What's laughable is your naivete. Do you think a true out of the closet Marxist could get elected in this country? So let's say your not a total idiot but yet still somehow manage to believe in Marxist ideals. Would you immediately propose massive wealth redistribution or would you do it slowly, subtly, and over the course of 8-16 years?
Re:recommended for advanced programmers
on
Programming .NET 3.5
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You just keep telling yourself that. If you wish hard enough and make enough "Micro$haft" jokes about how a super advanced processor "can't run Vista lolz" and how "nobody uses.NET" it will be true one day, little Johnny!
The point is what the founding fathers intended is not related, neither is the process to ammend the constitution. Go read the transcripts or listen to the 2001 interview that's gotten all the press lately. It's fairly clear he's not a big believer in the Constitution in terms of its intent.
What bullshit. You presume Obama is being up-front on his intentions. He's not. He wants and has stated multiple times that he wants wealth redistribution in this country. People don't like this, so being the consummate politician, he's being moderate about it. If you vote for a politician on what he promises, you're an idiot. He may do 25% of what he promises, then over time he'll crank of the heat. We're the frog in the water and he'll slowly turn up the heat.
Pretending a socialist will be fiscally conservative because he says he will be is the height of folly.
First, your initial point is retarded. You're pretending that "people" support the bail-out. They don't, I don't, a lot of people don't. So that whole false dichotomy is idiotic. Obama is a socialist, this is a simple truism. He's just a cautious socialist. He knows he can't come on too strong or he won't get elected, so he's playing the game. He'd love a 90% tax bracket on $1M+ income, a 75% on 500k-1M and a 50% on >$100k. But he knows he can't get it (now) - so he's playing the moderate.
Unfortunately for you, that's a non sequitur. Obama believes the fundamental point of the constitution, which is to protect us from the tyranny of the government, is wrong. It's a moot point, though, nobody gives a shit about the constitution anymore anyway.
Odd, I'm cool with my medical treatment and the medical treatment for my family and anyone I care about. Also odd, there are state programs for health care for people who can't afford it, too. So I'm a little confused what the actual problem is here in the US? Is there an epidemic of people dying for lack of medical treatment? Or is your real problem you don't like the boogeyman i.e. the big bad nasty Corporations. It's hilarious you new-age anti-corporate hippies all have this mindset that Corporations are these soulless entities that exist outside of humanity, like they're literally maleficent alien intelligences. In fact, they're just a bunch of people doing business. Socialists hate that, though. Maybe you'll get your wish and douchebag Obama will get elected and he can begin his campaign of wiping his ass with the Constitution and redistributing the wealth.
Unfortunately for you, I'm not a fan of the bailouts either. As for "corporate welfare", that's a socialist myth. The concept of corporations paying taxes is silly - they aren't people. Tax the money when it goes to real people.
I hate to break this to you, but welfare and unemployment are ridiculously far from the only entitlement programs in this country, and far from the only wastes of money. In fact, if you read my comment, I'd include the Iraq war in the "not included in legitimate spending", as well as the bank bailout, all the pork politicians allocate, and some percent of medica***, social security, etc... Not all - as some of it is legitimate last-ditch emergency aid, but some.
And how does DRM stop that from happening? The answer: it doesn't. People already strip the DRM and give stuff away online. DRM does nothing other than reduce profits, because you have to pay the DRM vendors to license the DRM (and pay for increased support costs from DRM-related issues). Seeing as it does nothing to protect you, wouldn't you be better off just keeping that money in your pocket and skipping the DRM?
So explain this to me. These large corporations, they have a lot of money, right? And they can afford to hire very smart people - both technical people and finance/business people, right? So here's my dilemma - if DRM doesn't provide them some benefit, why do they use it? Is it really true that "dangitman" from Slashdot knows more than they do, has more access to finance numbers, revenue streams and projections, etc...?
Or..hmm.. I'm formulating a crazy idea. Maybe..hmm. OK, still thinking. OK I have it. Maybe DRM doesn't need to be 100% effective to greatly reduce casual copying of content?
They don't get it, don't bother. First, they're arguing against the strawman of "durr, we don't want to pay none of dem taxes, durr!". Nobody sane says that, so their whole argument is moronic.
Second, they're using the "greedy" argument. They think that wins for them, it's their "I win" button. Just fess up. Yes, I'm greedy. I want to provide myself and my family a nice lifestyle with my work.
