But I'll be damned if you'll search my bags just because you didn't personally witness me checkout. Besides if I was going to steal something I'd think of something more valuable then chewing gum and a picture frame.
They can give me a full cavity search as long as I can get 15 percent off a 36" TV!
Consider why congressmen are called "representatives." They represent their constituents!
Yeah right. They represent their own ideals. Just like the legislative branch.
This, of course, is exactly what happened in Spain, where the overwhelming majority of the people were against the misadventures in Iraq, and they voted the bastard out.
What happened in Spain is terrorists swung an election.
This is as opposed to, say, a coup or an installation, where the leaders aren't beholden to We The People, but rather the forces that installed them. In those instances, history has shown again and again that these leaders are interested in one thing only -- enriching themselves and their close circle, to the obvious detriment of the citizens.
Yeah, good thing that doesn't happen in a democracy....
The costs of getting them there are pretty trivial, we already have plenty of probes on the planet. They just have to be able to carry an aerosol canister to disperse them.
Unity driving about Mars with a big can of Mega Hold strapped to its back is a funny image to me.
Plus it came to symbolize a much larger conflict between the Bush administration's self-interested unilateral actions and much of the rest of the world's eglatarian compromising.
Yeah, it's hard to be unilateral when you're not at the top of the food chain. All the animals in the forest could get together and talk about how the lion is wrong because he eats everyone and how all the other animals want to unite but the lion just wants to eat, but the animals aren't doing it for the greater common good. They're doing it to save their own hides and know they can get some strength in numbers.
Hence the UN, the European Union, and other little clubs of countries that love to blame the US for everything but will happily take America's military and financial aid in times of crisis.
Anyone who contributes "hard money" to political campaigns must provide personal information. This requirement limits the political influence of wealthy, anonymous individuals and allows the public to track financial contributions that may influence the political process.
Upon further investigation it becomes apparent that this site is a Very Good Thing(tm). It is a bastion of democracy.
"Fundrace 2004 lets you enter any street address and see what people at or near that location have contributed to a presidential candidate, along with their addresses and occupations.
If this let you search your neighbor's RFID tags from Wal-Mart, the Slashdot crowd would be saying what a major privacy breach this is.
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't see television programming deriving someday to the "watch-per-view" format that many premium websites go lately which require you to sit and watch a 30sec commercial before proceeding to the next page/download/etc. With the convergence of digital media and control devices (remotes, etc), it's not unlikely you'd get some method where you must watch a commercial and key a code on your remote to continue with the show. Incredibly invasive -- yes -- effective to force people to watch a commercial -- absolutely. How many people could they force to sit through mandatory commercials to watch the Friends finale in May?
This is already quite possible with Video On Demand. With VOD, the program is stored in a remote server, not your local machine. If you're watching a VOD program, the cable company could force you to watch a commercial before (or during) the program because THEY determine when and where you can use your fast-forward button.
VOD is also good for preventing people from "flipping" to another station. Because if a commercial comes on while you're watching a VOD program and you change to another channel, the VOD can automatically pause, so when you come back, you have to watch the commercial anyway.
Samsung makes it, but it carries the Napster name, and you can bet they get a piece of each sale.
Not accordinging to the SiliconValley.com article which stated Napster derives no income from the sale of a branded music player.
It also said HP returned Napster's $250,000 check. Napster probably paid HP (and is paying Samsung) a certain amount to get the Napster logo on HP's and Samsung's players in an effort to gain mindshare. Napster needs Samsung more than Samsung needs Napster.
HP realized the money they were getting from Napster was nothing compared to what they could get from a portion of HP iPod sales...
People those their one Stylus pen all the time. Now they have to keep track of FIVE of them?
Not to mention I probably lose a pack of Bic pens a month. Not a big deal when they're 10 cents each, but when I lose the one that projects my vitual keyboard....
Who owns phone numbers? The phone company? I can transfer my phone number from SBC to Vonage. So, after the transfer Vonage owns the number? They can sell to other companies but not individuals?
The reason they are in trouble is that they are producing a product, the distribution of music, that is obsolete (well soon anyway) thanks to new technology.
