The English language is not a static language defined by pedants.
It's a language made to convey meaning without ambiguity. Not that I really care, I care a bit but not like a grammar nazi could care more than I do. I could care less and less until I couldn't care any less but then I couldn't care less when in reality I could care less, it's just too much effort to do so.
I could care less about the company I work for. they could care less about me.
How much less could each of you care? What does that mean?
It means it takes too much work to care less. He cares somewhat about them and they care somewhat about him, however they are struggling to find the words to express how much they actually care for each other.
So the death penalty for copyright infringement. I'm sure that's where they're headed. After that the death penalty for offenders and anyone associated with them. Plus ten years sentenced to their crappy droll movies for not watching them.
What's the maximum sentence for embezzling government money? What's the sentence for financial fraud that leaves thousands penniless? In other words, can you maybe name a few or a few dozen crimes that actually have victims that have lower sentences?
What is the maximum penalty for someone murdering the movie industry executives that push for these laws?
Yes, yes, thanks for reminding us how clearly superior to the rest of us you are.
The thing you miss is that most of the Linux users you show clear disdain for happen to have a different set of values to you. This is based in the knowledge of their systems where substance is more valuable than form. Yes it has issues, yes it is frustrating but it is also the communities software and it has never stopped me from getting work done, actually it is far more maleable than macs and allows me productivity your system will not allow - because it's outside the norm.
Seems to me that many Linux users have accepted thier systems will never achieve the popularity of large, vapid, commercial systems, in exchange for substantial power over their environment. Personally I prefer gnome however I'll try other WMs. Frankly the mac interface annoys me as a VM as much as KDE, but I like the BSD system mac is built on. Sure that community has some pretty vocal arguments about how the Linux should be however that's is because the community controls it. Laugh at us if you will however I'll take the useability issues over losing my freedom thanks plus I will have budget for a substantially more powerful spec machine than you can afford as a mac user.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
How many of them are performing artists, on stage or in bands that perform? How many of them have recorded and attempted to distribute their work and have you bought any of it?
And then you forget to stop and cheat even the business partners... Consider it PTSD — with Socialism being the trauma.
All your isms have failed. None of the economic systems that have existed have ever delivered us from corruption that exists, so the structural issues that the world faces so that we can *evolve* are never addressed. That because the established powers beget more power and why would they want the status quo challenged?
It means for every band that rejects the industry there are a lot more behind that will sign without a second thought only to find them selves in the grinder afterwards.
ok, so is that the justification not to pay for music?
Of course it matters what the artists do. Without them the labels have no product.
The labels have TV shows to manufacture artists so that they have more control. It pretty much guarantees you will get shit music.
Ok, there's not much can be done now or about the stuff they already have but say for arguments sake new talent stopped signing and everyone self published. That would be a completely different landscape.
That would be a completely different business model and more likely to attract better artists. Would you participate in a new model and buy music from artists that were self signed, so to speak?
Let's say it was an app of some kind and you downloaded the app which contained the music - would you buy it if it was something you liked, even if it meant another app on your phone (for example)?
Not saying it would be any better or worse but there's a chance the money might spread around a bit better. The labels used to be essential, now they're barely relevant but they keep pushing the same old model and resist change at every step.
True that. Personally I think they are in the way of a lot of good, inspiring new acts coming out. As guardians of culture I think they have failed us and need to be gone.
The content belongs to the artists and the publishers.
That is a very rare circumstance. Most of the time the publishing rights and the 'content' (or IP being the pre-produced stems of the recordings) belong to the record company who paid the artists and advance.
It's the shittest business model ever - where the record industry rips off the artists who created the music and then treats the fans like theives. The entire music industry is on the verge of collapse and all it can do is get worse.
So you realy dont know many musicians do ya? They are going to do their thing regardless.
No, they won't, not when they have to be realistic and realise that their passion will just put them into debt. Getting involved with the music industry is a path to poverty.
Yet for every one 'artist' that realises it's a massive con and rejects it there are a thousand more before behind ready to take the arm and all.
Sorry friend, I've read this about 10 times trying to understand what you mean and I am at a loss.
It's irrelevant what the artists do, they are subject to the music industry model as it is. The larger issue being that the music industry quite happily subverts the rights of everyone so they are subservient to their property 'rights'.
