Yeah, because overuse of capitalization and repetative punctuation (!!!!! and ?????) is going to get your point across as a mature and contributing member of our community. I'm sure things will change your way.
Also, if you're going to leave, then do so. Don't send in posts about how you're fed up and you're leaving. That's not being fed up, that's being starved for attention.
Finally, insulting the people who run the place? I'm sure they're going to listen to your creative input on how to run the place since you're so supportive to the site.
Now, shouldn't you be in school little boy? Or is it a Teacher's Planning Day?
I know she does a lot of support and charity, but there was always something about her that I just set off alarms in my head. Something I just couldn't put my finger on that made me not like her.
"Trust me, once the government really starts to regulate anything regarding the internet, it will never be the same. They will turn it into a monster that delivers very little, costs a fortune, and will never fulfill any utopian promises."
-Lay Person
Trust you? Do you have anything with which to back up these claims?
Look, I agree that government regulation is severely lacking in most cases. But you need to understand that very few people actually listen to you when you make broad generalizations and unconditionally-inclusive statements. It's not that black-and-white. Sorry.
And I hate to tell you this, but they do regulate parts of the internet. It's called laws against child pornography, laws against slander/libel, laws regarding access to pornography, laws against copyright infringement, and let’s not forget cracking. I haven't seen the city that is the internet laid to waste due to these regulations. Have you?
You need to remember what the internet is... it's a medium for the transmission of information and the facilitation of commerce. The only thing that will "destroy the internet" is the censorship of that information or the blocking of that commerce. Censorship won't get too far before the people rise against that censorship. And since the government is largely influenced by big business, they won't allow the government to step in and disrupt their sales.
Finally, I don't want to sound like a forum-snob, but if you're going to discuss these things with us, most of us would prefer that you don't just hop in and start anti-government grandstanding. No one cares to hear your "down with the government, man" protest speech here. To everyone else: if I'm wrong and you don't want me to include you in that last statement, feel free to correct me.
" Any new major internet companies taking off in France, Japan or Korea (I'm leaving China out because it is a unique case)? If word-leading broadband service is a supposed indicator of a successful thriving internet sector, then why are the majority of successful internet companies located in the US? Just some food for thought."
-Mousky
I'm not so sure that's relevant.
1) There are many many reasons and factors that would influence how many internet services are introduced in other countries. Culture, legislation (regarding running a business), demand... all these things would factor in long before you start talking about whether the populace has a good competition in broadband.
2) Where are you getting the idea that having a world-leading broadband service would be an indicator of a thriving internet sector?
In the US, the internet is there... and we can get there... we just don't like having to get there according to the telco's and the cable provider's terms. Giving customers (what we would call) fair access to broadband would not cause an increase in internet use... it would just make for more satisfied use.
There are problems with the cable & telco monopolies in place today.
"Is this a bad thing? I don't think so, it will just push for a better/different solution. This is the reason that I think Wi-Max will be very effective and very competitive, the barrier to entries will be a lot lower b/c you don't have to dig up the world to put down lines"
-Unknowledgeable Geek
While you do make a good point about pushing for new technology, there is one inherent problem with a lack of competition. There's nothing to push the providers out of mediocrity.
In the county in which I live, we have one cable provider... and only one, due to an agreement signed with the local municipality that said no other cable provider could offer services w/i our area. As a result, we have absolutely shitty cable. There's no reason for them to do any better than they do. It's not like dissatisfied customers will go elsewhere to get better service.
I know you can go to something like DirecTV, but who wants to pay $50/month for cable broadband and $howevermuch for Dish? Plus the extra equipment, contracts, etc.
And our DSL sucks because we have one or two providers in the area. And by "area", I mean "state". While one provider may have better DSL, their phone service sucks.
My point is, with proper competition, there'd be less of the "choosing the lesser of two evils" status that we currently have.
I believe Sanguine Dream said it best: "The only surefire way to turn broadband into the free market the telcos want us to believe it is is to get the government out of the telcos back pocket (or wallet to be more presice). "
We don't need the government to regulate for us, we just need them to stop regulating against us.
"MySpace: "Want your band advertised professionaly? Want faster download speeds and a better layout? Want uncapped download bandwidth? Sign up here!" For the small fee of $XXX dollars a month, you can have your MySpace premium service. And any time you have direct recurrent expenses, you lose out on the quantity of bands that will sign - especially the little guys that don't want to take that risk. This won't be the open forum of music everyone's probably dreaming about."
