Not irrelevant, because you can't impose these kinds of burdens (financial and otherwise) on people without the certainty that they'll make things better.

I've always felt I should be able to leave the fruits of my labors to my family. Let's take the case of a moderately successful musician whose wife stayed home with the kids while he was out on tour. He's killed in a tour bus accident. Yes, she should continue to collect royalties. They're not all Elvis or Madonna - most musicians barely scrape by. Yes, there should be some reasonable time limit, though. What that is escapes me... perhaps life of spouse; I wouldn't want to say life of children, but then if there are special needs children that are still being taken care of by the family as an adult then it seems unfair to cut them off because their mom died, too.

But where should it end? I don't know... but we need to stop treating all musicians as if they're part of the tiny, less than 1% fraction that makes millions of dollars from being a performer.

The question is really not if life should be fair (it should be), but what "fair" means. If Pandora negotiates rates with record companies (or just the RIAA), then what's not fair about what they're paying? If the rate's too low, blame the RIAA, or the companies. Ultimately, if the artists signed a contract, is it not "fair" that all parties live up to it? You shouldn't sign an "unfair" contract, after all... and no, nobody held a gun to their heads, figuratively or otherwise.

So you're blaming Pandora for paying negotiated rates? Once again slashdotters let their emotions cloud their judgement and direct their ire at the wrong party.

Numbers count only because the more noise there is, the harder it is to find the signal. You like to think that the cream rises to the top, but it's sadly not always the case. Leonard Bernstein and Elvis Presley are only "worth more" because they were early pioneers. If they were breaking into the industry today, do you think they'd have that much success? Just musing.

If the artists don't like it, they can pull their music. Why should I care what the royalties are? And if they can't pull their music because their RIAA mafia record company won't let them, then it's the record companies fault. A lot of the shock and outrage I see on slashdot seems heinously misdirected.

Is that you, Bawwy Kwipke?

I agree... I'd rather have separate streaming devices that cost a fraction of the TV and can be replaced when the technology improves instead of having it built in to the most expensive component. I marvel at the people buying really expensive cars with iPhone connectivity... and then Apple changes the connector on it's newer version.

Give me generic, or give me death!

I like Waze, but already accept being tracked (at least) while I'm driving. I don't have a "smart" TV, though, and don't want one. Is that even an option anymore? I prefer components I can replace instead of built in doo-dads.

And the response from the advertisers, like with the advent of DVRs, is more ads, more annoying, and louder... which only drives more people to avoid them. They don't understand the circular hell they are putting themselves in, or why they are failing.

I think the apologists for the terrorists and Islamic extremists should definitely watch all the burnings, stonings, beheadings, and rapes. Apparently words aren't enough.

So because it's a hobby means you're "allowed" to do it?

Every time a terrorist successfully detonates a bomb people complain the police didn't do enough to prevent it.... EVERY TIME. Maybe not you, but it happens EVERY time.

Where does it say anything about "Terroristic Threats?"

You say "absolutely sure," followed by "Almost ALL..." I do not think you know the meaning of "absolutely sure."

The airports have that stuff right there; how long are the police supposed to take to decide if something's a "real" threat or not? I know slashdotters hate police and hate the "police state" with cameras and tracking your every move and everything... but what would you be saying if it was a bomb and it went off because they were taking too long to figure out if it was a threat? How close are people supposed to get to it to figure it out? Whatever it was, it wasn't supposed to be there.... the only way you look back at this and whine about overreacting is because it wasn't actually a threat. Like I said - hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to sit here and whine about the police "ruining" some art project now.