The problem is most of these assholes are greedy too, but they're hypocritical about it. If they were so fucking selfless they'd sell their TV, their cars, all their "toys", and give all the money to poor people. This ridiculous and laughable hypocrisy is abundant in the super-rich (see: Oprah, that rich bitch could feed how many people with the ridiculous lifestyle she lives?) to the guilty middle class.
So to all the assholes using the "you're just selfish and greedy" argument: Unless you're living some kind of minimalist buddhist lifestyle you're greedy too, and in addition you're a hypocritical douchebag. That luxury you live in is costing someone in the world their life - you could spend the money you would have spent on it on someone's food or medical costs and save their life. At least I'm adult enough to say that yes, I am selfish and don't care much beyond the hypothetical or abstract about people I don't know. Before that last sentence fills you with revulsion, look at your lifestyle and the "better" ways you could be spending your money/work. If you're a saint, then by all means you're right - I'm an asshole. Otherwise, we're assholes.
Seriously? I found GP to be a laughable attack on a strawman. Nobody sane is saying we shouldn't be taxed. The point is taxes should be basically fair and minimal to provide adequate services required by the majority of the country. Roads, hospitals, police, prisons, the military, schools, a minimal social safety net, etc...
The problem is the federal system is broken in providing these. They take our money and send it god knows where. They are inefficient, they waste money, and attempts to redistribute wealth to poor people are just stupid. Rich people already carry the majority of the tax burden in this country, making the rich boogeymen is just a populist tactic by socialists like Obama which appeal to the lowest common denominator mouth breather and the bleeding heart idealists.
Tax us for the things most people need, that's fine. Hell, even tax us so poor people don't starve to death in the streets or die from want of medical attention. We'll spring for that. But don't steal our money and give it to some slob so he can buy a little better TV and live in a slightly nicer apartment.
Yeah. Australia. 20 million people. I mean, what works for 20 million people must work for 300 million, right? Australia - yet another country nobody gives a shit about except for as a vacation destination and as a source for hilarious accents.
And to your "lazy and don't work hard enough" line, I would add "and spit out kids they can't afford or take care of". That's why there are so many poor people - they breed like cockroaches. You want to massively curtail poverty, get poor people to stop having so many kids. Otherwise, as a class, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
Your image of poor people: Poor John was born to a hard working miner. His father worked hard and provided, and was laid off and had to go on the dole. Then poor John had to drop out of school and work at McDonald's. Then McDonald's laid him off in favor of automation and poor John can't find another job, let's give him enough for a decent apartment and a moderate lifestyle!.
My image of poor people: Nancy was born to a single mother who tried hard but just wasn't a very good parent. Nancy then goes on to develop a nice drug and alcohol habit, and spits out a kid at 15. She goes on welfare and then has 5 more kids, 3 of whom are taken away for neglect or abuse. All 5 of these kids will likely then go on to do the same thing. But Nancy is fine, let's give her enough money to take care of the kid or two she has left and let her spit out a few more.
A lot more of my view of poor people than yours exist in this country. As long as they get 2000 calories a day and a roof and aren't literally dying, I couldn't give less of a shit about them. If they can't take care of their kids, however, they should be in prison.
Oooh, congratulations, you've managed to run a socialist's utopia with a population smaller than California that depends on the US for a huge amount of its national economy. You want a cracker?
Tell me, how exactly could you run a tiny first world country sitting right next to the world's first or second largest economy and not have a fairly easy time of it?
Nobody cares about Canada, but it's funny when one of you chimes in to nyaa nyaa us about how great a job you're doing up there.
Whenever it doesn't apply to you today, someone is always going to apply the slippery slope fallacy. Sometimes a rock rolling down a hill is just a rock, and sometimes its a slide. You won't know unless it happens or it doesn't.
I actually call this the "slippery slope fallacy fallacy". Obama and your other socialist buddies look at two people, one filthy rich one poor and they want to take the rich guy's money and give it to the poor guy. Once they've done this, they will move down the chain. Why wouldn't they? I have a nice car, nice house, 60" TV, various toys, etc.. How could Obama not shed a crocodile tear when it looks at my life and the life of a 23 year old woman with 5 kids living in some slum in Chicago? Why not tax me a little more so she can live a better life? What's funny is I know that sounds so reasonable to you.
