So in many cases, unless you have something intelligent and cogent to say on a matter you clearly are not skilled in it is better to just keep silent.
Daryl, you clearly lack the ability to correctly spell and/or proof read your comments, so by your logic you shouldn't comment at all until you've studied spelling and grammer.
Nothing in your overly expansive comment was intelligent or cogent, yet that clearly didn't cause you to keep silent. Please follow your own advice from now on and spare us your diatribes.
but I'm not sure anyone would actually spend $200 million on negatives they couldn't print...
Maybe not, but I'm sure they'd still be worth a lot to a wealthy collector, of which I'm sure Adams has quite a few. I'm not sure why the reporter thinks the prints would be worth that much, but I'd say the lost negatives are worth far more.
I agreed with your original comment... up to the point where you made the crack about creationists. Which I'm not that offended by, just thought I'd respond since there aren't too many of us out there. I realize that this is an issue that a) is off topic, and b) won't resolve anything or change anyone's mind one way or the other.
As for that link you provided, the professor in question never said (at least not that I saw) he was being silenced, just that he was denied tenure. Which may or may not be a big distinction.
I believe (I could be wrong) the $200 Million estimate comes from the value of the negatives themselves, not the selling of the prints. Just like an original Picasso vs. a reproduction. I wouldn't think copyright would enter into it. It's the physical object that is of value not just the image itself.
Nice method of debate: spread FUD, lie about the other side's arguments, and when asked to defend your claims, say you've been "silenced."
Hey, it worked for the creationists...
I typically agree with many of your comments, Karl, even though this is off topic, but because I believe in Creation, you've struck a nerve. So unlike Mr. Williams, here are a few links to videos where creationists have debated evolutionists.
Losertarian government-hate is the domain of immature teenagers. You have no recourse but to attack me since you realize I'm right.
Again, everything you just said applies to you. I'm not taking any position here one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that you are using personal attacks and acting immaturely in all your posts, while accusing everyone else of being immature. Thank you for proving my point yet again.
Unless the "research community" starts taking out Lord Mendleson, and other key MP's, out on extravagant weekend getaways, I doubt they'll be able to effect any change. Sadly, Parliment, much like the US Congress, seems to only responds to heavy lobbying. Sorry to be a downer.
i'm a bit confused as to what everyone is upset about. Everyone is entitled to representation. Corporations are people as well and they deserve the right to protect themselves through the use of their congressmen as well. Just because someone makes a lot of money from a certain company doesn't mean that they are "on the take" it just means that the company really supports the stances taken by that congressman.
How's the weather in your dream world? I hope it doesn't rain and melt your gum drop house.
That's funny but I think more realistically we should at the very least require members of Congress to wear colored ties representing their political party. Red for the Repubs, blue for the Dems, and purple for Joe Lieberman and the other independents with the hue of purple reflecting where their voting alligences mostly fall. If another party ever gets a member elected (not too bloody likely) we'll get some more variety, but this way we wouldn't need C-SPAN to put the little (D) or (R) next to their names on the graphic.
The Pirate Party would have the most bad ass ties possible, of course.
Sooner or later, that meant that these sites would pass all the legal checkboxes -- even if they can still be used for unauthorized infringement. So where does that leave the entertainment industry?
It leaves the entertainment industry using their lobbyists to stuff money into the war chests of Congressmen who will sponsor a bill that will make these sites illegal. Then the dance will continue.
Re: @ Nastybutler77: I don't need your permission, but thanks.
Name-calling means only that you're annoyed by an argument that you can't refute. I win by default.
You're right about one thing. I am annoyed. But not because I can't refute your lame arguement. The fact that others have already done so is why I choose not to waste further time doing so. For example:
"by nasch(profile) , Jul 15th, 2010 @ 9:22am Since you admit that you're an above average user, then your goal is to beat the system at least on the individual fare rate.
His goal is to spend as little as possible to meet his needs (without breaking any rules). This is both rational and ethical.
Fact is *you* are trying to extract more out of taxpayers than you're paying for.
It is not his responsibility to ensure he's paying enough to give sufficient return to the taxpayers. The MTA needs to charge him enough money. Don't point the finger at the customer who is accepting the deal offered to him.
*you* who benefit from subsidies regard that as an attempt to rob you.
What is your definition of subsidy? And where did anyone say anything about robbery? The complaint is about false advertising. If the MTA had just said "we're not offering unlimited tickets anymore" plenty of people would have complained, but it really would not have been much of a story."
That is just one example of many where others have tried to explain to you that you don't know what you're talking about.
The name calling is as necessary as you're repeated illogical posts. I just call 'em as I see 'em, and you're a real doozie.
