I'm a 19 year old college student living by myself in a studio apartment, working part time. I voted in the midterms and I intend on voting in the Presidential election. I'd vote for a party candidate in the primaries but I'm a registered independent.
Increasing the voting age to 21 is hogwash when at 18 you can legally have a job and your own place of residence, anywhere. Not to mention sign yourself up for a war without your parent's consent.
It isn't as if adult voters are particularly informed, either. They're so simple minded that those stupid swiftboat commercials could actually sway their opinions.
Lowering the voting age below 18 would be ill-advised, considering that when you are under 18 your parents practically own you and it would be far too easy for someone's parents to coerce them into voting a certain way. However, I would vote against increasing the voting age to 21 and I'll fight you to the death if you try to take my vote away from me.
FTFA: "On Thursday, House Democrats delivered a spending bill that includes the idea of putting $38 million worth of public funds toward outfitting every student with a digital music player."
I don't know how you get "iPod" out of "digital music player." Anyone else think the OP is a troll for Apple?
Just so we're all clear, digital music player =/= iPod, paper tissue =/= Kleenex and self-adhesive bandage =/= Band-aid.
I totally foresee a future in which bittorrent becomes the
"mainstream" medium, television is rendered obsolete, and big-name
television producers stop "broadcasting" shows, they just upload them
to bittorrent -- with the commercial breaks put right into the video file.
As it is now, when people rip video from television and upload it,
they take the time to remove the commercials -- because hey, you're
already going to all of the trouble to rip it, upload it, and attach
your name to it, why not make it quality? Pirating is all about your
rep.
But if the producers just played into the torrent fad, then no one
would have to rip the videos themselves -- and since the videos are
being handed to people on a silver platter, my guess is that no one
would bother to take the time to recut the video to be commercial-free
and upload it again to another torrent (which would be illegal and probably have less seeds/leeches as a result). Of course, people would
probably be quite likely to skip the commercials while watching, but
whether or not they skip them would probably depend on the product
being advertised -- a commercial would probably have about 5 seconds
to grab the viewer's attention, lest it be skipped. Since
you're uploading these programs to the internet (and don't have to
deal with the cable provider), you can pick and choose your own
targeted advertising... I wonder how advertising for shows gets
picked now?
Also, it isn't as if people don't "skip" the commercials on television already -- they walk away to use the bathroom, get something to eat, or even just change the channel until the commercials are over.
Doesn't this sound like a win-win situation? The consumers get the
product for free, whenever they want it, and the producers reach a
MUCH larger audience with their advertising (thereby increasing advertising revenues -- also, since the popularity of a torrent can easily be gauged by keeping track of how many people have/are downloading it, the popularity of a torrent could become the new "ratings" system, determining how valuable getting commercials onto that file would be for an advertiser).
One final thing, I wonder how much cheaper it would be to upload a TV show onto
bittorrent than it would be to get it on a cable channel? I don't know all of the specifics, but it seems totally feasible that the television producers could make more money than they do now by using free torrents to distribute their shows -- even while providing the product for free! After all, free product = more users = better advertising profits.
PS Sorry about double-posting, I tend to forget paragraph tags when I'm excited about an idea.
I totally foresee a future in which bittorrent becomes the
"mainstream" medium, television is rendered obsolete, and big-name
television producers stop "broadcasting" shows, they just upload them
to bittorrent -- with the commercial breaks put right into the video file.
As it is now, when people rip video from television and upload it,
they take the time to remove the commercials -- because hey, you're
already going to all of the trouble to rip it, upload it, and attach
your name to it, why not make it quality? Pirating is all about your
rep.
