Trolldeg

That brings to mind one of my time-honored "Mars-Venus" comparisons. Ever notice that women recognize at least 14 different shades of white? There's "cream", "eggshell", "off-white", "snow", "Navajo", "bone", "sand", "seashell", and many more too numerous to mention, most of which are virtually indistinguishable to men. To men, in fact, white is pretty much the absence of color! Women recognize a far larger spectrum than men do. Men distinguish more than the basic Crayola-8 set but for men, a lot of the Crayola-64 set are pretty much redundant!

That is pretty sexist, and also untrue.

Where?

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f48/louboutin-knock-offs-40287.html

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f48/affordable-alternatives-designer-footwear-49091.html

There are plenty of Louboutin knock-offs.

One great member of this forum has now helped me with this problem!

I would be eternally grateful if someone in the states could help me with "proxy shipping"; I found a pair of boots I want on amazon.com, but they only ship to US adresses. If you could help me with recieving the boots and then ship them privately to me, it would be fantastic! I would of course compensate you for your effort.

the croc ones are in patent leather.

could I get them in regular leather with croc print?

Are the "kroko" ones patent or regular leather?

however IMO its a small price to pay!!

was 9/11 a small price to pay too?

I was just trying to explain, in the simplest terms I could, the difference between "right" and "wrong" as it is in "the real world," so to speak.

Do you know what the word "condescending" means?

JNR: like I wrote in my deleted post, if find YOUR WAY of trying to lecture me pathetic, not you.

We've been through this; it's not stealing if the original item is still there. Call it for what it is; copyright infringement. What I am opposed to is that a few greedy corporations are trying to make copyright infringement into a crime on the same level as robbery or assault, perhaps even murder, with regards to the punishment. The first fault is that lawmakers bow down to corporate special interests. Laws should be passed for the common good of the people, not for the good of some greedy companys who refuse to adapt their business models, and not just because they can afford to lobby for it. The second fault is making file sharing into a "serious crime". It is not. It's a minor felony. Raping, assaulting, killing, are serious crimes. We must not let these greedy bastards turn our societies into police states just because they feel that file shares must be hunted down at all costs.

Ok, it was 62% but it still supports my view that the majority of the FANS, not new listeners, refused to pay!

Didn't you read the quote?

According to the survey, the number was 62%, but that's just the people in Comscores panel. According to Radiohead, their numbers are wrong. Most probably, a much larger percentage of the FANS chose to pay.

And Radiohead STILL made more money per album on average, than they would have, had they used the traditional way of record company/distributor.

I have yet to meet a single "filesharer" who has paid for any of their music for about 5 years...

Ok, meet me. I pay for most of my music, since you can't play mp3s on an analog turntable.

For being Balenciaga, those are very nice.

It is also true to say that sampling free music can lead to a greater fanbase but the people who habitually download pirate music are not the sort of people who will eventually start buying music legally.

And what do you base that on? I have read numerous accounts of people who buy more music and movies since they started file sharing, because they discover so much new culture that they never had come in contact with before.

Also, ther have been several studies published claiming that there is no correleation between file sharing and the decline in music sales.

Radiohead recently sold their album for whatever the downloader was prepared top pay. Something like 90% of them paid nothing. This is because they are so used to stealing music they thought nothing of it - and these were mainly existing fans.

WRONG.

According to Comscore, 62% choose not to pay. Those who paid, paid $5.7 on average. The average income per album landed on $2.1.

Those figures, however, are according to Radiohead wrong:

"In response to purely speculative figures announced in the press regarding the number of downloads and the price paid for the album, the group’s representatives would like to remind people that, as the album could only be downloaded from the band’s website, it is impossible for outside organisations to have accurate figures on sales.

The figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project."

http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/364550/radiohead-savage-comscore-s-wholly-inaccurate-figures.html

But even if the numbers were correct, it's still more than the band would have gotten throug the usual channels with record companies and distribution.

But your liberties are not under threat - at all!

Of course they are, you're just to afraid to see it.

No one is trying to stop you using the internet or your phone, they're just planning to monitor the usage. To be honest they've been doing it for years, they just want legislation so that now you know that they're doing it.

If it hadn't been for people using it as a tool to commit criminal acts then this legislation would not be neccesary.

Perhaps we should open every letter people send too? In case they send illeagal things to each other? Or to track down thoughts that we don't want them to have?

If you aren't what does it matter?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

What personal integrities would they be then Trolldeg? The right to help yourself to other peoples' property whenever you feel like it?

I actually thought you would be able to carry a debate at a higher level than this.

Do you want the IFPI and MPA to have the right to monitor ALL your internet activity, just to check if you MIGHT do something that infringes on their "intellectual property"?

Do you want the state to tap into all you phone conversations just to check if you MIGHT be a terrorist?

Of course they're desperate for money, people like you keep on stealing from them!

It's not stealing. When something is copied the original is still there. Call it for what it is, copyright infringement, not stealing. You really have adopted the "newspeak" of the copyright lobby. Orwell turns in his grave.

Everything on the internet is copied to your computer when you choose to watch it.

If a person walks into Walmart a steals are they a customer or a thief? Do you think that they would regard this person as a potential customer? It is a viable business strategy to deter other thieves by prosecuting all they can catch and having them sent to prison for 10 years.

See above.

It's not about the rights or wrongs of filesharing, it's about letting governments make stricter laws that violates the personal integrities of citizens. And by order from the big industries. Should we let 1984 become a reality just because a dying industry is desperate for money? When are these corporations going to realize that it is not a viable business strategy to sue a potential customer? "..but I see music as a river, and the water in a river is there for everyone and anyone that wants to have a sip can have a sip and have some water. Now somewhere along the line someone came up with the idea of putting the river water in bottles and selling the bottles of water. That's the record industry. Music is a river, music is water, and the bottling company is the industry, and it's not inherently evil, because it's frankly, convenient to have water in a bottle, so if you're driving in your car and you're thirsty you don't have to drive to the nearest river and take a sip, you can just reach down and take a sip out of your bottle. The same way if I'm driving in my car and I want to hear a song, I don't have to drive over to the people's house and ask them to play it for me, I can put the CD in and listen to it, or turn on the radio. Where it gets ugly is that when the bottling company, since their aim is to make money-- at some point they may have thought like, "Let's bottle this water and that way we can share the healthful qualities of water with all the people." At some point it becomes, "This is our industry, we need to make money, and how can we increase profits?" Well, the way to increase profits is to try to discourage people from going to the river, and having to buy the bottled water. And they'll start with that but eventually what they're going to get into is they're going to start blocking the river or they're going to poison the river. But water is always moving, and it's very difficult to poison a river, very hard indeed. And that's the good news about music, it can't be stopped, it will always happen, people will always make music, and regardless of whether or not there's money to be made form it or not, it's still going to happen, it can't be stopped. So in my mind with the sales of records, the industry has done their best to claim ownership of music but they don't-- they only own the things that they sell, so when people who are songwriters say, "That's my property and if you give it away for free then I lose my incentive," then, well, good riddance." -Ian Mackaye, Fugazi

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829826-38.html

Nice shoes, but you need to wear them with something better looking.

why create a new thread for these pictues, what's wrong with posting in the first thread you created? saves forum space.

Those shoes are so not what a high heel should be.

No, you missunderstand me. I can't recall seeing one of your pictures without jeans in them, rolled up or down. Incredibly boring.

What's with the rolled up jeans?

The last two look very La Piazza.