Labels, whether one of the "big five" or one of the hundreds of independent labels, exist for more than just distribution purposes. A huge part of what they do is marketing. Artists have been able to distribute their music online for 10 years. Yet over the past ten years, new groups and individuals have still signed with labels. Why? Because they want other things the labels give them. Sure, artists can make their own web page and be accessible to the world, but as we found out in the 90's, just having a web page doesn't mean anyone will come to it. Even if you're giving away your music for free.
Even with the dawn of things like the iTunes Music Store, which lets artists easily put their stuff online for pay, artists will still sign with labels, mostly for marketing purposes. And if an artist becomes popular and a TV show or movie production company calls and wants to license their music, the artist might not want to negotiate that themselves.
They probably also won't be able to get any radio play without a label, either.
Press releases, booking for interviews, organizing tour schedules, getting valuable consumer data... These are some things a label can provide. It's not just about distribution.
No. You have you think outside your geeky, Cheeto-eating, Jolt-drinking, hacker friends. We're talking about the average customer HP is targeting. Do a random phone survey and find out how many people even know what DRM is.
You: Hi! I'm doing a random phone survey to see if people prefer non-DRMed MP3s! Would you?
Caller: What?
You: Do you listen to MP3s?
Caller: Oh, like music stuff? Yeah, sure.
You: Don't you prefer MP3s without DRM?
Caller: What's DRM?
You: DRM is what the RIAA uses to tell you what you can and can't do with your music!
Caller: Oh. What's the RIAA?
You: Look, if you have an MP3, don't you want to be able to burn it to a CD?
Caller: Sure.
You: Well don't you want to be able to burn the same playlist to 11 CDs?
Caller: What would I need 11 identical CDs for?
You: Ok, don't you want to be able to listen to your music collection all on five of the computers networked throughout your house?
Caller: Uh, I only have two computers.
You: Well don't you want to be able to listen to your MP3s under Linux?!?
Caller: What's Linux?
My point is your time has a value. If a song takes two hours of your time to find and download a decent sounding copy, then it's not "free". It costs whatever two hours is worth to you.
Slashdot Mirror
They can give me a full cavity search as long as I can get 15 percent off a 36" TV!
We have our own hose.
Yeah right. They represent their own ideals. Just like the legislative branch.
This, of course, is exactly what happened in Spain, where the overwhelming majority of the people were against the misadventures in Iraq, and they voted the bastard out.
What happened in Spain is terrorists swung an election.
This is as opposed to, say, a coup or an installation, where the leaders aren't beholden to We The People, but rather the forces that installed them. In those instances, history has shown again and again that these leaders are interested in one thing only -- enriching themselves and their close circle, to the obvious detriment of the citizens.
Yeah, good thing that doesn't happen in a democracy....
Step 3: Profit!
Unity driving about Mars with a big can of Mega Hold strapped to its back is a funny image to me.
Yeah, it's hard to be unilateral when you're not at the top of the food chain. All the animals in the forest could get together and talk about how the lion is wrong because he eats everyone and how all the other animals want to unite but the lion just wants to eat, but the animals aren't doing it for the greater common good. They're doing it to save their own hides and know they can get some strength in numbers.
Hence the UN, the European Union, and other little clubs of countries that love to blame the US for everything but will happily take America's military and financial aid in times of crisis.
The Democrats are still waiting to see what their lastest focus group says about pop-ups before deciding how they feel about them.
"I supported pop-ups right before I voted against them!" - John Kerry
Upon further investigation it becomes apparent that this site is a Very Good Thing(tm). It is a bastion of democracy.
Because the privacy of the rich doesn't matter?
If this let you search your neighbor's RFID tags from Wal-Mart, the Slashdot crowd would be saying what a major privacy breach this is.
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't see television programming deriving someday to the "watch-per-view" format that many premium websites go lately which require you to sit and watch a 30sec commercial before proceeding to the next page/download/etc. With the convergence of digital media and control devices (remotes, etc), it's not unlikely you'd get some method where you must watch a commercial and key a code on your remote to continue with the show. Incredibly invasive -- yes -- effective to force people to watch a commercial -- absolutely. How many people could they force to sit through mandatory commercials to watch the Friends finale in May?