But if the producers just played into the torrent fad, then no one
would have to rip the videos themselves -- and since the videos are
being handed to people on a silver platter, my guess is that no one
would bother to take the time to recut the video to be commercial-free
and upload it again to another torrent (which would be illegal and probably have less seeds/leeches as a result). Of course, people would
probably be quite likely to skip the commercials while watching, but
whether or not they skip them would probably depend on the product
being advertised -- a commercial would probably have about 5 seconds
to grab the viewer's attention, lest it be skipped. Since
you're uploading these programs to the internet (and don't have to
deal with the cable provider), you can pick and choose your own
targeted advertising... I wonder how advertising for shows gets
picked now?
Also, it isn't as if people don't "skip" the commercials on television already -- they walk away to use the bathroom, get something to eat, or even just change the channel until the commercials are over.
Doesn't this sound like a win-win situation? The consumers get the
product for free, whenever they want it, and the producers reach a
MUCH larger audience with their advertising (thereby increasing advertising revenues -- also, since the popularity of a torrent can easily be gauged by keeping track of how many people have/are downloading it, the popularity of a torrent could become the new "ratings" system, determining how valuable getting commercials onto that file would be for an advertiser).
One final thing, I wonder how much cheaper it would be to upload a TV show onto
bittorrent than it would be to get it on a cable channel? I don't know all of the specifics, but it seems totally feasible that the television producers could make more money than they do now by using free torrents to distribute their shows -- even while providing the product for free! After all, free product = more users = better advertising profits.
Diagnosing a broken keyboard isn't difficult at all. You could plug it into any computer and test it's functionality. Turning away her warranty request for a broken keyboard because of her OS is just short-sighted and poor customer service, regardless of whether or not they can legally do it. Hopefully the consumers will respond accordingly and stop contributing to their market share.
They shouldn't coerce her into using a certain company's product. Hell, it was her keyboard she was trying to collect on the warranty for, the OS shouldn't affect it at all! That's like going to a tire store and asking for a refund on your warrantied tires, and having them turn you away because you're using spark plugs from the wrong company.
Whoever decided Linux should void hardware warranties is a nimwit.
"We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?"
A better question would be, how much better would things be if now we decided to give stiffer penalties for driving under the influence -- just take away people's licenses on their first infraction, for something like 10 years, or life.
Then these things will happen less, and we can safely consider allowing people to intoxicate themselves with whatever drug they wish. I mean really, Marijuana is about as intoxicating as alcohol, so someone irresponsible enough to intoxicate and then drive could use either to fuck up, couldn't they?
You just made so many cocky assumptions about the parent (in a cock-like manner, I might add) that it makes me think I have to vomit.
Speaking seriously, you should probably avoid using generalizations like these in your conversations. It's unbecoming and people won't listen to what you have to say!
Not that what you have to say is at all interesting or relevant, but that's probably because of the generalizing and the cockery.
This conversation is meaningless to me anyway, I don't have any morals... or even believe in their honest existence. Living organisms are just goal-oriented preprogrammed systems -- we do what's ultimately in our own interest (even if that's as hazy as fulfulling a subconscious desire to "be a good boy" like our parents told us to).
I was just posing a question. Everyone is jumping on their anti-gestapo soapboxes.
And rightfully so, if the Indian gov't is going to run around arresting people for insulting public figures like Egypt, a US ally I might add. Aren't we huge hypocrites?
But the article mentioned that some of the sites of interest were fan sites of Indian mobsters, and that some of these fan sites had never-before seen pictures of mobsters uploaded to them. This would obviously imply that the site's writer knew the mobster personally; isn't that a legitimate reason to investigate them?
Slashdot Mirror
Just get FD.
I'm a 19 year old college student living by myself in a studio apartment, working part time. I voted in the midterms and I intend on voting in the Presidential election. I'd vote for a party candidate in the primaries but I'm a registered independent.
Increasing the voting age to 21 is hogwash when at 18 you can legally have a job and your own place of residence, anywhere. Not to mention sign yourself up for a war without your parent's consent.
It isn't as if adult voters are particularly informed, either. They're so simple minded that those stupid swiftboat commercials could actually sway their opinions.