-Eric Williams
Wait... that's a bad thing? I think it's great. It allows the artists the ability to chose MySpace's level of involvement.
As it stands now, the terms of a regular music contract from a major label are dictated by the label. "Hey kid. We like how you sound. Here's a recording 'deal'. Take it or leave it."
I think this is another positive selling point for this service. It will allow those artists who are capable of spreading the word on their own to use MySpace as a sales and bulletin service. While the artists that don't have that great a network yet can pay a little extra to get the help they need. How's that bad?
"First off - who defines "a tiny profit"?"
-Eric Williams
Why is it that whenever a company says the word "profit", people envision truckloads of money just rolling in? You want to know the definition of a tiny profit? How about State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, the largest auto insurer in the US. Certainly falls under the definition of "large company". The profit margin they aim for is approximately 2.5%. Anything over that goes back to the policy holders. So yeah... huge profit there.
The "trick" is that 2.5% of the billions of dollars they take in premium adds up for them. 2.5% of the few hundred dollars you pay is a drop in the bucket compared to your other household expenses.
Same with your other bills and payments. Most companies know that if they start raking in high percentages of profit, which can be verified by their financial statements every year, they are going to start losing customers.
I know I'm probably wrong, but isn't that kinda what the AP does? I know that they're a privately owned news agency and they charge money for your publication to run AP stories... but it is a kind of centralized news source.
And besides, do we really need another 4-letter association to throw non-existent weight around and cry about piracy of copyrwitten "property"? What, the Printed Information Association of America? Soon, the three will merge into one "interest group" and will have complete control over all information media. The more there are, the more powerful they become when joined. Kinda like Voltron, only evil.
"Anyways, selling downloads is great, but what artists really need is some differentiation. The very nature of the fact that your band is on MySpace says nothing about your band.
"
-Ethan B
That's actually a problem that will fix itself. Those artists that stand out will be the ones that sell.
If the band/artist is another cookie-cutter clone of Limp Bizkit, then no, they will be (rightfully) lost it the blur of all the other mediocrity. If your band has a marketable appeal to any crowd, that crowd will find you and buy your stuff.
And, sorry, Fred and Fred-Clones... "creative" spelling (read: illiterate retardation) doesn't constitute "standing out".
Currently, the industry finds the most marketable crap and promotes it for sales, not for art. Now, with an idea like this, bands will have to stand on their own merit and earn their own way. I'm sure some people will still buy the "mainstream" drivel, but since they're all alike, no one artist will rise out of that. But for the most part, if your band doesn't have something that stands out and appeals, then no one's going to buy it.
"Most bands get their big breaks while doing covers" Totally not true. A lot of bands start out doing covers, then begin writing their own material, but I don't know a single cover band that has gotten signed to a label."
-Anonymous Coward
"Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies". They do nothing but punk-version covers of old songs. And they have a hell of a discography. But, then again, that's thier schtick. If a record company is looking for that, and a band has a MySpace page that says "this is what we do"... then sure, they may land a deal.
Since having a hand in the creation or innovation of something (apparently) isn't a requirement to own the patent on it, I'm going to patent the process of a neuron firing. Hell, someone else already patented a chemical process that occurs in nature, so why can't I? OOOOhhhhhh the money I'd be owed.
Oh... crap. Neurons don't fire that much anymore, do they. Damnit. Another great idea defeated by humanity.
Oh, sorry 'bout the Dee-Dee-Dee thing. I thought that since "department" started with "de", that it could replace the last "dee". And as I said... it was funny in my mind, but I was enjoying the thrills of sleep dep.
Hmm... maybe I can patent the satirical application of Dee-Dee-Dee to other situations.
I think Joe got it right on with the last sentence. Since computers are nowhere near the ability to rationalize the information into a creative judgement of character, this is going to do nothing more than flag down "probables" that then have to be checked by humans.
But at least it's a step forward. Hopefully, we'll get those cool Star Trek computers that will hold a conversation and be able to interpret what you want it to do.
Like I always say, it'll be a great day when my computer does what I want it to do, not what I tell it to do.
No I don't think it's hyperbole. It's an example. Yes, the ability to scrape some dirt out from under my fingernails is a trivial thing. It's certainly trivial compared to the lives of people on that plane.
