It was Hazelwood and it found quite the reverse regarding school control of newspapers. I recalled the remark from the minority opinion and extrapolated from memory. I humbly submit to being a citizen of a bohunk nation.
a) The First Amendment applies equally to all citizens of the US, whatever bohunk jurisdiction you happen to find yourself in.
b) As pointed out in an interview here yesterday, the First Amendment protects *expressive* speech, not some limited set of useful political speech. Your value judgements have no place here.
c) There is a body of case law surrounding just such issues as this. One off the top of my head found that HS administrators did not have the right to constrain expression within a school newspaper published under the aegis of the school, with school funds and with teacher supervision. Schools have the right to enjoin speech within some pretty narrow rules: if it threatens imminent lawlessness or physical harm, IIRC. The Supremes ruled on this one and I recall O'Conner's opinion remarking that students did not leave their constitutional rights at the doors of the school. I don't have a Westlaw client handy, but if I find it, I'll post it.
Musical ideas flourish -- or die off -- depending on how well their human creators are rewarded.
I have to call attention to this from the pull-quote. This is a grand example of a pervasive conceptual disjunct on/. Artistic expression, in any form, is profoundly divorced from any consideration of profit and loss. The distinction has been blurred during this idiosyncratic period of mass-culture which characterizes the industrial era. There are plenty of ways for poetasters in any genre to make a living or a mint in this period, but musical ideas, poetic ideas, visual ideas and the individuals responsible for them live and die in an environment which has no regard for any economics other than the economy of la parte maudite, the accursed share. That surfeit of energy always available to a human culture, however deprived; that part variously dedicated to the sovereign (q.v. George Bataille): the gods, the kings, and in the post-industrial information age, the individual artist, to the wind if need be.
I have a suspicion that some of the motivation for software libre is akin to this, but I am not prepared to defend it yet.
no one wants to switch to OS X
except the sorry bastards who have to support the macs.
no one wants to try anything but Photoshop
except the sorry bastards who have to try and get product out of the muddleheaded graphics dept.
As others in the thread have pointed out, the scripting features of OSX should make Gimp attractive in batch processing work that is not so color sensitive. Photoshop is a tough nut to crack, but the competition can only make the Gimp stonger. Quark, OTOH, is a punch-drunk whore about which I cannot speak badly enough. *There* is a real opening for an aspiring open-sourcerer. Write a WYSIWYG DTP platform on GTK with native XML/SVG support and the publishing world, the sensible fraction at any rate, will beat a path to your door, along with a fair number of acronym junkies.
I am on a pace to purchase about one music CD per three years since the last time that home taping killed music and I don't use music downloading software!!! Somehow the idea that, while the cost basis of music production was halved, the price at the pump should double, as was the case when we rolled over from LPs, didn't sit right with my punker attitude. Its a bit humorous, really, twenty years on, to watch the cost basis shrink by an order of magnitude while the brazen bastards force an annuity model on the peeps. Don't think these guys don't know exactly what they are doing. Once Napster and the rest are dead, watch the proliferation of music downloading software linked to number of replays and your hardware IDs. Fscking fabulous.
Gotta nice pile of vinyl, though. Okay, the refrain from Capital Radio; altogether now!
ICANN's legitimacy has been questioned from the get-go by policy wonks. I am frankly suprised that the left wing doesn't get more upset about this, or the hard right for that matter. There are other private corporations organized by charter with the imprimature of public agencies, the old HEAF (Higher Education Assistance Foundation) comes to mind, as well as organizations administering certain HUD programs and mortgage resellers. They all raise various degrees of stink WRT accountability, responsiveness and monopoly power.
They are, nearly all, the fruit of the small government movement championed by Reagan and Bush pere. Ironically, they are held up as exemplars of quality public/private partnership by free market moderates (Clinton, Dole, et. al.)
The only difference between Cosmopolitan and Playboy is that Cosmo sells sex from a "Producer" perspective and Playboy sells it from a "Consumer" perspective.
The perversity of this remark really encapsulates the problem with modern sexual attitudes. Working from this position, that women have sex and men rent it from them, we arrive at a whole host of dysfunction, ne?
Hrmm. What if men could get over their guilt at being penetrators; women get over having to cling to something? What if women had the power of choice and men could take responsibility for their desire. What a strange and wonderful world where men might accept that they have something to offer and women might have something to look forward to.