It seems you're looking to "win" this arguement and you'll take it any way you can. If a default victory is what it takes to make you go away, then by all means take your "prize" and go bother some other blog.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.
Strikes me as inconsistent for a business person, and a Free Ride.
Why do you think business people using public transportation is a "Free Ride?" Do you not realize that businesses pay taxes too?
Your cognative disconnect is astounding, as you keep making the same incorrect arguement over an over despite everyone telling you you're wrong. It should be clear by now, and since it's not you're either a simpleton or a troll. So which is it?
Re: Re: Re: @ Jamie Re: This is just trollishly weak
First, let's start with the most obvious truth here. You're an idiot.
Second, the MTA said you were buying an "unlimited" pass. By definition that is unlimited rides for a fixed price. Why wouldn't you expect to get what they said you'd get?
And it doesn't tend towards free as there are a fixed number of rides in any given day. Even if you spent all day riding, you'd be pretty far off from infinite as you suggest with your "tends toward" wording.
You're cliche isn't exactly applicaple, and you're one of the biggest dolts to troll this site. You can keep arguing about this all you want, but it's pretty obvious you are just plain wrong. If you're unable to see that, then you really are an idiot. If you're arguing just to troll, then, by all means keep it up.
I had a buddy of mine get arrested because when a cop asked him for his name he said, "I'm Rick James, bitch." True story. He was charged with providing false ID to law enforcement. He was of course quite intoxicated at the time, but he's the type of guy who might do that sober as well.
You know what's funny is that you couldn't read the courts decision on the news because the language in the decision would get the news networks fined. And that, Alanis Morissette, is ironic.
Those are good points. Why aren't all musicians who use a licensed hairdresser, stylist or makeup artist (I'm assuming they have to be licensed in the UK as they do in the States, but I could be wrong) required to pay a fee to the HSCA (Hairdresser, Stylist and Cosmotology Alliance (not real, btw))?
After all don't they derive a significant amount of their fans based on their look almost as much as their sound? Lady GaGa I'm looking at you. If so shouldn't all musicians who use one have to support all these beauticians? Not just the big name well established ones, but the up and coming struggling stylists who won't be able to make ends meet without these fees, right?
What's the difference in these two arguments?
Answer: Nothing. Both are asinine.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re:
Daryl, you clearly lack the ability to correctly spell and/or proof read your comments, so by your logic you shouldn't comment at all until you've studied spelling and grammer.
Nothing in your overly expansive comment was intelligent or cogent, yet that clearly didn't cause you to keep silent. Please follow your own advice from now on and spare us your diatribes.
On the post: Yes, People Can Comment On Content Business Models Without Having Produced Hit Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
On the post: Can Man Who Found Long Lost Ansel Adams Glass Negatives Sell Prints?
Re: The dead don't photograph.
But Adams did create them, so your whole post was a colossal waste of your time. Kudos.
On the post: Can Man Who Found Long Lost Ansel Adams Glass Negatives Sell Prints?
Re: Re:
Maybe not, but I'm sure they'd still be worth a lot to a wealthy collector, of which I'm sure Adams has quite a few. I'm not sure why the reporter thinks the prints would be worth that much, but I'd say the lost negatives are worth far more.
On the post: ASCAP Boss Refuses To Debate Lessig; Claims That It's An Attempt To 'Silence' ASCAP
Re: Re: Re: Typical
As for that link you provided, the professor in question never said (at least not that I saw) he was being silenced, just that he was denied tenure. Which may or may not be a big distinction.
I agree to agree to disagree.
On the post: Can Man Who Found Long Lost Ansel Adams Glass Negatives Sell Prints?
Am I wrong?
On the post: ASCAP Boss Refuses To Debate Lessig; Claims That It's An Attempt To 'Silence' ASCAP
Re: Typical
Hey, it worked for the creationists...
I typically agree with many of your comments, Karl, even though this is off topic, but because I believe in Creation, you've struck a nerve. So unlike Mr. Williams, here are a few links to videos where creationists have debated evolutionists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-0U1wJof2U
http://w ww.viddler.com/explore/slaves4christ/videos/10/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrI
Pleas e point to where any creationists claim to have been "silenced," and not just in these videos, but any link you can point to will suffice.
On the post: Funny How All The Senators Supporting Anti-FCC Bill, Have Raised Lots Of Money From AT&T
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds Pretty Worthless Actually
Losertarian government-hate is the domain of immature teenagers. You have no recourse but to attack me since you realize I'm right.
Again, everything you just said applies to you. I'm not taking any position here one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that you are using personal attacks and acting immaturely in all your posts, while accusing everyone else of being immature. Thank you for proving my point yet again.
So it is you who has failed.