Because the musicians had to pay around $250000 to record it. Most of them have been saddled with a massive debt to be able to get that music to you and at the end of the day, they won't have copyright or even possession of their own IP.
Don't read this as support for the music industries business model, it isn't. You asked why you should pay, that's why. They have conditions that would make most programmers laugh and walk away.
To give you an idea what it is like for a musician, imagine being told that to write a computer program you were told that to write code for something you wanted to do, you needed to take out a loan, you would have to code on something out of your control, you would not own the copyright and when it was complete, not only would you not have possession of the source code, you would have to pay the record industry back for your labor.
With the 360 "deals" in music industry contracts more and more "innovation" in the music industry revolves around new and worse ways to screw recording musicians out of any remaining income streams they have. The image of success in the music industry is just that, an image.
These deals find new ways to put musicians in debt for bringing you music you love to listen to. Concert tours, and merchandise were areas where a musician could make money and now the music mafia have closed in on them as well.
If you listen to an mp3 more than 10 times - consider it advertising for their album and support them by buying it, because it has enhanced your life somehow and they might be able to make another album you like.
Apologies, I submitted that before I'd finished the proofread because I was tired. It should have read:
why would any sane person invest their time in qualifying for such a career if their longevity in it is threatened.
Because IT isn't threatened. With computers going into everything, IT is here to stay, and it is going to continue increasing as a proportion of all jobs. This is in spite of the industry's attempts to kill itself with cut corners, aversion to experience, and constant reinventing-of-the-wheel due to a refusal to learn from history.
Indeed, perhaps IT companies could learn from another Benjamin Franklin quote : "An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
Slashdot Mirror
Interney keys, Putin Mr
It's an idiom which means they don't care at all.
I think you'll find it is a colloquialism.
The English language is not a static language defined by pedants.
It's a language made to convey meaning without ambiguity. Not that I really care, I care a bit but not like a grammar nazi could care more than I do. I could care less and less until I couldn't care any less but then I couldn't care less when in reality I could care less, it's just too much effort to do so.
I could care less about the company I work for. they could care less about me.
How much less could each of you care? What does that mean?
It means it takes too much work to care less. He cares somewhat about them and they care somewhat about him, however they are struggling to find the words to express how much they actually care for each other.
You couldn't be less logical.
But what if he cared less about his job of finding employment because it was too much work?
meanwhile, slashdot, yeah
Especially the bit 'It's against the law' when it wasn't. Such bullshit.
You wouldn't steal a handbag...
For what purpose?
To figure out who to gaol first.
So the death penalty for copyright infringement. I'm sure that's where they're headed. After that the death penalty for offenders and anyone associated with them. Plus ten years sentenced to their crappy droll movies for not watching them.
They ridicule us.
How many decades should companies like Disney hold copyright?
Roughly the duration of the lifetime of the sun, plus 500million years. Can't be too careful.
What's the maximum sentence for embezzling government money? What's the sentence for financial fraud that leaves thousands penniless? In other words, can you maybe name a few or a few dozen crimes that actually have victims that have lower sentences?
What is the maximum penalty for someone murdering the movie industry executives that push for these laws?
That reminds me, I need to delete the ISO.
Yes, yes, thanks for reminding us how clearly superior to the rest of us you are.
The thing you miss is that most of the Linux users you show clear disdain for happen to have a different set of values to you. This is based in the knowledge of their systems where substance is more valuable than form. Yes it has issues, yes it is frustrating but it is also the communities software and it has never stopped me from getting work done, actually it is far more maleable than macs and allows me productivity your system will not allow - because it's outside the norm.
Seems to me that many Linux users have accepted thier systems will never achieve the popularity of large, vapid, commercial systems, in exchange for substantial power over their environment. Personally I prefer gnome however I'll try other WMs. Frankly the mac interface annoys me as a VM as much as KDE, but I like the BSD system mac is built on. Sure that community has some pretty vocal arguments about how the Linux should be however that's is because the community controls it. Laugh at us if you will however I'll take the useability issues over losing my freedom thanks plus I will have budget for a substantially more powerful spec machine than you can afford as a mac user.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
How many of them are performing artists, on stage or in bands that perform? How many of them have recorded and attempted to distribute their work and have you bought any of it?