Someone should do some work on the throughput at the *last mile*, the interface between the screen and the head. Its pretty clear where the next bottleneck will be. I also think the answer is not to widen the spigot but to adequately filter the input. The current flow of ordure is like a firehose. I have systematically eliminated the following inputs:
non-radio formatted audio
television
cellular communications
And dramatically limited the following:
cinema (it helps having small babies)
periodical print media (WSJ being the sole exception)
I'm a long-term investor who knows enough to trust a professional financial advisor. I need 24x7 access to my portfolio. Oh, the contradictions of contemporary life.
And you say I'll need high bandwidth access to fill that 544x372 screen? Interesting.
That is an excellent point, my friend, and rings the bell of my following contention: if you ever let yourself be serviced, either dail-up or dsl, by USWorst or its happy owner, you're a patsy deserving little sympathy. Its one thing to be forced to use their plumbing....
Although, to be honest, dude, one wonders what part of the twentieth century one would have had to sleep through to be surprised that consumers and a commodity. Been to any movies lately?
A monopoly of what, the information feed available to the 25 million idiots willing to pay for their hanging gardens. That's like saying my landlord has a monopoly on the living arrangements of the forty people living in my building. Snap out of it.
And another goddam thing, IM cannot survive without the self-same idiots? Cannot we consider this a Darwinian moment? Call it one of those periodic, catastrophic cleansings of the icology. If you're on AOL, your contribution to the icosystem is almost certainly negligible. You are the weakest link.
I am sure I have never been privileged to live under a regime characterized as *capitalist* in any terms other than those of popular usage. Capitalism,whatever you may believe it to be, doesn't exists in the US, my nation of origin, except as a sort of National Lampoon parody of a National Enquirer article about Marxism.
I made no mention of the *suck* of my interlocutor. The bollocks of libertarianism consists in its elaboration as a defense of one's innate right to pornography, cannibis and contempt of the weak. I was referring to my experience of libertarianism as a faddish, unsupported mish-mash of adolescent selfishness, an half-baked fetishisation of lucre and a quite startling reverence,verging on obsession, for individuals who happen to have made a pile of it. Money, for the libertarian, is not a tool, nor a normative social construct, nor even a metric for determination of value, but an exhilaratingly explicit token of power. Consequently, the state's raison d'etre, in the common libertarian construction, is to prevent said power from expropriating the libertarian's pornography, narcotics, sack of loot, etc.
*My* anarchy is the minimization of hierarchical authority, particularly that predicated upon conventional ideas of truth, justice and beauty. It makes no reference to your property, however you regard it, except as it may constitute an expression of power.
Anarchist: best government is no government. Correct.
government: organization with a monopoly on using force to enforce its decisions over a defined geographical area. Correct. The state defined as the monopoly of the coercive apparatus, you've been doing your reading.
capitalist: believes in private property, may not believe in the current American model of private property. Profoundly erroneous.
For additional filer of terms, refer to another reply of mine in this thread.
I am sure whatever *economy* happens to be currently fashionable will allow for me to contract for the provision the goods and services I require. In fact, I make a point of refusing a large proportion of that which modern *society* regards as its perquisites. Neither fact requires or even suggests *capitalism,* whatever that may be. Get your terms in order and get back to me.
And while I beg terminal accuracy of my interlocutor, allow me to clarify *anti-capitalist* as signifying nothing in relation to a popular notion of the pursuit of one's personal interest, rather an opposition to a malformed, dix-neuvième siecle reaction to Marx's critique of political economy as fashioned in his Grundrisse and Kapital.Kapitalismus only has meaning within this frame of reference; it may be even more closely localized to a group of Austrian philosophers and their truck with Hegel.
Hrmm. I hope you're mistaken. A book printed is printed "for keeps" as well. I just find the idea of electronic distribution too compelling to let it rest in the hands of the big houses. E-rights are separable and should be negotiated in this light, but unless you are SK or someone of comparable stature, this is problematic.
The argument I am making, I'd like to see made, is that the new distribution model dramatically alters the value proposition the big publishing houses make for authors, but this has thus far had no impact on the status of authors in negotiation for their IP. The production, inventory and distribution costs have essentially vanished and with no impact on rights valuations; the situation is precisely comparable to that in the music industry. The only value-add publishers provide is editing and quality assurance, effectively noise filtration. Against this the terms of the typically first-time novelist's contract are profoundly insufficient.