As for your facile "social contract" argument, give me a break. I don't think any but a few Libertarian nutters (the fringe ones, not the mainstream usually) are really saying we don't have a basic social contract. Roads, public education, prisons, the military, keeping people from dying in the streets of hunger, etc... Nobody seriously has a problem with these programs. But I'm guessing those comprise less than 1/3 of our current tax spending.
I'll spring for you to live in a slum and have 2000 calories a day for you and your kids, but beyond that tough shit. Make your own life. I have 100% sympathy for my family/children and their children etc... and only about 10% sympathy for people I don't know. So guess who wins in my priorities list?
I fully agree. It's funny how people have the "right" to have children, sometimes many, but not the "responsibility" to take care of them or to have the means to take care of them. Personally I'd put anyone on welfare who has a child in prison. It would be a nasty generation but our grandchildren would thank us for it.
Nice strawman argument. You knocked that strawman way down. Unfortunately, most Obama opponents aren't the nutty Libertarian "we should privatize roads and schools and let people die in the streets" types. The fact is most of our tax money goes into a black hole and serves no benefit to me or my family.
The federal govt takes it and uses MY OWN money, for example, to extort laws out of states by threatening to withhold MY tax money from the state's highway road allocations. Or they spend it on inefficient social programs and reward people for popping out 5 kids they can't take care of, each of which will go on to do the same thing. Or they spend it on pork barrel budgets and the money goes to some ridiculous industry important to a key voter on a bill.
What you socialist utopian stupid assholes don't understand is that the federal govt is a broken system, it's inherently flawed as the money goes away from the people who earn it, into a big, far-away pot, through a bunch of corrupt politicians, then through various other bureaucracies and finally to some project that may or may not help me.
If I paid the same money I pay now and it mostly went to my state govt (except for things like military spending and other stuff fed _has_ to do) and they spent it wisely I wouldn't have any issue.
Also don't avoid the fact that the rich pay a larger share of _all_ taxes in this country. Seriously, what's up with Slashdot becoming a socialist's utopia? I mean, Bush is indeed the worst president ever, but it's like a woman who dates a really bad man and decides to become lesbian.
One very, very rarely makes an income of more than a quarter of a million dollars in a year solely through one's own hard work. One usually makes it by leaching, to some degree, off the hard work of others. (The exceptions are mostly matters of dumb luck - a superstar performer getting "discovered", for example.)
What does this even mean? I guess if you artificially define "hard work" to be "using your muscles" this is true enough. Otherwise you've just uttered meaningless tripe. Define "one's own" and define "hard work". And define them meaningfully.
ow, I would rather get rid of that machinery entirely, but I think that unlikely, at least in the near term. If we're going to have it, I'm all for decreasing the power of the government to help the wealthy become wealthier by adding some negative feedback to the system.
Yet more socialist babble. What is your alternative? Do you think there exists a system where the top 10% of the population only owns 10% of the wealth? There is no such system in a large economy. Like most socialists, you live in a non-existent dream world.
The fact is that poor people breed like vermin, then they don't take care of their kids, then those kids go on to do the same. This exponentially creates an underclass which percolates up to, at best, the "working poor". Socialists seem to find this endearing for some reason, I have no idea why.
I've already stated in another thread I understand that the RIAA use fuzzy math to calculate losses. That doesn't mean there aren't losses, it just means the RIAA and associated scumbags just massively overinflate them. Regardless, piracy of commodity items like this cost them money.
As for fair use, it's a defense against copyright infringement allegations not a right. They don't have to enable you to utilize fair use as _you_ see it. If they sue you for using a 3 second clip or making a personal backup copy, though, you can use fair use as a defense.
Yawn. Was that claptrap supposed to be meaningful? I can come up with scary scenarios involving other highly unlikely events, but why would I? I prefer not to make arguments based on laughable slippery slope arguments based on ridiculous premises.
"Durr, uhh, aliens come to earth and want to watch Seinfeld episodes but can't because it's DRM'd! Put that in your pipe and smoke it you corporatist scum!". Lol at myself.
The problem is that due to a technological side-effect of their profession it's hard to sell their product without it being stolen and without a lot of opportunity cost. DRM is a (flawed) attempt to remedy that side-effect. Your argument is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just give up and look for another way to make money. Why should they? DRM works "well enough" to thwart casual piracy and if it's done right it's not too onerous on the buyer.
