are they going to start charging street performers? what about when I am playing guitar alone in my room? what if I'm driving in my car and listening to sattelite radio with the windows down?
I wonder how much of these payments actually go to the artists.
way to go, music industry. way to give a hard time to new musicians just starting out, who maybe want to make a career for themselves without signing restrictive record deals, but now maybe they'll have to because these companies are restricting musicians' options and securing their own interests.
really? I had a samsung phone for about a year, I hardly used it at all, and it completely died. when I brought it in to have it repaired, they just gave me a new one, this time an LG which will hopefully last more than a year.
agreed. instead of spending the time installing parental controls and keyloggers and the like, which kids will most likely find a way around anyway, how about taking the time to explain to them *why* they should be careful, and that posting personal information on the internet is equivalent to stapling it to a telephone pole outside? setting up controls and monitoring things sets up a precedent of distrust, even before the kid has done anything, and will only make the kid try to subvert these measures simply for the sake of doing so.
I don't know, it just seems like charging for the lecture videos would be equivalent to charging for extra help sessions or something. it should be covered by the tuition.
having videos of the lectures are a great idea, but I think he should try to get the university to pay for it instead of the students. non-native english speakers or students who get sick and can't attend lecture shouldn't be penalized. you only need to pay for the video equipment once, and in terms of the extra time it takes to make the videos, having the videos online will probably save him the time of answering many questions that students have later that could be answered by simply re-watching the lectures.
seriously, it's not too hard to figure out how to circumvent age checks and parental permissions. 'oh nos, a kid lied about his or her age in order to sign up for some social networking site and got into some sort of trouble, the website must be to blame!' well, if parents aren't teaching their kids that publishing detailed personal information about oneself on the internets is a potentially dangerous thing to do, then we have another problem on our hands - parents not taking responsibility for raising their kids. and while social networking sites and online journals may facilitate kids talking to strangers, it's nothing new - before Myspace and Xanga there were chat rooms and IM.
"The Internet stuff was just fun that people were having with it, but I don't think that necessarily meant that those people wanted to see the movie," said Dergarabedian.
and how was this not glaringly obvious?
if it weren't for all the security flaws in Windows. they make their revenue based on the fact that there are security flaws that can be exploited by viruses and spyware. if people randomly stopped making viruses, then these third-party companies would be out of business, too.
noticed, yes, but with the very negative association of having to deal with lots of spyware, which to me would be incentive to not buy products from the company.
"You people are EVIL personified," Kevin Horton wrote around the same time. "I would like the four hours of my life back I have wasted trying to get your stupid uninvited software off my now crippled system."
indeed! these people should be held liable for the damage done and time wasted. it's unpleasant to think that there are actually people behind obnoxious spyware, and that they think that pissing people off is the best way to get them to acknowledge the adverts and buy whatever they're selling.
Slashdot Mirror
are they going to start charging street performers? what about when I am playing guitar alone in my room? what if I'm driving in my car and listening to sattelite radio with the windows down?
I wonder how much of these payments actually go to the artists.
way to go, music industry. way to give a hard time to new musicians just starting out, who maybe want to make a career for themselves without signing restrictive record deals, but now maybe they'll have to because these companies are restricting musicians' options and securing their own interests.
especially if you're a rectangle.
really? I had a samsung phone for about a year, I hardly used it at all, and it completely died. when I brought it in to have it repaired, they just gave me a new one, this time an LG which will hopefully last more than a year.
the internets are like trucks which go through tubes. you can't just dump an entire movie onto a truck!
infinite improbability drive!
agreed. instead of spending the time installing parental controls and keyloggers and the like, which kids will most likely find a way around anyway, how about taking the time to explain to them *why* they should be careful, and that posting personal information on the internet is equivalent to stapling it to a telephone pole outside? setting up controls and monitoring things sets up a precedent of distrust, even before the kid has done anything, and will only make the kid try to subvert these measures simply for the sake of doing so.
I don't know, it just seems like charging for the lecture videos would be equivalent to charging for extra help sessions or something. it should be covered by the tuition.
having videos of the lectures are a great idea, but I think he should try to get the university to pay for it instead of the students. non-native english speakers or students who get sick and can't attend lecture shouldn't be penalized. you only need to pay for the video equipment once, and in terms of the extra time it takes to make the videos, having the videos online will probably save him the time of answering many questions that students have later that could be answered by simply re-watching the lectures.
seriously, it's not too hard to figure out how to circumvent age checks and parental permissions. 'oh nos, a kid lied about his or her age in order to sign up for some social networking site and got into some sort of trouble, the website must be to blame!' well, if parents aren't teaching their kids that publishing detailed personal information about oneself on the internets is a potentially dangerous thing to do, then we have another problem on our hands - parents not taking responsibility for raising their kids. and while social networking sites and online journals may facilitate kids talking to strangers, it's nothing new - before Myspace and Xanga there were chat rooms and IM.
"The Internet stuff was just fun that people were having with it, but I don't think that necessarily meant that those people wanted to see the movie," said Dergarabedian. and how was this not glaringly obvious?
if it weren't for all the security flaws in Windows. they make their revenue based on the fact that there are security flaws that can be exploited by viruses and spyware. if people randomly stopped making viruses, then these third-party companies would be out of business, too.
.....because of the itunes visualizer. it totally owns every other visualizer I've seen.
it's.....so....very....shiny......
noticed, yes, but with the very negative association of having to deal with lots of spyware, which to me would be incentive to not buy products from the company.
indeed! these people should be held liable for the damage done and time wasted. it's unpleasant to think that there are actually people behind obnoxious spyware, and that they think that pissing people off is the best way to get them to acknowledge the adverts and buy whatever they're selling.