...says the guy reading and posting on Slashdot. Also, you come across like this guy:

http://www.theonion.com/articl...

In the past, it used to be that live performance is where bands made their money, and radio was just an advertising medium - artists would actually pay radio stations to play their albums to boost their popularity and increase ticket sales. Nowadays, it's completely reversed. It would be considered unethical for a band to pay a radio station to play their albums...radio play is how they make their money , actually, and concerts are essentially a marketing cost intended to drum up the band's popularity (note: royalties are paid by the radio stations to the song writers...which may not always be the same as the band / performer).

Yes, that's definitely a possibility, and it's actually something that happens every once in a while, but it's pretty rare. The problem is one of perception / publicity. Basically, the artists have been underpricing their tickets for so long that the fans have come to expect it (forcing artists to make their money through other means, like merchandising, or concessions, etc...), and if an artist doesn't price their tickets in the friendliest possible way, the fans may become angry and start hating on the artist.

Nowadays, most big acts no longer directly control the ticket sales for their own performances; instead, they have a management company (like Live Nation) that offers full service marketing, promotion, and gig management - that means that they (and not the artist) set up things like ticket pricing and merchandise sales at the venue.

Trump supporters?

So the "problem" is that some people are unable to afford some luxury items? Maybe we should get pissed at Rolex for pricing their watches too expensively. The free market sets the price for these tickets; artists purposely underprice them, because they want to fill the venue (otherwise, their egos get hurt)...because of that deficiency in pricing (caused by the egos and vanity of performers), scalpers buy the tickets and sell them for their *real* value (e.g. whatever people are willing to pay).

Before you bitch and moan about that being a bad thing - consider the fact that it cuts both ways. Madonna, for example, did a European tour some years back, and she priced her tickets too high, and she was performing before half filled venues. Nevertheless, she did fine, because scalpers bought up a lot of her tickets, anyway, hoping to resell them...only nobody wanted to buy them (even if they resold them at face value). So brokers ate the cost of that venture.

Netcraft confirms it?

Why, because you weren't able to get a pair of Yeezys from Adidas? My heart bleeds for you. #firstWorldProblems

What's wrong, did you miss out on some Hannah Montana tickets because the bots got to them faster? Poor baby. *pats AC on the head*

Tremendous service?? Kaspersky has offered, shit service...well, maybe marginal service, at best. I don't think it has to do with Russia so much as the fact that Kaspersky just sucks as an application. Nginx is Russian, too, and there's been no attempt to put them down. As far as I can tell, Nginx is flourishing and could very well take over Apache.</noXenophobia>

One of the projects I work on is creating bots used to buy things like tickets (on Ticketmaster, Live Nation, etc...), or shoes (yeah, that's a thing...rich kids with too much time on their hands). The thing is, though, that these sites have very sophisticated methods of identifying bots; most of the time, if I navigate the checkout process with a bot, I get hit with a CAPTCHA, but if I navigate the site with a regular, mainstream browser, there's no CAPTCHA. So by offering headless operation, one could just programmatically drive Chrome and avoid having to deal with a CAPTCHA.

Microsoft sucks, too...and they're deserving of the hate they get, but Kaspersky may suck worse. I lost all respect for them as an "antivirus" application when one of my clients couldn't use Git because of it. Kaspersky identified Git (using SourceTree as a client) as malware, and kind of fucked up her file system, requiring her to do a system restore. After that, the client pretty much refused to use SourceTree, because she was convinced that it was a virus. Fuck Kaspersky...go Microsoft.

Does it not bother anybody else that these people were punished for what they wrote in a *private* group? I'm all for the "if you're an asshole in public, then be prepared to deal with the consequences" ethos...but what they said wasn't, strictly speaking, in public. I mean, in private conversation, you might say some shit that's fucked up, just wrong, or completely unacceptable - because that's how humanity works; in small, private groups of like-minded people, one tends to say things one wouldn't say in larger, public groups.

It's not like we're going to eliminate assholes from the human race, or anything like that. The best we can hope for is that those motherfuckers restrain themselves and behave according to what society approves of when dealing with the public. So shouldn't these people get some credit for limiting the assholishness to a private group? I mean, how would you like to have *all* of your private (even one-on-one) conversations be put up for scrutiny? 'cause that seems to be the logical conclusion to what could be a slippery slope here.

Yeah, they're assholes, too. Generally speaking, advocating for the destruction of a populous is an asshole thing to do. If somebody got accepted to a private school in Palestine, and then they got busted, in a private FB group, calling for Palestine's destruction, I don't see how that wouldn't also be subject to a reasonable, "no assholes here" rule.

Oops - I didn't realize the parent post was talking about the guy's lawyer. Perhaps I should've read it more carefully... but I was just in a mood, and wanted to flame somebody, and maybe call them a fucktard - so my work is done.

Are you high? How the hell is this like the Streisand Effect? If anything, this is the opposite of the Streissand Effect - The Oatmeal is now getting extra attention (which is what they want - it's the opposite of what Streissand wanted). The douche from The Oatmeal, essentially, has a legitimate gripe (albeit one that's masked by the presence of multiple non-legitimate gripes) - that his comics aren't being properly attributed to The Oatmeal. The guy from FJ is a fucktard for not understanding this (he deleted the comics that were actually correctly attributed, but left the unmarked ones in place... WTF?!), but the douche from The Oatmeal is an even bigger fucktard for not correctly communicating his concern. Ironically, fucktard maj. (Oatmeal) then mocked fucktard min. (FJ) for not choosing his words with precision. Watching retarded people argue is amusing... it's like watching bumfights, but without the guilt.

Fucktard maj. appears to be a slimy, greedy fuck who sees the world through slimy, greedy fuck colored lenses - he implicitly assumed that fucktard min. is all about money, trying to rake in bug bucks while cutting out The Oatmeal. Fucktard maj. should've just explained this in simple terms: "Hey, dude - I'm all about money and shit, and I see that you're probably making some ad $$ thanks (in small part) to some of my content. But I'm getting screwed because your users are removing 'The Oatmeal' (or the URL) from my comics, so I'm not even getting any free advertising out of it. Could we work something out so that either A) My shit is properly labeled; or B) Maybe you could throw a little bit of your advertising $$ my way."

See, that's not so hard to do. But, like somebody else already pointed out, fucktard maj. has an inflated sense of self worth and a bit of an inferiority complex (masked as a superiority complex, ironically), so he fucked up the whole thing, thereby self-affirming (and maybe even proving) his inferiority.