Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment It's not about Copyright, it's about control... (Score 2) 318

So you want to hear music, what would you like to listen? Good music that isn't owned by RIAA? Goodnes gracious, no! Listen to the latest boxed artificially flavored crap from Britney Mandy Simpson. Or whatever. Or listen to the rebellious millionaires who sing about being depressed.

What! There's a way for people to access music we can't sell them and don't want to re-release? NUKE IT FROM ORBIT!

It was never about copyright, it was always about control. If the album you want to listen is not on the record stores, it's on purpose because it has ceased to make revenue to the "publishers" ( forget about the 1% they give to the artist). If you happen to have it in your HDD, and you share it with people, it's not costing them sales money, it's costing them brain space in you. If you make your musical taste on your own, without the bombardment of the coporations, radios, TV, movies, etc, YOU ARE DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR FUTURE REVENUE.

Old music is what people will always listen and remember, and are willing to pay for. It's better if they can only get it for free. How many albums have The Beatles sold between 1960-1970, and how many after that? I'm betting more after and will keep rising, quality never rots. But how many albums will B.M.S. sell in 5 to 10 years? Obviously, not counting the OD or DUI death or whatever.

The Corporations want to control what you can consume. So they are limiting your access to it.

Comment Re:Doomsday situation (Score 1) 361

Sure, charge it into my credit/debit card. What? No Posnet?. Ok, then i'll write a check. Can't call the bank to verify it? Ok, i'll go to the ATM. What? No ATM?. Ok, i'll go into the bank and ask the human teller to give me the cash. What? No system?. How am I supposed to pay for it? Unless of course I get some bottlecaps... (Cue in The Ink Spots's 'Maybe').

Comment Re:It's government corruption. (Score 1) 785

I think the point we're all tryng to make is that the higher the bribe, the higher the official, the greater damage it causes. If I bribe a $25 DMV clerk, I might kill a few people in an accident. If I bribe a $1 billion dollar president, I get to kill Iraqis and Afghanis by the truckload (though indirectly), not to mention the return money from my "oil revenues". It's the same here, instead of buying a Judge for $10.000 and getting over twenty times that amount in return, I bribe the DOJ for about a hundred times that, then I get (20x100) two thousand times that in return. Thus: 1. Bribe a Judge 2. Bribe the DOJ 3. PROFIT!

Comment Re:Vote (Score 1) 1515

Drugs as in drug cartels and designer drugs, not the weed you grow on your backyard for smoking every once in a while. Drugs as a mean of escaping reality CONSTANTLY, as an alternative of life. Drug cartels are an excellent example of capitalism. Coke & heroin are dirt cheap to make, and are sold at about a thousand times the cost. Crime as in punks who stick you up with guns (as for knifes are for sissies~) and kill you because they dont care about a society and it's rules that entices them with things denied to them. Pollution as in "We will not make more fuel efficient cars or alternatives because the profit margin drops 2%", "We will not install air/water filters in the factories because the profit margin drops 2%". Capitalism does not encourage progress. Progress is costly. Capitalism is about hoarding, not about moving. Banks are failing because they played with made-up money, and realized part of it didn't exist at all and couldn't exist at all. Companies invest in R&D only when it benefits them. Technology is advancing quite fast, but it's kept at a slower pace because they have to recover ALL R&D costs and make a lot of money over a product before they release the next generation. If there where no regulation at all, everyone would play only for their own interest and damn everyone else.
Education

Scientists' Success Or Failure Correlated With Beer 349

mernil sends in an article from the NYTimes that casts a glance at a study done in the Czech Republic (natch) on what divides the successful scientists from the duffers. "Ever since there have been scientists, there have been those who are wildly successful, publishing one well-received paper after another, and those who are not. And since nearly the same time, there have been scholars arguing over what makes the difference. What is it that turns one scientist into more of a Darwin and another into more of a dud? After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex, and dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or failure of scientists — beer."

Slashdot Top Deals

In less than a century, computers will be making substantial progress on ... the overriding problem of war and peace. -- James Slagle

Working...