Jolly Ranchers may be relatively harmless in and of themselves, but it is well known that they are a gateway to the "harder" stuff (not literally, nothing's actually harder than a Jolly Rancher.) Sure, today little Chastity Amber is sucking innocently on a Jolly Rancher (and if that sentence doesn't bother you, it should), but tomorrow she's chowing down some Now&Laters. And that shit be quantum. Is she eating it now? Is she eating it later? Until you actually open her mouth and look inside, she's doing both.
Perhaps he's merely being considerate, and requesting that the Jaws theme be queued to play as soon as the current soundtrack (as well as any other pending tracks) have fully completed. It's rude to interrupt someone else's soundtrack, after all.
You would be correct, if only "Some of the guys try dumb" were a well-constructed sentence. Unless this is some sort of regional dialect? "You guys wanna try dumb tonight?" "Yuh-HUH!"
Under most circumstances, you would be correct. However, there are certain situations under which it is grammatically correct to omit the final mark of punctuation: when a speaking character is defenestrated mid-dialogue; when the narrator has just discovered himself to be his own grandpa; and (as is clearly the case in the grandparent post) when quoting the first line of a limerick:
Wish I had mod points, this entire thread is one of the funniest ever on/. Second quite possibly only to last week's delightful essay on the breakdancing robot Of course it would be somewhat remiss of me Not to mention that I find most everything hilarious because I just don't get out a whole lot.
That is true, but nowhere have I equated popularity with talent, nor have I stated (or implied) that I believe the "greatest" artists should also be the most well-paid. My question was: if you believe that musicians should not be paid relative to the number of people who enjoy their music (i.e. the popularity - not "quality" of said music), do you likewise believe that other members of society should not be paid relative to the popularity of their services or products?
You make some compelling arguments, and I agree with a lot of what you say - to a point. However, my feeling is that you are wrong on one crucial point: I don't think that the overwhelming majority of people who pirate music do so because they don't believe that artists are entitled to any sort of compensatory rights for what they do (forgive me if I'm misstating your point: I'm inferring that from "Whatever rights the artist may claim, the majority don't recognise them.") I think that filesharing has simply become the path of least resistance: it's convenient, and free, and the assumption is made that other people will buy the record and support the artist. I think it's much like citizens who don't bother to vote: while there is undoubtedly a small core of people who believe that voting is meaningless and that the democratic system is inherently flawed, most nonvoters essentially believe in the system, but are content to rely on the participation of others. You find this statement unreasonable: "The artist deserves to be rewarded for their work, therefore every single one of you who listens to me has to pay." To be honest, I don't find anything particularly high-minded in the converse: "The artist deserves to be rewarded for their work, therefore someone else should pay."
I agree with you that the current interface between artists and audience is far from ideal. One thing I find interesting about your position, however, is the notion that there should not necessarily be any kind of correlation between the number of people who enjoy an artist's music and the degree to which that artist should be financially compensated. I'm just curious: do you feel the same way about sports stars (for example)? My perception (which may be skewed, I admit) is that whereas most members of society - in or out of the arts and entertainment community - who affect the lives of large numbers of people would be expected to make a correspondingly large amount of money, there seems to be growing sentiment that musicians should be held to a different type of standard altogether.
The thing is, people don't torrent Beyonce to protest the copyright status of Richard Strauss. They just want free stuff. If the duration of copyright were revised drastically downward, people would still pirate the most current music. I'm not defending life+70 - it's patently insane (ha ha) - but let's not pretend it has any bearing on this issue.
That you are convinced invoking the phrase "bunch of jews" will magically ignite some kind of uniquely Semitic firestorm of controversy, AC, speaks more to your own illogical beliefs and double standards than those of the mainstream. (Only barely worth mentioning, even parenthetically, is your odd notion that "bunch of muslims" is somehow 'going further' [on what intangible axis of delusion?] than "bunch of christians".)
While I know that it's terribly fashionable to assume that everyone else's child is subnormal and that any (other) parent who fails to realize this about their little miracle of life is deluded and self-centered, your tacit assumption that you know more about the intellectual development of a child you've never met than his own parents is... well, see "deluded and self-centered". From experience, I can tell you that there are "nearly 2"-year-olds who can use a computer in capable enough fashion to play reasonably complex games (though they don't usually start beating you until they're 3...), just as there are 2-year-olds who prefer reading over "what sound does the doggy make". In any case, children - prodigies or no - generally benefit from being treated as if they were actually intelligent. In similar fashion, when someone asks for help, you might proceed from the assumption that their query is founded on a proper understanding of their own needs (unless it is clearly proven otherwise), rather than glibly flaming them for the approval of the forum denizens.