But it's still a liberty that's being denied to us. For whatever reason. And it's the reason that's causing me to stand up for my right to a small sliver of metal.
I don't believe in baby-with-the-bathwater tactics. There is no need to resort to such all-encompassing extremes to ensure the safety of citizens. Do steps need to be made to stop people from hijacking a plane? Sure. Do those attempts need to address every single possibility to the point that you may as well be strapped into a strait-jacket before takeoff "just in case"? No. And while we're not there yet, it really wouldn't surprise me.
Everything in life is a risk. And while it should be the government's job to help us manage those risks, laws should not be made to prevent the ability to commit these kinds of crimes at the expense of law-abiding citizens. The law should be there to tell you that it's wrong and what happens if you do it. It's up to social conscience to dissuade crime. Otherwise, you're giving up your liberties, one nail file at a time. To quote a movie on the subject: "He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."
No, I'm not saying that my freedoms are consolation prizes. What I'm saying is that I won't let them become that. And if we give up the little things now, how long until the larger freedoms are taken away "for our safety"?
And, again, it's not the little sliver of metal that I'm talking about. It's being told that I cannot carry one with me. Which, yes is a liberty. Chains are chains, no matter their size.
"President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard."
"On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998."
"Sounds like the presentation of the theory of evolution."
Uh, no actually. The theory of evolution is a theory based on empirical observation and logical deduction. Nowhere did it say "god didn't make us". It just says that life evolve(d/s). So, yeah. I'd say it's quite objective, factual information.
"They're simply saying that one-sided biased information presented as objective, factual information is a problem." This means that the RIAA is stating its opinionated interpretation of the (questionably) applicable laws as fact. And, I'm sorry. There is no way that they can take a stance on this issue and remain neutral. They are clearly biased, and with obvious good reason.
They just happen to be wrong. And that's not just my opinion. That happens to be a rather common opinion. And it's going to be the opinionated interpretation of those laws by the court system that will finally answer the question.
And when all of your little liberties are gone, you're going to look back and say "where did it all go". And then you're going to remember saying "oh, it's a little thing. It's ok."
So... let's get started debunking your points...
You can't take glass bottles into a stadium or near a public pool. You can't take your own food or drinks into a movie theater but ya don't complain about either of those.
Glass bottles at public stadiums and pools is for public safety. Not to stop people from hijacking a floaty with a broken bottle.
And the food and drink in a movie theater. That's not a law. That's a theater policy so they can charge you for their food. And actually, I do complain about that. Not that I'm not "free to do it", but because I hate paying $5 for a handful of crappy popcorn. So, I don't buy it.
My guess is that when you order a burger without tomatoes and it has a tomato on it, you send it back and complain.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying I'm being told that I can't bring innocent pieces of convenience with me, and you're talking about condiments?
To steer your statements back to where you probably meantfor them to go...
The government isn't passing laws that say I have to have tomatoes on my burgers. If they were, then yes, I'd bitch about that too.
Seriously man, you're way off base. And I am grateful for all the things you said and more... I'm just not going to accept them as a consolation prize for giving away all of my little liberties until I wake up one day and find I have none left. Sorry.
"Oh, yeah, if you remember a few years back, an ex-aide to Dubya did state that the president thinks he will be the one to bring on the appocalypse and the 'Next Comming'"
-Anonymous Coward
Interesting quote, but do you have anything to back it up. Not defending Texas' biggest idiot, but I'd like some proof that the leader of our country considers himself to tbe the anti-christ.
::looks around at everyone:: 'salright if I take this? Thanks.
What's wrong? Because it's one sideded! It's not stealing. It's been shown over and over again, ad nauseum, that it's not. So that's whats wrong and why it's one sided. Because how the RIAA portrays it is wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong some more.
If the RIAA would teach kids that copyright infringment is wrong, and then show how downloading a copy of a song that you already have purchased really is infringment, then fine. Let the class begin. But that hasn't happened yet. And doubtful that it ever will.
"Pathetic -- Americans have died and are dying to protect you and you bitch about losing privacy you never had."
-John Q Public
Normally I let that go, but I'm sick of this card being played. So, no: Fuck that. No one has died for our freedom since the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII (after we were attacked). That was dying for freedom. What US soldiers have died for since then is the American idea of freedom. Name me one American citizen that was endangered before we got involved in the Vietnam war, or the first Iraq war, that was then safer after we went it. One.