And then you forget to stop and cheat even the business partners... Consider it PTSD — with Socialism being the trauma.
All your isms have failed. None of the economic systems that have existed have ever delivered us from corruption that exists, so the structural issues that the world faces so that we can *evolve* are never addressed. That because the established powers beget more power and why would they want the status quo challenged?
Corruption exists to supplement power.
It means for every band that rejects the industry there are a lot more behind that will sign without a second thought only to find them selves in the grinder afterwards.
ok, so is that the justification not to pay for music?
Of course it matters what the artists do. Without them the labels have no product.
The labels have TV shows to manufacture artists so that they have more control. It pretty much guarantees you will get shit music.
Ok, there's not much can be done now or about the stuff they already have but say for arguments sake new talent stopped signing and everyone self published. That would be a completely different landscape.
That would be a completely different business model and more likely to attract better artists. Would you participate in a new model and buy music from artists that were self signed, so to speak?
Let's say it was an app of some kind and you downloaded the app which contained the music - would you buy it if it was something you liked, even if it meant another app on your phone (for example)?
Not saying it would be any better or worse but there's a chance the money might spread around a bit better. The labels used to be essential, now they're barely relevant but they keep pushing the same old model and resist change at every step.
True that. Personally I think they are in the way of a lot of good, inspiring new acts coming out. As guardians of culture I think they have failed us and need to be gone.
I never said they were rational and yes many of them will spend all their spare cash etc into the hobby.
How many musicians do you know?
The content belongs to the artists and the publishers.
That is a very rare circumstance. Most of the time the publishing rights and the 'content' (or IP being the pre-produced stems of the recordings) belong to the record company who paid the artists and advance.
It's the shittest business model ever - where the record industry rips off the artists who created the music and then treats the fans like theives. The entire music industry is on the verge of collapse and all it can do is get worse.
So you realy dont know many musicians do ya? They are going to do their thing regardless.
No, they won't, not when they have to be realistic and realise that their passion will just put them into debt. Getting involved with the music industry is a path to poverty.
Merchandise is gone too, it's a little music industry deal called a 360. The one where the musician is totally fucked.
Yet for every one 'artist' that realises it's a massive con and rejects it there are a thousand more before behind ready to take the arm and all.
Sorry friend, I've read this about 10 times trying to understand what you mean and I am at a loss.
It's irrelevant what the artists do, they are subject to the music industry model as it is. The larger issue being that the music industry quite happily subverts the rights of everyone so they are subservient to their property 'rights'.
Seriously...pay for music?
Why would I do that?
Because the musicians had to pay around $250000 to record it. Most of them have been saddled with a massive debt to be able to get that music to you and at the end of the day, they won't have copyright or even possession of their own IP.
Don't read this as support for the music industries business model, it isn't. You asked why you should pay, that's why. They have conditions that would make most programmers laugh and walk away.
To give you an idea what it is like for a musician, imagine being told that to write a computer program you were told that to write code for something you wanted to do, you needed to take out a loan, you would have to code on something out of your control, you would not own the copyright and when it was complete, not only would you not have possession of the source code, you would have to pay the record industry back for your labor.
With the 360 "deals" in music industry contracts more and more "innovation" in the music industry revolves around new and worse ways to screw recording musicians out of any remaining income streams they have. The image of success in the music industry is just that, an image.
These deals find new ways to put musicians in debt for bringing you music you love to listen to. Concert tours, and merchandise were areas where a musician could make money and now the music mafia have closed in on them as well.
If you listen to an mp3 more than 10 times - consider it advertising for their album and support them by buying it, because it has enhanced your life somehow and they might be able to make another album you like.
Apologies, I submitted that before I'd finished the proofread because I was tired. It should have read:
why would any sane person invest their time in qualifying for such a career if their longevity in it is threatened.
Because IT isn't threatened. With computers going into everything, IT is here to stay, and it is going to continue increasing as a proportion of all jobs. This is in spite of the industry's attempts to kill itself with cut corners, aversion to experience, and constant reinventing-of-the-wheel due to a refusal to learn from history.
Indeed, perhaps IT companies could learn from another Benjamin Franklin quote : "An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
Thank you, I'm checking it out now!
Ok, I give up on star trek - you can have it. As far as being cool, it is relative. I think what you said isn't very cool.