I think the assumption implicit in such a statement ("you could write it off") is that the fiscal alternative is buying porn, funding a drug habit, collecting Hot Wheels, or what have you - rather than saving or investing it. In such a case, you are, in fact, "saving" yourself money by channeling the insatiable need for consumption into something at least partially tax-deductible.
"However, if artists deserve an income simply because they produce something they call art, I want to get paid each time I think or each time I masturbate."
That's a bit disingenuous. Obviously, nobody is going to pay you to masturbate (under normal circumstances). However, if you are an attractive person, people will pay to watch you masturbate. Similarly, while nobody will pay you to have a thought, people will pay to read a book of your thoughts if you are a "respected intellectual".
It's true that art and commerce intersect to a certain degree by necessity. However, I don't feel that this intersection is quite as simple as you portray it. Part of the problem with applying traditional business models to art is that most of what is generally considered great art is designed to challenge its listeners or viewers, not make them feel happy about themselves. Many of our greatest cultural artifacts were considered offensive trash, or mediocre, or incomprehensible, for generations after their creation. Similarly, many works that were immensely popular a hundred and fifty years ago are now generally dismissed as pablum.
"The point is still that someone pays for it while it's being delivered, and not 100 years down the road after the original artist is long dead."
And what if the artist is a commercial flop during his or her own lifetime, but hugely popular 100 years later?
Slashdot Mirror
"And for my last wish, I want a 4G network with truly epoch speed."
And the genie smiled.
It's really only when you examine the unary representation of pi that the fascinating patterns tend to emerge:
000.000000000000000000000[...]00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000[...]000000000000000000000000000000000 and so forth.
Jolly Ranchers may be relatively harmless in and of themselves, but it is well known that they are a gateway to the "harder" stuff (not literally, nothing's actually harder than a Jolly Rancher.) Sure, today little Chastity Amber is sucking innocently on a Jolly Rancher (and if that sentence doesn't bother you, it should), but tomorrow she's chowing down some Now&Laters. And that shit be quantum. Is she eating it now? Is she eating it later? Until you actually open her mouth and look inside, she's doing both.
Perhaps he's merely being considerate, and requesting that the Jaws theme be queued to play as soon as the current soundtrack (as well as any other pending tracks) have fully completed. It's rude to interrupt someone else's soundtrack, after all.
You would be correct, if only "Some of the guys try dumb" were a well-constructed sentence. Unless this is some sort of regional dialect? "You guys wanna try dumb tonight?" "Yuh-HUH!"
Under most circumstances, you would be correct. However, there are certain situations under which it is grammatically correct to omit the final mark of punctuation: when a speaking character is defenestrated mid-dialogue; when the narrator has just discovered himself to be his own grandpa; and (as is clearly the case in the grandparent post) when quoting the first line of a limerick:
Wish I had mod points, this entire thread is one of the funniest ever on /.
Second quite possibly only to last week's delightful essay on the breakdancing robot
Of course it would be
somewhat remiss of me
Not to mention that I find most everything hilarious because I just don't get out a whole lot.
That is true, but nowhere have I equated popularity with talent, nor have I stated (or implied) that I believe the "greatest" artists should also be the most well-paid. My question was: if you believe that musicians should not be paid relative to the number of people who enjoy their music (i.e. the popularity - not "quality" of said music), do you likewise believe that other members of society should not be paid relative to the popularity of their services or products?
We who are without mod points salute you, sir.
You make some compelling arguments, and I agree with a lot of what you say - to a point. However, my feeling is that you are wrong on one crucial point: I don't think that the overwhelming majority of people who pirate music do so because they don't believe that artists are entitled to any sort of compensatory rights for what they do (forgive me if I'm misstating your point: I'm inferring that from "Whatever rights the artist may claim, the majority don't recognise them.") I think that filesharing has simply become the path of least resistance: it's convenient, and free, and the assumption is made that other people will buy the record and support the artist. I think it's much like citizens who don't bother to vote: while there is undoubtedly a small core of people who believe that voting is meaningless and that the democratic system is inherently flawed, most nonvoters essentially believe in the system, but are content to rely on the participation of others. You find this statement unreasonable: "The artist deserves to be rewarded for their work, therefore every single one of you who listens to me has to pay." To be honest, I don't find anything particularly high-minded in the converse: "The artist deserves to be rewarded for their work, therefore someone else should pay."