Oh, I know, in this wonderful utopian world they can sell T-shirts! And concerts! And people will give them money over paypal! Whoohoo! What a joke. You can make the same retarded argument about expensive commercial software. They should have software concerts and T-shirts to pay for the tens or hundreds of millions+ it costs to develop! Information wants to be free, like, maaan! Since software _can_ be copied, it should be copied and any attempt to thwart this is wrong!
Slashdot Mirror
What's laughable is your naivete. Do you think a true out of the closet Marxist could get elected in this country? So let's say your not a total idiot but yet still somehow manage to believe in Marxist ideals. Would you immediately propose massive wealth redistribution or would you do it slowly, subtly, and over the course of 8-16 years?
These are, of course, not issues with LINQ but issues with various providers for LINQ. In fact there is Linq support coming for NHibernate.
Yes. Yes they are. Point nullified.
You just keep telling yourself that. If you wish hard enough and make enough "Micro$haft" jokes about how a super advanced processor "can't run Vista lolz" and how "nobody uses .NET" it will be true one day, little Johnny!
The point is what the founding fathers intended is not related, neither is the process to ammend the constitution. Go read the transcripts or listen to the 2001 interview that's gotten all the press lately. It's fairly clear he's not a big believer in the Constitution in terms of its intent.
What bullshit. You presume Obama is being up-front on his intentions. He's not. He wants and has stated multiple times that he wants wealth redistribution in this country. People don't like this, so being the consummate politician, he's being moderate about it. If you vote for a politician on what he promises, you're an idiot. He may do 25% of what he promises, then over time he'll crank of the heat. We're the frog in the water and he'll slowly turn up the heat.
Pretending a socialist will be fiscally conservative because he says he will be is the height of folly.
First, your initial point is retarded. You're pretending that "people" support the bail-out. They don't, I don't, a lot of people don't. So that whole false dichotomy is idiotic. Obama is a socialist, this is a simple truism. He's just a cautious socialist. He knows he can't come on too strong or he won't get elected, so he's playing the game. He'd love a 90% tax bracket on $1M+ income, a 75% on 500k-1M and a 50% on >$100k. But he knows he can't get it (now) - so he's playing the moderate.
Unfortunately for you, that's a non sequitur. Obama believes the fundamental point of the constitution, which is to protect us from the tyranny of the government, is wrong. It's a moot point, though, nobody gives a shit about the constitution anymore anyway.
If you're so interested in your janitor's well-being, how about you give him some of your money?
Odd, I'm cool with my medical treatment and the medical treatment for my family and anyone I care about. Also odd, there are state programs for health care for people who can't afford it, too. So I'm a little confused what the actual problem is here in the US? Is there an epidemic of people dying for lack of medical treatment? Or is your real problem you don't like the boogeyman i.e. the big bad nasty Corporations. It's hilarious you new-age anti-corporate hippies all have this mindset that Corporations are these soulless entities that exist outside of humanity, like they're literally maleficent alien intelligences. In fact, they're just a bunch of people doing business. Socialists hate that, though. Maybe you'll get your wish and douchebag Obama will get elected and he can begin his campaign of wiping his ass with the Constitution and redistributing the wealth.
Unfortunately for you, I'm not a fan of the bailouts either. As for "corporate welfare", that's a socialist myth. The concept of corporations paying taxes is silly - they aren't people. Tax the money when it goes to real people.
I hate to break this to you, but welfare and unemployment are ridiculously far from the only entitlement programs in this country, and far from the only wastes of money. In fact, if you read my comment, I'd include the Iraq war in the "not included in legitimate spending", as well as the bank bailout, all the pork politicians allocate, and some percent of medica***, social security, etc... Not all - as some of it is legitimate last-ditch emergency aid, but some.
Firstly, where is the queue? Oh, you mean cue.
No, I meant queue. As in form a line, asshole.
And how does DRM stop that from happening? The answer: it doesn't. People already strip the DRM and give stuff away online. DRM does nothing other than reduce profits, because you have to pay the DRM vendors to license the DRM (and pay for increased support costs from DRM-related issues). Seeing as it does nothing to protect you, wouldn't you be better off just keeping that money in your pocket and skipping the DRM?
So explain this to me. These large corporations, they have a lot of money, right? And they can afford to hire very smart people - both technical people and finance/business people, right? So here's my dilemma - if DRM doesn't provide them some benefit, why do they use it? Is it really true that "dangitman" from Slashdot knows more than they do, has more access to finance numbers, revenue streams and projections, etc...?