And before you call me uninvolved or unpatriotic, or say that I don't have the perspective of someone who knows... my brother is in Iraq right now. And I have all the respect in the world for those citizens who choose to serve in our military. Hell, I think it should be mandatory (kinda like Starship Troopers... the book, not the movie). What I don't respect is people who thump their chest and say "look at that sacrifice for our freedom". No. Those soldiers are over there promoting and protecting American interests (mostly oil). Not our freedom.
On the post: Don't Ask Oprah To Run For President; She Might Sue You
Re: What the fuck
Also, if you're going to leave, then do so. Don't send in posts about how you're fed up and you're leaving. That's not being fed up, that's being starved for attention.
Finally, insulting the people who run the place? I'm sure they're going to listen to your creative input on how to run the place since you're so supportive to the site.
Now, shouldn't you be in school little boy? Or is it a Teacher's Planning Day?
On the post: Don't Ask Oprah To Run For President; She Might Sue You
I knew it...
And it just manifested itself. I knew it.
On the post: Has The Free Market Failed The US When It Comes To Broadband?
#48
Gettin' old, I guess.
On the post: Has The Free Market Failed The US When It Comes To Broadband?
Re: Fuck all that!
Trust you? Do you have anything with which to back up these claims?
Look, I agree that government regulation is severely lacking in most cases. But you need to understand that very few people actually listen to you when you make broad generalizations and unconditionally-inclusive statements. It's not that black-and-white. Sorry.
And I hate to tell you this, but they do regulate parts of the internet. It's called laws against child pornography, laws against slander/libel, laws regarding access to pornography, laws against copyright infringement, and let’s not forget cracking. I haven't seen the city that is the internet laid to waste due to these regulations. Have you?
You need to remember what the internet is... it's a medium for the transmission of information and the facilitation of commerce. The only thing that will "destroy the internet" is the censorship of that information or the blocking of that commerce. Censorship won't get too far before the people rise against that censorship. And since the government is largely influenced by big business, they won't allow the government to step in and disrupt their sales.
Finally, I don't want to sound like a forum-snob, but if you're going to discuss these things with us, most of us would prefer that you don't just hop in and start anti-government grandstanding. No one cares to hear your "down with the government, man" protest speech here. To everyone else: if I'm wrong and you don't want me to include you in that last statement, feel free to correct me.
On the post: Has The Free Market Failed The US When It Comes To Broadband?
Re: A couple of thoughts...
I'm not so sure that's relevant.
1) There are many many reasons and factors that would influence how many internet services are introduced in other countries. Culture, legislation (regarding running a business), demand... all these things would factor in long before you start talking about whether the populace has a good competition in broadband.
2) Where are you getting the idea that having a world-leading broadband service would be an indicator of a thriving internet sector?
In the US, the internet is there... and we can get there... we just don't like having to get there according to the telco's and the cable provider's terms. Giving customers (what we would call) fair access to broadband would not cause an increase in internet use... it would just make for more satisfied use.
On the post: Has The Free Market Failed The US When It Comes To Broadband?
Problems with the Monopoly
While you do make a good point about pushing for new technology, there is one inherent problem with a lack of competition. There's nothing to push the providers out of mediocrity.
In the county in which I live, we have one cable provider... and only one, due to an agreement signed with the local municipality that said no other cable provider could offer services w/i our area. As a result, we have absolutely shitty cable. There's no reason for them to do any better than they do. It's not like dissatisfied customers will go elsewhere to get better service.
I know you can go to something like DirecTV, but who wants to pay $50/month for cable broadband and $howevermuch for Dish? Plus the extra equipment, contracts, etc.
And our DSL sucks because we have one or two providers in the area. And by "area", I mean "state". While one provider may have better DSL, their phone service sucks.
My point is, with proper competition, there'd be less of the "choosing the lesser of two evils" status that we currently have.
I believe Sanguine Dream said it best: "The only surefire way to turn broadband into the free market the telcos want us to believe it is is to get the government out of the telcos back pocket (or wallet to be more presice). "
We don't need the government to regulate for us, we just need them to stop regulating against us.
On the post: MySpace Music Plan May Be More Than A Me Too
Re: I forsee.... Issues
Wait... that's a bad thing? I think it's great. It allows the artists the ability to chose MySpace's level of involvement.