I agree with you that the current interface between artists and audience is far from ideal. One thing I find interesting about your position, however, is the notion that there should not necessarily be any kind of correlation between the number of people who enjoy an artist's music and the degree to which that artist should be financially compensated. I'm just curious: do you feel the same way about sports stars (for example)? My perception (which may be skewed, I admit) is that whereas most members of society - in or out of the arts and entertainment community - who affect the lives of large numbers of people would be expected to make a correspondingly large amount of money, there seems to be growing sentiment that musicians should be held to a different type of standard altogether.
The thing is, people don't torrent Beyonce to protest the copyright status of Richard Strauss. They just want free stuff. If the duration of copyright were revised drastically downward, people would still pirate the most current music. I'm not defending life+70 - it's patently insane (ha ha) - but let's not pretend it has any bearing on this issue.
That you are convinced invoking the phrase "bunch of jews" will magically ignite some kind of uniquely Semitic firestorm of controversy, AC, speaks more to your own illogical beliefs and double standards than those of the mainstream. (Only barely worth mentioning, even parenthetically, is your odd notion that "bunch of muslims" is somehow 'going further' [on what intangible axis of delusion?] than "bunch of christians".)
"Good morning class, today's topic is the evolution of European imperialism. Please load up King's Quest I, V, and VI."
There's a Turing machine for that.
How can you am so sure?
If diagonalization will solve Firefox's halting problems, I'm all for it.
Trust me, they won't be.
You forgot the clever part.
Poke holes in the cookies before serving. The cookies are now 20% healthier!
While I know that it's terribly fashionable to assume that everyone else's child is subnormal and that any (other) parent who fails to realize this about their little miracle of life is deluded and self-centered, your tacit assumption that you know more about the intellectual development of a child you've never met than his own parents is ... well, see "deluded and self-centered". From experience, I can tell you that there are "nearly 2"-year-olds who can use a computer in capable enough fashion to play reasonably complex games (though they don't usually start beating you until they're 3...), just as there are 2-year-olds who prefer reading over "what sound does the doggy make". In any case, children - prodigies or no - generally benefit from being treated as if they were actually intelligent. In similar fashion, when someone asks for help, you might proceed from the assumption that their query is founded on a proper understanding of their own needs (unless it is clearly proven otherwise), rather than glibly flaming them for the approval of the forum denizens.
We'ave all seen this pattern before. By now, society's moral fabric is sew warped that it borders on discomforting.
Anyway, there's no sense in spinning out this thread any further until after the patch.
I knew someone would make that point sooner or later.
That technique will no doubt prove lucrative when the EFF announces the contest to find the smallest prime number.
I think the assumption implicit in such a statement ("you could write it off") is that the fiscal alternative is buying porn, funding a drug habit, collecting Hot Wheels, or what have you - rather than saving or investing it. In such a case, you are, in fact, "saving" yourself money by channeling the insatiable need for consumption into something at least partially tax-deductible.
From context, that seems to have been a quotation, not an assertion.
What a stup
...)
(PLEASE WAIT FOR AD TO LOAD
(ENLARGE YOUR PEN1S NOW ASK ME HOW)
endously great idea.
"However, if artists deserve an income simply because they produce something they call art, I want to get paid each time I think or each time I masturbate."
That's a bit disingenuous. Obviously, nobody is going to pay you to masturbate (under normal circumstances). However, if you are an attractive person, people will pay to watch you masturbate. Similarly, while nobody will pay you to have a thought, people will pay to read a book of your thoughts if you are a "respected intellectual".
It's true that art and commerce intersect to a certain degree by necessity. However, I don't feel that this intersection is quite as simple as you portray it. Part of the problem with applying traditional business models to art is that most of what is generally considered great art is designed to challenge its listeners or viewers, not make them feel happy about themselves. Many of our greatest cultural artifacts were considered offensive trash, or mediocre, or incomprehensible, for generations after their creation. Similarly, many works that were immensely popular a hundred and fifty years ago are now generally dismissed as pablum.
"The point is still that someone pays for it while it's being delivered, and not 100 years down the road after the original artist is long dead."
And what if the artist is a commercial flop during his or her own lifetime, but hugely popular 100 years later?