Lowering the voting age below 18 would be ill-advised, considering that when you are under 18 your parents practically own you and it would be far too easy for someone's parents to coerce them into voting a certain way. However, I would vote against increasing the voting age to 21 and I'll fight you to the death if you try to take my vote away from me.
With any luck he'll end up being the first "First Husband," and the first black "First Husband."
something that I most likely never will
With that attitude, you're probably right.
It'd be interesting to hear what they're planning on doing with these music players.
Honestly, I think that iPod is just a huge buzzword right now, and the journalists just use it because it grabs people's attention.
An iPod For Every Kid In Michigan
FTFA: "On Thursday, House Democrats delivered a spending bill that includes the idea of putting $38 million worth of public funds toward outfitting every student with a digital music player."
I don't know how you get "iPod" out of "digital music player." Anyone else think the OP is a troll for Apple?
Just so we're all clear, digital music player =/= iPod, paper tissue =/= Kleenex and self-adhesive bandage =/= Band-aid.
Does this sign you up for phone spam?
Of course not! Phone Spam is evil!
Google would never be evil.
This is a great point, mod parent up.
That's ridiculous, I got into a state college with a 3.69 GPA without much of a hassle.
Though scholarships are highly competitive ... just get a job, take loans if you gotta.
Then we can all get back to what needs to be done.
Smoke pounds of weed?
I totally foresee a future in which bittorrent becomes the "mainstream" medium, television is rendered obsolete, and big-name television producers stop "broadcasting" shows, they just upload them to bittorrent -- with the commercial breaks put right into the video file.
As it is now, when people rip video from television and upload it, they take the time to remove the commercials -- because hey, you're already going to all of the trouble to rip it, upload it, and attach your name to it, why not make it quality? Pirating is all about your rep.
But if the producers just played into the torrent fad, then no one would have to rip the videos themselves -- and since the videos are being handed to people on a silver platter, my guess is that no one would bother to take the time to recut the video to be commercial-free and upload it again to another torrent (which would be illegal and probably have less seeds/leeches as a result). Of course, people would probably be quite likely to skip the commercials while watching, but whether or not they skip them would probably depend on the product being advertised -- a commercial would probably have about 5 seconds to grab the viewer's attention, lest it be skipped. Since you're uploading these programs to the internet (and don't have to deal with the cable provider), you can pick and choose your own targeted advertising ... I wonder how advertising for shows gets
picked now?
Also, it isn't as if people don't "skip" the commercials on television already -- they walk away to use the bathroom, get something to eat, or even just change the channel until the commercials are over.
Doesn't this sound like a win-win situation? The consumers get the product for free, whenever they want it, and the producers reach a MUCH larger audience with their advertising (thereby increasing advertising revenues -- also, since the popularity of a torrent can easily be gauged by keeping track of how many people have/are downloading it, the popularity of a torrent could become the new "ratings" system, determining how valuable getting commercials onto that file would be for an advertiser).
One final thing, I wonder how much cheaper it would be to upload a TV show onto bittorrent than it would be to get it on a cable channel? I don't know all of the specifics, but it seems totally feasible that the television producers could make more money than they do now by using free torrents to distribute their shows -- even while providing the product for free! After all, free product = more users = better advertising profits.
PS Sorry about double-posting, I tend to forget paragraph tags when I'm excited about an idea.
I totally foresee a future in which bittorrent becomes the "mainstream" medium, television is rendered obsolete, and big-name television producers stop "broadcasting" shows, they just upload them to bittorrent -- with the commercial breaks put right into the video file. As it is now, when people rip video from television and upload it, they take the time to remove the commercials -- because hey, you're already going to all of the trouble to rip it, upload it, and attach your name to it, why not make it quality? Pirating is all about your rep. But if the producers just played into the torrent fad, then no one would have to rip the videos themselves -- and since the videos are being handed to people on a silver platter, my guess is that no one would bother to take the time to recut the video to be commercial-free and upload it again to another torrent (which would be illegal and probably have less seeds/leeches as a result). Of course, people would probably be quite likely to skip the commercials while watching, but whether or not they skip them would probably depend on the product being advertised -- a commercial would probably have about 5 seconds to grab the viewer's attention, lest it be skipped. Since you're uploading these programs to the internet (and don't have to deal with the cable provider), you can pick and choose your own targeted advertising ... I wonder how advertising for shows gets
picked now?
