cant write and were just so dum. You know just because mots kids my age type bad doe'snt mene were all dum. You slashdoters can be realy judgemental somtimes. Mabe if yu stoped beng so colsedmined yuo would;nt end up lookeeng liek a ideot on teh intarweb. STOOPID.
What's that got to do with anything? It's not like his other changes made that much sense.
Besides, just because it's not funny doesn't mean it's not a joke.
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 1
This concept may elude you but I was exemplifying the flaws in your own logic. If you can't defend your own reasoning then don't expect to win many arguments in the future.
I've looked carefully at this scene and noticed that the shots come in the split second after Han finishes a line. Why hasn't anyone yet considered the possibility that Han meant to shoot first but was too slow? Or maybe the trigger stuck for a second.
I think the real debate is how the hell did Greedo miss Han? They were a whopping 3 feet apart.
-Mutant "I'd whore out my SW review on/. except that my server would get crushed like a Jawa under a Gundark" Hamster
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 1
Yeah that may seem like a nice excuse and all but what you're advocating is that inaction is justification until we reach 100% of our capacity to stop a situation. Therefore unless you go out and spend all the money for your nice computers and TV's on starving children and AIDS infected adults in Africa you're aparently justifying the situation. I mean in theory, you could obtain a copy of the Anarchist's Cook-Book, build a dirty bomb, and then fly over to Darfur and set it off in the vicinity of some Janjuweed food provisions. Why aren't you doing that? Congress is blocking you from helping the situation so why aren't you doing anything about it?
Until we acknowledge that people will die in the time it takes to find a suitable solution we're just going to make it worse. It's a horrible thing when an individual dies, but what's the point if we're just going to fuck it up? Whoo, Saddam isn't killing his people anymore! Now we are! Mission Accomplished!
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 1
Ah, yes, how we all long for the days of secret police, midnight disappearances, rape rooms and wood chippers. Let's all get together and fucking reminisce about it.
I'm sorry, were you there when this happened, or are you recycling something you heard from the News just as much as any radical liberal would?
Besides, if you're arguing that inaction constitutes justification I suppose it's your contention that organized rape, and systematic murders of black Sudanese is a good thing?
Slashdot Mirror
What? I make way worse grades than my brother I'm pretty sure we have the same parents.
No, because my reasoning is that music is not the same as a job. If you're going to cleverly use my reasoning against me like that then you should try and figure out what my reasoning is first.
It's preventing them from making money because people are allowed free access to content they would otherwise have to pay for.
Congratulations! There's no one here who doesn't know that! The problem (as I already fucking said) is that even if they kept kids from downloading they wouldn't be buying more music. So they're not losing anything. Because if filesharing didn't exist they wouldn't suddenly start making more money? Do you understand that? As far as profit goes, they're only losing money if they would've had it in the first place. By any other logic you could argue that I'm stealing music by not buying every CD ever recorded, because the music industry could be potentially making more money.
The fact that you CAN get it for free doesn't make it ok for you to do so. This kind of opinion shows that either your taste in music is so shitty that even their fans aren't willing to support them or that you're so self centered you think that you should be able to dictate other people's livelihoods just because your poor ignorant ass is jealous that others have the talents you only wish you could have.
You know what's funny? I don't recall saying the word "ok" [sic] anywhere once in that comment. No, wait. Let me copy-paste it into Word to make sure... Nope, it's not in there at all. I guess you should've done a better job reading, or figuring out my point, which had nothing to do with what's okay. Don't waste my time, please.
Try putting in the work to become a successful musician who puts out quality music and then see if you still think your work should be available for free. It's a whole lot different when it's YOUR ass.
Self-centered? Hey, asshole? Have you ever heard of a guy named Trevor Wilson? He bought all the equipment he records with out of his pocket, with money he makes on his job, and paid another 1200 fucking dollars so he could ship it off to fans for free. As in, they don't pay for the album at all. The other day he encouraged me to download his entire album, and it's costing him (as of now) over a thousand dollars. When's the last time you threw out 1000 dollars on something you could give to somebody else? Fuck you. Just because you're a greedy, capitalist asshole doesn't mean everybody else is. It may come as a shock to someone like you who values money so highly but some people make music because they like music, not because they want to get rich. For your information, I make tons of music, as well as videos, and articles, and other miscellaneous media for entertainment that I give away for free, and pay out of my pocket for. I've spent 100's of dollars on instruments and equipment to record songs I give away for free, and spend hours everyday writing and practicing. Not to mention the comedy related videos or articles or other various performances I make, as well as end up paying for and still give away for free. I spent 20 hours on one video that only about 10 people ever saw. I guess I'll turn into a greedy jerkbag when I get rich, but until then I still don't give a shit about selling my work. I just want people to enjoy it.
And me without any mod points... not like this hasn't been made clear in this very space before, but downloading music and adding it to your damn library, listening to it over and over again is THEFT. If it is worth listening to, you should pay the money... and if it isn't worth listening to, then why do you have it on your hard drive?
While the fact that it's theft is disputable, let's pretend it is. So you think I should pay for it? Well that's great. BUT I WASN'T ARGUING ABOUT WHAT SHOULD OR SHOUL
If they're not starving on the streets then they don't need any damn protection. If they want money let them get a job like everybody else. How is it preventhing them from making money anyway? I download music because I don't want to buy the albums, not because I'd rather have more money. Therefore, if I couldn't hear the music for free I wouldn't be buying it, and they still wouldn't be making the money. And I'd wager that a good majority of all people who use p2p networks download music this way. Now keeping that in mind, it doesn't exactly cost the artist money to have their songs copied all over the net, now does it? So they're not fucking losing anything, are they? So if they want to bitch about money they can either get a job or make music worth buying.
It's great that you think the show sucks now and all, but you're forgetting the fact that it's not your show. It doesn't matter if they're ruining it for you, if Matt Groening wants to do it he's going to. And he shouldn't have to stop because you don't like it now.
He's even been known to say that he likes the later shows more than the new ones. I mean, the first season was pure shit. The second and third season weren't that great either, and the show never got really good until people like O'Brien and David S. Cohen joined the show, and when Fox stopped caring about what it did.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the success of the Simpsons allowed Matt Groening and the other writers more freedom with the show? It's true, compare some of the newer episodes to the older ones, there are crazy gags that could never happen in real life, and much more outlandish storylines.
Maybe this downward spiral in quality to you is just the show becoming more and more the way that the writers want it to go. Just because you think something's getting worse doesn't mean it's being run into the ground for the sake of money. I'm sure Matt Groening still does Life in Hell because he's so obsessed with money. Idiot.
Why do you even care if the stories are recycled anyway? It's a comedy show, the point isn't to write a clever story. And what ripped off Family Guy gags are you talking about? Could you at least name one instead of throwing it out there like that? I mean, I've seen some of MG's stuff really blatantly ripped off by say, South Park, (the "double yes" joke from Where No Fan Has Gone Before of Futurama) but never noticed the Simpsons steal anything.
Any current bands (eg: Blink 182) they only like a couple of songs and those preferences quickly fad away.
Well that's the problem right there. Not all current music sounds like Blink 182. You complain about popular music like it's a brand new thing. Come on, look at the Monkeys. They couldn't even play instruments at first. It doesn't have anything to do with the time period, it has to do with money. There's always going to be some corporate money whore that produces no-talent hacks and sells them all over TV. There's still talent out there, it just doesn't get the kind of publicity that the millions of dollars the RIAA has can buy you.
For the nTH time this is not a democracy. It is a representive republic.
Looks like you need to get something straight: There's no such thing as a "representative republic," you idiot. We are a representative democracy, which is arguably synonymous with "republic." Who's the "looser" now?
Ignorance makes MutantHamster want smash.
Oh, so what now? You're a fucking martyr because you're sticking up for the rights of the consumer, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with you trying to "prove" your feelings were hurt (as if I didn't believe your feelings were hurt, I thought this was a scam all along), or how conservative [mutanthamster.tk] I am, the point is the developers of a game should not be restricted to what they can put in it simply because it may hurt your feelings, or inconvenience you. I could argue that if a game was too hard it was wasting my time because I went through the trouble of creating a character and I couldn't play the game because it was too hard, and I wasn't _told beforehand_ (thank God these underscores are here to add emphasis). Then what? That game should be banned, or I should get my money back? The fact is it doesn't matter if you were _told beforehand_ or not. They never promised not to put it in the game, and it's not like they're discriminating against actual people -- a female player can still make a character. At the point where they aren't discriminating against the actual player, all you can prove that they're doing is making a game that you don't like. Well too bad. It's not your game, it's theirs. You were _told beforehand_ that the content of the game was subject to change, and you still went out and paid money for it. You screwed up.
