Ever since I installed Open Office, I've barely been able to make ends meet. I've even picked up a second job just to support my open-source software habit. But you gotta not spend money to make money, amiright?
"Take all ye can. Give nothing back."
(Of course, this ethos was delivered in an MPAA product. This either increases the irony or makes me ashamed to be quoting it.)
Although I haven't actually seen a DMCA takedown involved. They'll snag your self-created pages and randomly designate them as "Community Pages," meaning anyone can edit or post to it despite who you have set up as admins.
It's happened to me with a couple of pages and I believe the rationale is that these page titles might become useful to an actual paying customer (company) at some point, so the control is taken away from the user who created it and placed back into the hands of the "public" (Facebook). It's irritating but hey, you can always go create another page with the same name and run it from there, since FB doesn't seem to care how many pages have the same name.
I still can't see why a page titled "Whatever the hell you're talking about, I'm behind it 100%" should suddenly be a Community page, but whatever, it takes about 5 minutes to create one and spam all your friends into "Liking" it.
But I'm not buying a Wii until someone ports over a multi-player version of Boong-Ga Boong-Ga complete with accessories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boong-Ga_Boong-Ga
I'm racking my brain trying to remember where I read this so I can link to it (I may be back later), but the post's point dealt with the assumption that certain forms of "entertainment" are always considered lower than others.
In this case, because it's a computer on which games are available but not an actual, you know, desktop or something, it's regarded as being no better than an entertainment console. The author's point of the piece I'm attempting to quote is that people consider surfing the web in a non-participatory fashion to be automatically "lower" than crafting your own site or blog or whatever.
His feeling was that this stems from the feeling that simply "seeing" something is brain-killing. But as he pointed out, how is watching television automatically a waste of time while reading a book is considered to be one of the better things you can do with your time? It's not as if every book a person reads is full of learning experiences. Is reading a Cussler or Ludlum novel automatically a better use of time than watching a primetime sitcom or drama? Just because it's the written word shouldn't automatically grant it a higher status.
The same goes for devices like these. It's looked down on simply because a majority of those who have set themselves up as arbiters of intelligence have decided it's a "toy."
And swiftly rack up piles of cash by generating false positives. They seem like they'd be amenable to this, what with their already dubious M.O.
You mean all this time I could have been pirating medicine, rather than paying for it like a chump? Could someone get me the URL of this definitely-not-a-blog-or-discussion-board so I can start saving some $$$? Thx.
Of course $10 makes more, provided people are willing to pay $10. Of course, 10x as many people may be willing to pay $1 but they can't because of release windows.
Would Hollywood rather have x% of the rentals or 0% of the $10 that people aren't interested in paying? Along with being unable to create a new business model, the major studios (along with the major labels) still haven't figured out multiplying by 0.
"was" should be "and" (if that clarifies anything...)
I left a message stating "I want love" which, when decoded (I want liberty) was discovered on this dating site by my wife, became "I want a divorce" rather than the hopeful statement of solidarity I hoped it would be.
She apparently has contacted some LLLLLawyers.
According to Fast Company: "around 0.00005% of posts are associated with crimes on Craigslist."
Taken from this Awl post:
http://www.theawl.com/2011/02/craig-newmark-will-murder-you-in-your-sleep-says-his-competitor
I'm sure most of us would love to live in such a "cesspool."
So, is referring to potential customers (I assume you're in the "business") as "freetards" and "slobbering masses" winning you any new fans?
Just throwing this out there: your point would come across a little more clearly if you wouldn't insist on tossing around perjorative terms. It doesn't color my impression of the general public but it certainly changes my perception of you.
"Vindictive, nasty, and misleading." That's a pretty good definition of your chosen terminology.
...when he said "whomever."
Also, a signed warrant is no more legal than a cop firing up the lights momentarily so he won't be inconvenienced by a stop sign. It's still illegal. It's just that the average citizen doesn't have the jurisdiction to call them on it.
If they're chasing copyright violations based on copyrighting a few porn DVDs, what exactly did they copyright? The various ways Tab A can be inserted into Slot B? And occasionally Slot C? And Slot D? All slots simultaneously? Multiple Tabs per Slot? The use of artificial Tabs? Tab-less interaction? Tab on Tab action? Record-setting consecutive Tab insertion? The varying length of said Tabs? That one thing that Slot does with a [insert Tab replacement of choice]?
The mind reels.
You know what else works out well? Oblique statements.
You're right: it's the debt. Not the deficit. I'm not an alarmist but it does seem to have kind of taken off over the last 8 years or so.
The government seems to have no problem writing out billions of dollars worth of checks, via earmarks or entitlements or whatever. When it comes to spending, multiple billions are chump change.
However, when it comes to actually trimming back some of the spending, all of a sudden a few billion is real money and every cent needs to be agonized over endlessly.
I'm not sure even that would deter the government. After all, it's gone to great lengths to become a law unto itself. With a deficit in the multiple trillions, any imaginable amount is still "small change."
The only positive that could come from this would be more exposure of various government agencies as reckless violators of civil liberty, operating with little to no oversight. It'll take more than a hefty judgment to slow down the steady flow of "state secrets" and warrantless wiretaps.
It won't be until someone can actually hold them accountable for these violations that anything will change. And with the government being "the top" in the phrase "taking this all the way to the top," it would seem that any citizens or smaller court actions along these lines would be futile. The change has to come from the top down and so far no one in that position seems to have any interest in making that effort.
Perhaps if he'd had noticeably large breasts or a colostomy bag or something, they might have checked him a little closer.
I have a penis so I probably slept with your wife. Alot.
Hell, even I can beat Watson...
Just hand me that bat.
(Look by the fax machine.)