Also, it isn't as if people don't "skip" the commercials on television already -- they walk away to use the bathroom, get something to eat, or even just change the channel until the commercials are over.
Doesn't this sound like a win-win situation? The consumers get the
product for free, whenever they want it, and the producers reach a
MUCH larger audience with their advertising (thereby increasing advertising revenues -- also, since the popularity of a torrent can easily be gauged by keeping track of how many people have/are downloading it, the popularity of a torrent could become the new "ratings" system, determining how valuable getting commercials onto that file would be for an advertiser).
One final thing, I wonder how much cheaper it would be to upload a TV show onto
bittorrent than it would be to get it on a cable channel? I don't know all of the specifics, but it seems totally feasible that the television producers could make more money than they do now by using free torrents to distribute their shows -- even while providing the product for free! After all, free product = more users = better advertising profits.
WoW will never raise system requirements, they'd lose current subscribers.
I am sorry but all the important "firsts" have happened already.
Actually, we haven't had a female president yet.
"that makes problem diagnosis more difficult."
Diagnosing a broken keyboard isn't difficult at all. You could plug it into any computer and test it's functionality. Turning away her warranty request for a broken keyboard because of her OS is just short-sighted and poor customer service, regardless of whether or not they can legally do it. Hopefully the consumers will respond accordingly and stop contributing to their market share.
How is that acceptable?
They shouldn't coerce her into using a certain company's product. Hell, it was her keyboard she was trying to collect on the warranty for, the OS shouldn't affect it at all! That's like going to a tire store and asking for a refund on your warrantied tires, and having them turn you away because you're using spark plugs from the wrong company.
Whoever decided Linux should void hardware warranties is a nimwit.
"We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?"
A better question would be, how much better would things be if now we decided to give stiffer penalties for driving under the influence -- just take away people's licenses on their first infraction, for something like 10 years, or life.
Then these things will happen less, and we can safely consider allowing people to intoxicate themselves with whatever drug they wish. I mean really, Marijuana is about as intoxicating as alcohol, so someone irresponsible enough to intoxicate and then drive could use either to fuck up, couldn't they?
Oh, don't be a stick-in-the-mud. It's hilarious.
Besides, wouldn't you rather have someone hear about this scam in a satire, instead of from an actual scammer in their inbox?
I stand pwnt.
Assumptions are callous.
It isn't wrong, you're just assuming that he meant it was causative.
Aren't liberals ...
I bet you tell ...
your faggots ...
You just made so many cocky assumptions about the parent (in a cock-like manner, I might add) that it makes me think I have to vomit.
Speaking seriously, you should probably avoid using generalizations like these in your conversations. It's unbecoming and people won't listen to what you have to say!
Not that what you have to say is at all interesting or relevant, but that's probably because of the generalizing and the cockery.
This conversation is meaningless to me anyway, I don't have any morals ... or even believe in their honest existence. Living organisms are just goal-oriented preprogrammed systems -- we do what's ultimately in our own interest (even if that's as hazy as fulfulling a subconscious desire to "be a good boy" like our parents told us to).
I was just posing a question. Everyone is jumping on their anti-gestapo soapboxes.
And rightfully so, if the Indian gov't is going to run around arresting people for insulting public figures like Egypt, a US ally I might add. Aren't we huge hypocrites?
But the article mentioned that some of the sites of interest were fan sites of Indian mobsters, and that some of these fan sites had never-before seen pictures of mobsters uploaded to them. This would obviously imply that the site's writer knew the mobster personally; isn't that a legitimate reason to investigate them?
Not for free.