You miss the point.
If an artist who wasn't already very successful (and therefore very rich) made this stand the world's media, and Apple, would go "So what, who cares?" and we wouldn't be discussing it here.
In order for this to get attention it needs someone like Swift to make the stand. Whatever you may speculate her motivation is. Someone who has a genuine need and complaint about the money would get ignored.
If she wants to protect the little people in the music industry, she should offer to allow Apple to use her music royalty-free for six months if they pay new artists during the three month free period.
A pathetically naive solution. Who gets to pick who is "little" and "new"? What if you're a just a bit bigger than "little" and just a bit older than "new"? Tough luck, you get to help multi-millionaire company Apple build a new business for themselves, at no recompense.
There is always a problem when people try to draw an artificial line, where the rules totally change, in the middle of a market. Because there is always someone who falls on just the wrong side of the line that gets hammered, while someone else, practically identical, on the other side of the line reaps the benefits.
Without sharing the risk of the free trial.
Why should she feel obliged to share any risk with Apple? It's not her business venture. She's doing just fine without it.
I'm going to give your work away for nothing. You'll get nothing, but it's ok because I'm getting nothing too. I'm fine with this because I'm already insanely rich. Your financial position does not concern me.
What you complaining about? This is a valid model.
Homeopathy is completely inappropriate for all branches of medical practice. That's the joke. It's funny because it's true.
1) Airing Sony's misdeeds, with the possibility of bringing them to justice.
What misdeeds are being brought to air here?
2) Encouraging other companies to not be evil. If everyone knows that their illegal activities might come to light, it'll act as a deterrent.
So this is like taking a random child out of the class and beating them in front of the others, just so they know what'll happen to them if they're naughty.
Hold off a bit before passing judgement. If a more journalistic outlet finds something newsworthy, it might paint the data dump as worthwhile.
No, actually it's like arresting someone because maybe they've done something, then looking for the evidence afterwards. If none found, meh, tough luck.
I might look remarkably like George Clooney. Any attempt to sanatize George from my data might actually result in an image less like me.
Isn't part of the deal with waxworks is you're supposed to be know what the people look like? So you recognise their uncanny likeness in wax?
Steve Wozniak is the only one of those suggested I'd have any hope of recognising. Heads of IT companies are not really people I need to see or remember. I'd consider myself doing well if I recognise the name. It's their product that matters, not their faces.
Upload to Facebook a whole heap of random pictures of people (actors, the famous etc) or all kinds and tag the lot as yourself. Make yourself appear to be a mashup of every possible gender/race/age and physical appearance. So any photos of yourself that do get tagged are drowned in a pool of misinformation.
five years later than originally planned
Better late than unsafe.
I get very frustrated watching completely factual information get downvoted or subreddits banned because it doesn't fit users' or moderators' view of the world.
Reddit is like this because people are like this. Every site is the same, it just manifests itself if different ways according to the mechanisms used there.
If you want to change how this happens on social media; first change people.
(Hint: people won't change.)
But isn't it reassuring that the first thing stopping them doing surveillance that comes to Sir Bernard's mind is the lack of resources? Not things like legality or moral justification?
Lack of money; the police's new moral compass.
Just some indeterminate point in the future, someone "will" do something to perhaps other people like this one. That's not a threat.
At some point in the future, and I'm not saying when, people like you will be pummelled with pillows. I'm not saying you. Just people like you. You have absolutely nothing to worry, and the fact I'm saying that in a very menacing tone should not be taken as a suggestion that I'm actually specifically meaning you.
For all you know, no one has your personal address and is not in the habit of parking outside your home in the dark. No. Although some people have a psychopathic hatred of people like you, you are excluded. You will not be pummelled with pillows when you least expect it, sometime. You can count on it.
This is not a threat and no-one could reasonably expect your life is in any danger. Not even when slashdot's past criminal history of arranging pillow pummelling is taken into account.
Those seem stupid and arbitrary by comparison.
And water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Nothing stupid and arbitrary about that! No sir!
Being a relatively average-sized man, my foot is about a foot long, for example.
Except the average sized man's foot is not a foot long, but shorter.
With meters, when you round, basically everyone is 2 meters tall.
So maybe use centimetres?
If only there was some way for police to disguise themselves. Or if there was some way to see this advert from a distance. Thank goodness there isn't, or this advert would appear to be nothing more than an advertising stunt.
The whole thing hinges on the phrase in the first paragraph; "depending on what you mean by a "thing", "faster-than-light", and "travel""
If you want to play around with semantics and definitions, then you've got an article. Otherwise, nothing new here. Speed of light unchallenged.
The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin
