If your wife's on the pill, you probably don't have any reason to buy condoms, unless you're fucking around on your wife, in which case your ass deserves to get caught.
All things considered, he still has 5 movies so far (just counting SW stuff) that were on the big screen (and one on the way), which is probably 5 more than you or GGP post have, despite your opinion of them (or him).
I'm of the opinion that people deserve compensation for their work and that you don't have the right to take it for free just because you can. It's pretty hypocritical that you would think that my work and time isn't worth paying for, but it's still worth enough to use. I can't see how anyone would fail to agree if the positions were reversed and it was their work that was being freeloaded. If you're freely giving your work away that's your perogative, but you have no right to take for free what someone else has created without due compensation that _they_ decide on.
To answer you, it's a bullshit argument because on one hand you're saying that (insert noun here) has no value or worth, and then turning right around to say it's worth using. Sure, it's possible that someone would put effort into downloading it but not be willing to pay for it; I would call that person a hypocrit and an asshole. But that's just me, obviously there's a whole world of people out there who don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves. Bravo.
I would think that with as many people on/. bitching about corporations, lawmakers, and scientists, saying "just because you CAN, have you stopped to think if you SHOULD?" that they would have the balls to apply that to themselves. Then again, this is teh slashdot...
It's not a lost sale if people don't hear it. It is a lost sale when they download it and do hear it, regardless of the bullshit "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument. You might not have bought it, but you still listened to it anyway.
In my opinion, even if new computers would be coming with IE7, if someone cared enough to get Firefox for their old computer, they'd probably care enough (for more reasons than just that it has tabbed browsing) to get it for their new computer. I guess time will tell.
I think the difference between your situation is that you probably (although you very well certainly could be) aren't also downloading a ton of music for free either, since if you don't have time to listen to CDs, you probably don't have time to listen to those MP3s either.
You don't find personal value in CDs because you just don't listen to a lot of music. Which is fine and understandable. If this discussion were about the cost of DVD content as opposed to downloading instead, you would probably agree with my post since you yourself stated that you find value in DVDs and purchase them. Or maybe you wouldn't.:P
Point taken, but if you are that worried about an album sucking (IYHO), you can certainly find free lower-quality clips to download and check them out. Just about every online music distribution website has them available. Wouldn't listening to a short clip be analogous to walking out of a movie if you don't like it?
An interesting poing you bring up is that some people feel ripped off if every song on the album isn't something they consider totally kick ass, which seems to be the general consensus I gather from following all these discussions. Where else do people expect everyone to be completely satisfied with every aspect of a product everytime? People have different opinions and tastes; you can't please everyone all of the time. What you might think of as a shitty song might be someone else's favorite track on the album. An artist puts out a CD as a complete product of THEIR songs, not what songs they think you might like. Ideally, you could just buy the single. Thanks to internet distribution, this is possible now more than ever.
Have you considered the the rise in cost of CDs might be due to the rise in cost of producing those CDs? Studios have more technology than ever to record and produce music, and it costs a lot to keep up with current technology in both money and time, especially if you're trying to keep a large client base by having the ability to record and produce many different types of music with different technical requirements. Cost of studios going up = cost of recording going up. Continue to follow the process down to end-user.
Also, I guess maybe it's just the music I listen to, but a lot of the CDs I buy nowadays include lots of extras like enhanced CD content or bonus DVDs. I bought four Ayreon CDs recently for about $20 each at Tower Records in New Orleans, and 3 out of the 4 were 2-disk albums and at least two of them also included bonus DVDs. Just another example of prog rock/metal superiority.:P
If I still had the mod points I let expire yesterday, I'd have modded your ass up through the roof. Well said. Someone else, mod parent up please.
I guess if you don't give a damn about what you're listening to since it is probably for most people just background noise to fill the silence, then you will find CDs expensive because it doesn't mean much to you. If you actually actively listen and enjoy and care about music on more than just a "duhhhh silence sucks" level or give a damn about the people that make it instead of being just as bad as the RIAA you complain about because you somehow think you're entitled to free music due to other people's work... then chances are the cost of a CD is damn reasonable.
If you really can't afford a CD, then you have bigger problems to worry about than what you have to listen to. If you don't WANT to pay for it and think you have some kind of inherent right to it, please elaborate.
Please refrain from the moronic justification about how it only cost pennies to manufacture a CD and how you can get a spindle of 50 for $35.
There's a reason that the vast majority of albums are put out by large companies: it simply costs a lot to do it. With the exception of the do-it-all artists who take it upon themselves to not only write and perform their music but also record, produce, mix, master, duplicate, market, and distribute their albums, most people don't have the time, talent, or inclination to take all of that upon themselves, nor do they have the personal money to fund hiring all the people it would take for that, especially considering the risk that their album might not sell well at all. Fortunately, the state of music technology today is favoring those artists that do decide to wear so many hats and it's only going to continue that way. I certainly applaude those guys.
I can just imagine the viagra and cU/\/\ E471ng l0n3ly h0u23\/\/1f3 ads now... in new ascii art!
u = 8==D hA haHA lolomfgwtfmatebbq!!11111ten
u wif ci_a11is = 8========================D
Slashdot Mirror
And it's still my favorite Liquid Tension Experiment piece.
Maybe that's why they wanna hire all those women...
Put that way, I'll agree with you.
I don't have any problem finding music that I think doesn't suck, why is it so hard for everyone else?
Boy, you sure aren't!
If your wife's on the pill, you probably don't have any reason to buy condoms, unless you're fucking around on your wife, in which case your ass deserves to get caught.
Do you have a citation for this, or do you just think it?
All things considered, he still has 5 movies so far (just counting SW stuff) that were on the big screen (and one on the way), which is probably 5 more than you or GGP post have, despite your opinion of them (or him).
To answer you, it's a bullshit argument because on one hand you're saying that (insert noun here) has no value or worth, and then turning right around to say it's worth using. Sure, it's possible that someone would put effort into downloading it but not be willing to pay for it; I would call that person a hypocrit and an asshole. But that's just me, obviously there's a whole world of people out there who don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves. Bravo.
I would think that with as many people on /. bitching about corporations, lawmakers, and scientists, saying "just because you CAN, have you stopped to think if you SHOULD?" that they would have the balls to apply that to themselves. Then again, this is teh slashdot...
It's not a lost sale if people don't hear it. It is a lost sale when they download it and do hear it, regardless of the bullshit "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument. You might not have bought it, but you still listened to it anyway.
But can you ask where the bathroom is in Klingon??? Klingon, second only to 1337 5p34k.
In my opinion, even if new computers would be coming with IE7, if someone cared enough to get Firefox for their old computer, they'd probably care enough (for more reasons than just that it has tabbed browsing) to get it for their new computer. I guess time will tell.
I, for one, welcome our new Kerensky-descended overlords.
Ulllllllllllltttttttrrrrrrraaaaaa coooooooommmmmmmmmmmbooooooooooooooooo....!
People like you are the reason there are no buyers for prefab housing.
You don't find personal value in CDs because you just don't listen to a lot of music. Which is fine and understandable. If this discussion were about the cost of DVD content as opposed to downloading instead, you would probably agree with my post since you yourself stated that you find value in DVDs and purchase them. Or maybe you wouldn't. :P
An interesting poing you bring up is that some people feel ripped off if every song on the album isn't something they consider totally kick ass, which seems to be the general consensus I gather from following all these discussions. Where else do people expect everyone to be completely satisfied with every aspect of a product everytime? People have different opinions and tastes; you can't please everyone all of the time. What you might think of as a shitty song might be someone else's favorite track on the album. An artist puts out a CD as a complete product of THEIR songs, not what songs they think you might like. Ideally, you could just buy the single. Thanks to internet distribution, this is possible now more than ever.
Have you considered the the rise in cost of CDs might be due to the rise in cost of producing those CDs? Studios have more technology than ever to record and produce music, and it costs a lot to keep up with current technology in both money and time, especially if you're trying to keep a large client base by having the ability to record and produce many different types of music with different technical requirements. Cost of studios going up = cost of recording going up. Continue to follow the process down to end-user.
Also, I guess maybe it's just the music I listen to, but a lot of the CDs I buy nowadays include lots of extras like enhanced CD content or bonus DVDs. I bought four Ayreon CDs recently for about $20 each at Tower Records in New Orleans, and 3 out of the 4 were 2-disk albums and at least two of them also included bonus DVDs. Just another example of prog rock/metal superiority. :P
I guess if you don't give a damn about what you're listening to since it is probably for most people just background noise to fill the silence, then you will find CDs expensive because it doesn't mean much to you. If you actually actively listen and enjoy and care about music on more than just a "duhhhh silence sucks" level or give a damn about the people that make it instead of being just as bad as the RIAA you complain about because you somehow think you're entitled to free music due to other people's work... then chances are the cost of a CD is damn reasonable.
If you really can't afford a CD, then you have bigger problems to worry about than what you have to listen to. If you don't WANT to pay for it and think you have some kind of inherent right to it, please elaborate.
Please refrain from the moronic justification about how it only cost pennies to manufacture a CD and how you can get a spindle of 50 for $35.
There's a reason that the vast majority of albums are put out by large companies: it simply costs a lot to do it. With the exception of the do-it-all artists who take it upon themselves to not only write and perform their music but also record, produce, mix, master, duplicate, market, and distribute their albums, most people don't have the time, talent, or inclination to take all of that upon themselves, nor do they have the personal money to fund hiring all the people it would take for that, especially considering the risk that their album might not sell well at all. Fortunately, the state of music technology today is favoring those artists that do decide to wear so many hats and it's only going to continue that way. I certainly applaude those guys.
I say again, mod parent up.
Of course they did, but did YOU pay the $4.99/minute to find out?!
Not if Ray Kurzweil or Aubrey de Grey can help it.
With all the talk of pr0n pr0c322ing, units, and this being /. full of nerds, I'm sure most people here are already familiar with semantic messes.
and then... PROFIT!!!111
The first rule of Googlefight is you DON'T TALK ABOUT GOOGLEFIGHT
I can just imagine the viagra and cU/\/\ E471ng l0n3ly h0u23\/\/1f3 ads now... in new ascii art!
u = 8==D hA haHA lolomfgwtfmatebbq!!11111ten
u wif ci_a11is = 8========================D
I can just imagine the viagra and cU/\/\ E471ng l0n3ly h0u23\/\/1f3 ads now... in new ascii art! u = 8==D hA haHA lolomfgwtfmatebbq!!11111ten u wif ci_a11is = 8========================D