Or..hmm.. I'm formulating a crazy idea. Maybe..hmm. OK, still thinking. OK I have it. Maybe DRM doesn't need to be 100% effective to greatly reduce casual copying of content?
They don't get it, don't bother. First, they're arguing against the strawman of "durr, we don't want to pay none of dem taxes, durr!". Nobody sane says that, so their whole argument is moronic.
Second, they're using the "greedy" argument. They think that wins for them, it's their "I win" button. Just fess up. Yes, I'm greedy. I want to provide myself and my family a nice lifestyle with my work.
The problem is most of these assholes are greedy too, but they're hypocritical about it. If they were so fucking selfless they'd sell their TV, their cars, all their "toys", and give all the money to poor people. This ridiculous and laughable hypocrisy is abundant in the super-rich (see: Oprah, that rich bitch could feed how many people with the ridiculous lifestyle she lives?) to the guilty middle class.
So to all the assholes using the "you're just selfish and greedy" argument: Unless you're living some kind of minimalist buddhist lifestyle you're greedy too, and in addition you're a hypocritical douchebag. That luxury you live in is costing someone in the world their life - you could spend the money you would have spent on it on someone's food or medical costs and save their life. At least I'm adult enough to say that yes, I am selfish and don't care much beyond the hypothetical or abstract about people I don't know. Before that last sentence fills you with revulsion, look at your lifestyle and the "better" ways you could be spending your money/work. If you're a saint, then by all means you're right - I'm an asshole. Otherwise, we're assholes.
Seriously? I found GP to be a laughable attack on a strawman. Nobody sane is saying we shouldn't be taxed. The point is taxes should be basically fair and minimal to provide adequate services required by the majority of the country. Roads, hospitals, police, prisons, the military, schools, a minimal social safety net, etc...
The problem is the federal system is broken in providing these. They take our money and send it god knows where. They are inefficient, they waste money, and attempts to redistribute wealth to poor people are just stupid. Rich people already carry the majority of the tax burden in this country, making the rich boogeymen is just a populist tactic by socialists like Obama which appeal to the lowest common denominator mouth breather and the bleeding heart idealists.
Tax us for the things most people need, that's fine. Hell, even tax us so poor people don't starve to death in the streets or die from want of medical attention. We'll spring for that. But don't steal our money and give it to some slob so he can buy a little better TV and live in a slightly nicer apartment.
Yeah. Australia. 20 million people. I mean, what works for 20 million people must work for 300 million, right? Australia - yet another country nobody gives a shit about except for as a vacation destination and as a source for hilarious accents.
And to your "lazy and don't work hard enough" line, I would add "and spit out kids they can't afford or take care of". That's why there are so many poor people - they breed like cockroaches. You want to massively curtail poverty, get poor people to stop having so many kids. Otherwise, as a class, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
Your image of poor people: Poor John was born to a hard working miner. His father worked hard and provided, and was laid off and had to go on the dole. Then poor John had to drop out of school and work at McDonald's. Then McDonald's laid him off in favor of automation and poor John can't find another job, let's give him enough for a decent apartment and a moderate lifestyle!.
My image of poor people: Nancy was born to a single mother who tried hard but just wasn't a very good parent. Nancy then goes on to develop a nice drug and alcohol habit, and spits out a kid at 15. She goes on welfare and then has 5 more kids, 3 of whom are taken away for neglect or abuse. All 5 of these kids will likely then go on to do the same thing. But Nancy is fine, let's give her enough money to take care of the kid or two she has left and let her spit out a few more.
A lot more of my view of poor people than yours exist in this country. As long as they get 2000 calories a day and a roof and aren't literally dying, I couldn't give less of a shit about them. If they can't take care of their kids, however, they should be in prison.
Oooh, congratulations, you've managed to run a socialist's utopia with a population smaller than California that depends on the US for a huge amount of its national economy. You want a cracker?
Tell me, how exactly could you run a tiny first world country sitting right next to the world's first or second largest economy and not have a fairly easy time of it?
Nobody cares about Canada, but it's funny when one of you chimes in to nyaa nyaa us about how great a job you're doing up there.
Whenever it doesn't apply to you today, someone is always going to apply the slippery slope fallacy. Sometimes a rock rolling down a hill is just a rock, and sometimes its a slide. You won't know unless it happens or it doesn't.