"If you welcome others being abused then by all means continue supporting it and they will likewise decide to stop purchasing the game, and eventually your amusement will end." Wasn't that the entire point of his comment? The developers of this game are not obligated to please everybody because not everyone is forced to play it. To use your own analogy: If you bought a car that didn't turn right or go in reverse the company would GO OUT OF BUSINESS. If you don't like a game then DON'T PLAY IT. PLAY SOMETHING ELSE. I'm sure you're angry that the developers TRICKED you into buying a game that DISCRIMINATES against you, that's too bad. Seriously. Unless the game promises to not be discriminatory you can't act victimized when it does. Besides which, YOU CAN STILL PLAY A MALE CHARACTER. They aren't hindering YOUR advancement, they're hindering YOUR CHARACTERS. If you want a game where female characters are treated equally then BUY A GAME WHERE THEY ARE, BUT THEY AREN'T IN THIS ONE. You agreed to pay for a game that's content could be changed as you were paying for it. That's your problem. What are you advocating gets done about this game, anyway? The government ban it? Let's have the government ban books that criticize Christianity. And I can't wait for you to revert to calling me a misogynist because I'm not outraged that a game is exercising it's right to free expression.
Want to talk about being a smart guy? Maybe you've been too busy coming up with witty rebuttals to realize that YOU are NOT the CHARACTER YOU PLAY IN A VIDEO GAME. I don't know if there's some kind of feature in ATITD2 that blocks males from playing females, and vice versa, and I'm assuming it's a roleplaying game, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that there was HORBBILE EVIL FACIST SEXISM in this game because IT'S PART OF THE SETTING THE GAME TAKES PLACE IN. God forbid they portray a world that's not politically correct, historically accurate or not. Bitching about sexism in a fantasy game is like complaining that the developers comitted murder against you because you got slaughtered by orcs.
It's like a gun that kills TVs instead of people! Once again the day is saved by guns!
Oops! [Usatoday.com]
Yeah, because all us 'young people' cant write and were just so dum. You know just because mots kids my age type bad doe'snt mene were all dum. You slashdoters can be realy judgemental somtimes. Mabe if yu stoped beng so colsedmined yuo would;nt end up lookeeng liek a ideot on teh intarweb. STOOPID.
What's that got to do with anything? It's not like his other changes made that much sense. Besides, just because it's not funny doesn't mean it's not a joke.
This concept may elude you but I was exemplifying the flaws in your own logic. If you can't defend your own reasoning then don't expect to win many arguments in the future.
I've looked carefully at this scene and noticed that the shots come in the split second after Han finishes a line. Why hasn't anyone yet considered the possibility that Han meant to shoot first but was too slow? Or maybe the trigger stuck for a second. I think the real debate is how the hell did Greedo miss Han? They were a whopping 3 feet apart. /. except that my server would get crushed like a Jawa under a Gundark" Hamster
-Mutant "I'd whore out my SW review on
Yeah that may seem like a nice excuse and all but what you're advocating is that inaction is justification until we reach 100% of our capacity to stop a situation. Therefore unless you go out and spend all the money for your nice computers and TV's on starving children and AIDS infected adults in Africa you're aparently justifying the situation. I mean in theory, you could obtain a copy of the Anarchist's Cook-Book, build a dirty bomb, and then fly over to Darfur and set it off in the vicinity of some Janjuweed food provisions. Why aren't you doing that? Congress is blocking you from helping the situation so why aren't you doing anything about it? Until we acknowledge that people will die in the time it takes to find a suitable solution we're just going to make it worse. It's a horrible thing when an individual dies, but what's the point if we're just going to fuck it up? Whoo, Saddam isn't killing his people anymore! Now we are! Mission Accomplished!
Ah, yes, how we all long for the days of secret police, midnight disappearances, rape rooms and wood chippers. Let's all get together and fucking reminisce about it. I'm sorry, were you there when this happened, or are you recycling something you heard from the News just as much as any radical liberal would? Besides, if you're arguing that inaction constitutes justification I suppose it's your contention that organized rape, and systematic murders of black Sudanese is a good thing?