As it stands now, the terms of a regular music contract from a major label are dictated by the label. "Hey kid. We like how you sound. Here's a recording 'deal'. Take it or leave it."
I think this is another positive selling point for this service. It will allow those artists who are capable of spreading the word on their own to use MySpace as a sales and bulletin service. While the artists that don't have that great a network yet can pay a little extra to get the help they need. How's that bad?
Why is it that whenever a company says the word "profit", people envision truckloads of money just rolling in? You want to know the definition of a tiny profit? How about State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, the largest auto insurer in the US. Certainly falls under the definition of "large company". The profit margin they aim for is approximately 2.5%. Anything over that goes back to the policy holders. So yeah... huge profit there.
The "trick" is that 2.5% of the billions of dollars they take in premium adds up for them. 2.5% of the few hundred dollars you pay is a drop in the bucket compared to your other household expenses.
Same with your other bills and payments. Most companies know that if they start raking in high percentages of profit, which can be verified by their financial statements every year, they are going to start losing customers.
On the post: Newspapers Still Can't See The Online Forest For All Their Dead Trees
Wait a minute...
And besides, do we really need another 4-letter association to throw non-existent weight around and cry about piracy of copyrwitten "property"? What, the Printed Information Association of America? Soon, the three will merge into one "interest group" and will have complete control over all information media. The more there are, the more powerful they become when joined. Kinda like Voltron, only evil.
On the post: MySpace Music Plan May Be More Than A Me Too
Re: If only MySpace actually works
That's actually a problem that will fix itself. Those artists that stand out will be the ones that sell.
If the band/artist is another cookie-cutter clone of Limp Bizkit, then no, they will be (rightfully) lost it the blur of all the other mediocrity. If your band has a marketable appeal to any crowd, that crowd will find you and buy your stuff.
And, sorry, Fred and Fred-Clones... "creative" spelling (read: illiterate retardation) doesn't constitute "standing out".
Currently, the industry finds the most marketable crap and promotes it for sales, not for art. Now, with an idea like this, bands will have to stand on their own merit and earn their own way. I'm sure some people will still buy the "mainstream" drivel, but since they're all alike, no one artist will rise out of that. But for the most part, if your band doesn't have something that stands out and appeals, then no one's going to buy it.
No rockin' the suburbs for you.
On the post: MySpace Music Plan May Be More Than A Me Too
Re: Re: This will help
"Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies". They do nothing but punk-version covers of old songs. And they have a hell of a discography. But, then again, that's thier schtick. If a record company is looking for that, and a band has a MySpace page that says "this is what we do"... then sure, they may land a deal.
On the post: Apple Settles Yet Another iTunes Interface Patent Suit
I've got the trump
Oh... crap. Neurons don't fire that much anymore, do they. Damnit. Another great idea defeated by humanity.
Oh, sorry 'bout the Dee-Dee-Dee thing. I thought that since "department" started with "de", that it could replace the last "dee". And as I said... it was funny in my mind, but I was enjoying the thrills of sleep dep.
Hmm... maybe I can patent the satirical application of Dee-Dee-Dee to other situations.
On the post: Can Computers Detect Suspicious Behavior?
Hit it on the head
But at least it's a step forward. Hopefully, we'll get those cool Star Trek computers that will hold a conversation and be able to interpret what you want it to do.
Like I always say, it'll be a great day when my computer does what I want it to do, not what I tell it to do.
On the post: FBI Shows Off Big Database... Just As UK Shows Why Big Databases Are Bad
70
But it's still a liberty that's being denied to us. For whatever reason. And it's the reason that's causing me to stand up for my right to a small sliver of metal.
I don't believe in baby-with-the-bathwater tactics. There is no need to resort to such all-encompassing extremes to ensure the safety of citizens. Do steps need to be made to stop people from hijacking a plane? Sure. Do those attempts need to address every single possibility to the point that you may as well be strapped into a strait-jacket before takeoff "just in case"? No. And while we're not there yet, it really wouldn't surprise me.
Everything in life is a risk. And while it should be the government's job to help us manage those risks, laws should not be made to prevent the ability to commit these kinds of crimes at the expense of law-abiding citizens. The law should be there to tell you that it's wrong and what happens if you do it. It's up to social conscience to dissuade crime. Otherwise, you're giving up your liberties, one nail file at a time. To quote a movie on the subject: "He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."