I actually call this the "slippery slope fallacy fallacy". Obama and your other socialist buddies look at two people, one filthy rich one poor and they want to take the rich guy's money and give it to the poor guy. Once they've done this, they will move down the chain. Why wouldn't they? I have a nice car, nice house, 60" TV, various toys, etc.. How could Obama not shed a crocodile tear when it looks at my life and the life of a 23 year old woman with 5 kids living in some slum in Chicago? Why not tax me a little more so she can live a better life? What's funny is I know that sounds so reasonable to you.
As for your facile "social contract" argument, give me a break. I don't think any but a few Libertarian nutters (the fringe ones, not the mainstream usually) are really saying we don't have a basic social contract. Roads, public education, prisons, the military, keeping people from dying in the streets of hunger, etc... Nobody seriously has a problem with these programs. But I'm guessing those comprise less than 1/3 of our current tax spending.
I'll spring for you to live in a slum and have 2000 calories a day for you and your kids, but beyond that tough shit. Make your own life. I have 100% sympathy for my family/children and their children etc... and only about 10% sympathy for people I don't know. So guess who wins in my priorities list?
I fully agree. It's funny how people have the "right" to have children, sometimes many, but not the "responsibility" to take care of them or to have the means to take care of them. Personally I'd put anyone on welfare who has a child in prison. It would be a nasty generation but our grandchildren would thank us for it.
Nice strawman argument. You knocked that strawman way down. Unfortunately, most Obama opponents aren't the nutty Libertarian "we should privatize roads and schools and let people die in the streets" types. The fact is most of our tax money goes into a black hole and serves no benefit to me or my family.
The federal govt takes it and uses MY OWN money, for example, to extort laws out of states by threatening to withhold MY tax money from the state's highway road allocations. Or they spend it on inefficient social programs and reward people for popping out 5 kids they can't take care of, each of which will go on to do the same thing. Or they spend it on pork barrel budgets and the money goes to some ridiculous industry important to a key voter on a bill.
What you socialist utopian stupid assholes don't understand is that the federal govt is a broken system, it's inherently flawed as the money goes away from the people who earn it, into a big, far-away pot, through a bunch of corrupt politicians, then through various other bureaucracies and finally to some project that may or may not help me.
If I paid the same money I pay now and it mostly went to my state govt (except for things like military spending and other stuff fed _has_ to do) and they spent it wisely I wouldn't have any issue.
Also don't avoid the fact that the rich pay a larger share of _all_ taxes in this country. Seriously, what's up with Slashdot becoming a socialist's utopia? I mean, Bush is indeed the worst president ever, but it's like a woman who dates a really bad man and decides to become lesbian.
One very, very rarely makes an income of more than a quarter of a million dollars in a year solely through one's own hard work. One usually makes it by leaching, to some degree, off the hard work of others. (The exceptions are mostly matters of dumb luck - a superstar performer getting "discovered", for example.)
What does this even mean? I guess if you artificially define "hard work" to be "using your muscles" this is true enough. Otherwise you've just uttered meaningless tripe. Define "one's own" and define "hard work". And define them meaningfully.
ow, I would rather get rid of that machinery entirely, but I think that unlikely, at least in the near term. If we're going to have it, I'm all for decreasing the power of the government to help the wealthy become wealthier by adding some negative feedback to the system.
Yet more socialist babble. What is your alternative? Do you think there exists a system where the top 10% of the population only owns 10% of the wealth? There is no such system in a large economy. Like most socialists, you live in a non-existent dream world.
The fact is that poor people breed like vermin, then they don't take care of their kids, then those kids go on to do the same. This exponentially creates an underclass which percolates up to, at best, the "working poor". Socialists seem to find this endearing for some reason, I have no idea why.
As for fair use, it's a defense against copyright infringement allegations not a right. They don't have to enable you to utilize fair use as _you_ see it. If they sue you for using a 3 second clip or making a personal backup copy, though, you can use fair use as a defense.
"Durr, uhh, aliens come to earth and want to watch Seinfeld episodes but can't because it's DRM'd! Put that in your pipe and smoke it you corporatist scum!". Lol at myself.
Oh, I know, in this wonderful utopian world they can sell T-shirts! And concerts! And people will give them money over paypal! Whoohoo! What a joke. You can make the same retarded argument about expensive commercial software. They should have software concerts and T-shirts to pay for the tens or hundreds of millions+ it costs to develop! Information wants to be free, like, maaan! Since software _can_ be copied, it should be copied and any attempt to thwart this is wrong!