This is already quite possible with Video On Demand. With VOD, the program is stored in a remote server, not your local machine. If you're watching a VOD program, the cable company could force you to watch a commercial before (or during) the program because THEY determine when and where you can use your fast-forward button.
VOD is also good for preventing people from "flipping" to another station. Because if a commercial comes on while you're watching a VOD program and you change to another channel, the VOD can automatically pause, so when you come back, you have to watch the commercial anyway.
I'd agree if you paid $20 for that emulator...
Bull and bologna!
Not accordinging to the SiliconValley.com article which stated Napster derives no income from the sale of a branded music player.
It also said HP returned Napster's $250,000 check. Napster probably paid HP (and is paying Samsung) a certain amount to get the Napster logo on HP's and Samsung's players in an effort to gain mindshare. Napster needs Samsung more than Samsung needs Napster.
HP realized the money they were getting from Napster was nothing compared to what they could get from a portion of HP iPod sales...
People those their one Stylus pen all the time. Now they have to keep track of FIVE of them?
Not to mention I probably lose a pack of Bic pens a month. Not a big deal when they're 10 cents each, but when I lose the one that projects my vitual keyboard....
My testosterone level goes down when I get beaten by an eight-year-old.
Who owns phone numbers? The phone company? I can transfer my phone number from SBC to Vonage. So, after the transfer Vonage owns the number? They can sell to other companies but not individuals?
Actually, Maya requires three mouse buttons.
They meant revenue. Napster's revenues are listed as US$3.6 million for its first three months of operation.
Getting $3.6 million in three months isn't generating revenue? Man, I wish I wasn't generating revenue...
Labels, whether one of the "big five" or one of the hundreds of independent labels, exist for more than just distribution purposes. A huge part of what they do is marketing. Artists have been able to distribute their music online for 10 years. Yet over the past ten years, new groups and individuals have still signed with labels. Why? Because they want other things the labels give them. Sure, artists can make their own web page and be accessible to the world, but as we found out in the 90's, just having a web page doesn't mean anyone will come to it. Even if you're giving away your music for free.
Even with the dawn of things like the iTunes Music Store, which lets artists easily put their stuff online for pay, artists will still sign with labels, mostly for marketing purposes. And if an artist becomes popular and a TV show or movie production company calls and wants to license their music, the artist might not want to negotiate that themselves.
They probably also won't be able to get any radio play without a label, either.
Press releases, booking for interviews, organizing tour schedules, getting valuable consumer data... These are some things a label can provide. It's not just about distribution.
-1, Conspiracy Theory
Pfffpht. And where did that get us?
Maybe your state should help itself.
No. You have you think outside your geeky, Cheeto-eating, Jolt-drinking, hacker friends. We're talking about the average customer HP is targeting. Do a random phone survey and find out how many people even know what DRM is.
You: Hi! I'm doing a random phone survey to see if people prefer non-DRMed MP3s! Would you?
Caller: What?
You: Do you listen to MP3s?
Caller: Oh, like music stuff? Yeah, sure.
You: Don't you prefer MP3s without DRM?
Caller: What's DRM?
You: DRM is what the RIAA uses to tell you what you can and can't do with your music!
Caller: Oh. What's the RIAA?
You: Look, if you have an MP3, don't you want to be able to burn it to a CD?
Caller: Sure.
You: Well don't you want to be able to burn the same playlist to 11 CDs?
Caller: What would I need 11 identical CDs for?
You: Ok, don't you want to be able to listen to your music collection all on five of the computers networked throughout your house?
Caller: Uh, I only have two computers.
You: Well don't you want to be able to listen to your MP3s under Linux?!?
Caller: What's Linux?
Because Apple is not a monopoly and therefore bundling is not illegal.
There are DIFFERENT LAWS for monopolies than there are for non-monopolies. Some people still don't seem to understand this.
My point is your time has a value. If a song takes two hours of your time to find and download a decent sounding copy, then it's not "free". It costs whatever two hours is worth to you.