No, I'm not saying that my freedoms are consolation prizes. What I'm saying is that I won't let them become that. And if we give up the little things now, how long until the larger freedoms are taken away "for our safety"?
And, again, it's not the little sliver of metal that I'm talking about. It's being told that I cannot carry one with me. Which, yes is a liberty. Chains are chains, no matter their size.
On the post: FBI Shows Off Big Database... Just As UK Shows Why Big Databases Are Bad
Re: Re: #37
"President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard."
"On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html
So let's see... raised in Texas, served in the Texas ANG, and was the GOVERNOR OF TEXAS TWICE. Yup. Sounds like a Texan to me.
Hey, we Floridan's know that Jack Thompson wasn't born here. But we shamefuly bear his presense anyway. Nice try tho.
On the post: RIAA Following MPAA's Lead In Brainwashing Kids
Re: Familiar?
Uh, no actually. The theory of evolution is a theory based on empirical observation and logical deduction. Nowhere did it say "god didn't make us". It just says that life evolve(d/s). So, yeah. I'd say it's quite objective, factual information.
"They're simply saying that one-sided biased information presented as objective, factual information is a problem." This means that the RIAA is stating its opinionated interpretation of the (questionably) applicable laws as fact. And, I'm sorry. There is no way that they can take a stance on this issue and remain neutral. They are clearly biased, and with obvious good reason.
They just happen to be wrong. And that's not just my opinion. That happens to be a rather common opinion. And it's going to be the opinionated interpretation of those laws by the court system that will finally answer the question.
So no. Not like the theory of evolution at all.
On the post: FBI Shows Off Big Database... Just As UK Shows Why Big Databases Are Bad
Re: oh my goodness
So... let's get started debunking your points...
Glass bottles at public stadiums and pools is for public safety. Not to stop people from hijacking a floaty with a broken bottle.
And the food and drink in a movie theater. That's not a law. That's a theater policy so they can charge you for their food. And actually, I do complain about that. Not that I'm not "free to do it", but because I hate paying $5 for a handful of crappy popcorn. So, I don't buy it.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying I'm being told that I can't bring innocent pieces of convenience with me, and you're talking about condiments?
To steer your statements back to where you probably meantfor them to go...
The government isn't passing laws that say I have to have tomatoes on my burgers. If they were, then yes, I'd bitch about that too.
Seriously man, you're way off base. And I am grateful for all the things you said and more... I'm just not going to accept them as a consolation prize for giving away all of my little liberties until I wake up one day and find I have none left. Sorry.
On the post: FBI Shows Off Big Database... Just As UK Shows Why Big Databases Are Bad
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting quote, but do you have anything to back it up. Not defending Texas' biggest idiot, but I'd like some proof that the leader of our country considers himself to tbe the anti-christ.
On the post: RIAA Following MPAA's Lead In Brainwashing Kids
re: Stop Stealing's comment
What's wrong? Because it's one sideded! It's not stealing. It's been shown over and over again, ad nauseum, that it's not. So that's whats wrong and why it's one sided. Because how the RIAA portrays it is wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong some more.
If the RIAA would teach kids that copyright infringment is wrong, and then show how downloading a copy of a song that you already have purchased really is infringment, then fine. Let the class begin. But that hasn't happened yet. And doubtful that it ever will.
On the post: FBI Shows Off Big Database... Just As UK Shows Why Big Databases Are Bad
Not this time...
Normally I let that go, but I'm sick of this card being played. So, no: Fuck that. No one has died for our freedom since the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII (after we were attacked). That was dying for freedom. What US soldiers have died for since then is the American idea of freedom. Name me one American citizen that was endangered before we got involved in the Vietnam war, or the first Iraq war, that was then safer after we went it. One.
And before you call me uninvolved or unpatriotic, or say that I don't have the perspective of someone who knows... my brother is in Iraq right now. And I have all the respect in the world for those citizens who choose to serve in our military. Hell, I think it should be mandatory (kinda like Starship Troopers... the book, not the movie). What I don't respect is people who thump their chest and say "look at that sacrifice for our freedom". No. Those soldiers are over there promoting and protecting American interests (mostly oil). Not our freedom.
On the post: FBI Shows Off Big Database... Just As UK Shows Why Big Databases Are Bad
Wow... that's a first
::sigh::
Gettin old.
Next >>