On the post: British Library Worries That Copyright May Be Hindering Research
On the post: Funny How All The Senators Supporting Anti-FCC Bill, Have Raised Lots Of Money From AT&T
Re:
How's the weather in your dream world? I hope it doesn't rain and melt your gum drop house.
On the post: Funny How All The Senators Supporting Anti-FCC Bill, Have Raised Lots Of Money From AT&T
Re: Re: Sounds Pretty Worthless Actually
That's funny coming from some AC taking pot shots. Pot meet kettle.
On the post: Funny How All The Senators Supporting Anti-FCC Bill, Have Raised Lots Of Money From AT&T
Re: "Sponsorship Patches"
That's funny but I think more realistically we should at the very least require members of Congress to wear colored ties representing their political party. Red for the Repubs, blue for the Dems, and purple for Joe Lieberman and the other independents with the hue of purple reflecting where their voting alligences mostly fall. If another party ever gets a member elected (not too bloody likely) we'll get some more variety, but this way we wouldn't need C-SPAN to put the little (D) or (R) next to their names on the graphic.
The Pirate Party would have the most bad ass ties possible, of course.
On the post: RapidShare Once Again Vindicated By Court
Lobbyists ho!
It leaves the entertainment industry using their lobbyists to stuff money into the war chests of Congressmen who will sponsor a bill that will make these sites illegal. Then the dance will continue.
On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice
Re: "using questionable legal theories"...
Wow. I actually agree with you for a change.
On the post: MTA Pretends 'Unlimited' Means 90
Re: @ Nastybutler77: I don't need your permission, but thanks.
You're right about one thing. I am annoyed. But not because I can't refute your lame arguement. The fact that others have already done so is why I choose not to waste further time doing so. For example:
"by nasch(profile) , Jul 15th, 2010 @ 9:22am
Since you admit that you're an above average user, then your goal is to beat the system at least on the individual fare rate.
His goal is to spend as little as possible to meet his needs (without breaking any rules). This is both rational and ethical.
Fact is *you* are trying to extract more out of taxpayers than you're paying for.
It is not his responsibility to ensure he's paying enough to give sufficient return to the taxpayers. The MTA needs to charge him enough money. Don't point the finger at the customer who is accepting the deal offered to him.
*you* who benefit from subsidies regard that as an attempt to rob you.
What is your definition of subsidy? And where did anyone say anything about robbery? The complaint is about false advertising. If the MTA had just said "we're not offering unlimited tickets anymore" plenty of people would have complained, but it really would not have been much of a story."
That is just one example of many where others have tried to explain to you that you don't know what you're talking about.
The name calling is as necessary as you're repeated illogical posts. I just call 'em as I see 'em, and you're a real doozie.
It seems you're looking to "win" this arguement and you'll take it any way you can. If a default victory is what it takes to make you go away, then by all means take your "prize" and go bother some other blog.
On the post: MTA Pretends 'Unlimited' Means 90
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But you're using MTA for *business* travel.
Why do you think business people using public transportation is a "Free Ride?" Do you not realize that businesses pay taxes too?
Your cognative disconnect is astounding, as you keep making the same incorrect arguement over an over despite everyone telling you you're wrong. It should be clear by now, and since it's not you're either a simpleton or a troll. So which is it?
On the post: MTA Pretends 'Unlimited' Means 90
Re: Re: Re: @ Jamie Re: This is just trollishly weak
Second, the MTA said you were buying an "unlimited" pass. By definition that is unlimited rides for a fixed price. Why wouldn't you expect to get what they said you'd get?
And it doesn't tend towards free as there are a fixed number of rides in any given day. Even if you spent all day riding, you'd be pretty far off from infinite as you suggest with your "tends toward" wording.
You're cliche isn't exactly applicaple, and you're one of the biggest dolts to troll this site. You can keep arguing about this all you want, but it's pretty obvious you are just plain wrong. If you're unable to see that, then you really are an idiot. If you're arguing just to troll, then, by all means keep it up.
On the post: Man Fined $400 For Impersonating A Moron
On the post: Court Says FCC's Indecency Policies Violate The First Amendment
You know what's funny is that you couldn't read the courts decision on the news because the language in the decision would get the news networks fined. And that, Alanis Morissette, is ironic.
On the post: Another UK Hairdresser Fined For Turning On Her Radio
Re: Re:
After all don't they derive a significant amount of their fans based on their look almost as much as their sound? Lady GaGa I'm looking at you. If so shouldn't all musicians who use one have to support all these beauticians? Not just the big name well established ones, but the up and coming struggling stylists who won't be able to make ends meet without these fees, right?
What's the difference in these two arguments?
Answer: Nothing. Both are asinine.
Next >>