Big publishing has only recently allowed its accounting procedures to be audited by a professional association of American writers and they found gross negligence and outright fraud, with costs being inflated in order to ensure that little or no royalties would be due. It is quite common for new authors to be required to reimburse the publisher a portion of their advance. Perfectly criminal, IMHO.
I shamelessly invite you to have a glance at scripsi.com in a week or two.
There is a good one: the afficion (passion) model. Let the big money folders retread their backlist. There is going to be an explosion of really good writing soon. It makes market for all the stuff that is to small to hit the radar screen of the big boys. First indie music, then indie movies, now indie fiction.
I am with you. I think that the serial has a new lease on life with the distribution economies the web makes available. Its also a great way to tell a story if done well. The plodding and repetetive cliffhangers of pulp's hayday are thin gruel against the plotting of a Dickens.
of the qualities of the medium. Serialization allows for content to be refreshed regularly, for audience to build through word of mouth as the series progresses. It is also widely accepted conventional wisdom that folks don't like to sit and read from the screen for extended periods of time, present company excepted.
you've pretty much blown your chance of getting a conventional publisher to pick it up.
So you say. I argue: a) online distribution is not a bellweather for print success, nor do the audiences overlap to any great extent; b) the market for e-books of any format remains largely nascent.
The fact is that this is an established author, not King, granted, but he could get this book between covers if he wanted to. I'd be more interested in the experience of a new author using this model more. I think this is a legit road to print for a new author, building a demonstrated market for her work which only enhances its value to potential publishers.
Slashdot Mirror
It was Hazelwood and it found quite the reverse regarding school control of newspapers. I recalled the remark from the minority opinion and extrapolated from memory. I humbly submit to being a citizen of a bohunk nation.
a) The First Amendment applies equally to all citizens of the US, whatever bohunk jurisdiction you happen to find yourself in.
b) As pointed out in an interview here yesterday, the First Amendment protects *expressive* speech, not some limited set of useful political speech. Your value judgements have no place here.
c) There is a body of case law surrounding just such issues as this. One off the top of my head found that HS administrators did not have the right to constrain expression within a school newspaper published under the aegis of the school, with school funds and with teacher supervision. Schools have the right to enjoin speech within some pretty narrow rules: if it threatens imminent lawlessness or physical harm, IIRC. The Supremes ruled on this one and I recall O'Conner's opinion remarking that students did not leave their constitutional rights at the doors of the school. I don't have a Westlaw client handy, but if I find it, I'll post it.
Musical ideas flourish -- or die off -- depending on how well their human creators are rewarded.
/. Artistic expression, in any form, is profoundly divorced from any consideration of profit and loss. The distinction has been blurred during this idiosyncratic period of mass-culture which characterizes the industrial era. There are plenty of ways for poetasters in any genre to make a living or a mint in this period, but musical ideas, poetic ideas, visual ideas and the individuals responsible for them live and die in an environment which has no regard for any economics other than the economy of la parte maudite, the accursed share. That surfeit of energy always available to a human culture, however deprived; that part variously dedicated to the sovereign (q.v. George Bataille): the gods, the kings, and in the post-industrial information age, the individual artist, to the wind if need be.
I have to call attention to this from the pull-quote. This is a grand example of a pervasive conceptual disjunct on
I have a suspicion that some of the motivation for software libre is akin to this, but I am not prepared to defend it yet.
no one wants to switch to OS X except the sorry bastards who have to support the macs.
no one wants to try anything but Photoshop except the sorry bastards who have to try and get product out of the muddleheaded graphics dept.
As others in the thread have pointed out, the scripting features of OSX should make Gimp attractive in batch processing work that is not so color sensitive. Photoshop is a tough nut to crack, but the competition can only make the Gimp stonger. Quark, OTOH, is a punch-drunk whore about which I cannot speak badly enough. *There* is a real opening for an aspiring open-sourcerer. Write a WYSIWYG DTP platform on GTK with native XML/SVG support and the publishing world, the sensible fraction at any rate, will beat a path to your door, along with a fair number of acronym junkies.
only criminals will have kulcher.
I am on a pace to purchase about one music CD per three years since the last time that home taping killed music and I don't use music downloading software!!! Somehow the idea that, while the cost basis of music production was halved, the price at the pump should double, as was the case when we rolled over from LPs, didn't sit right with my punker attitude. Its a bit humorous, really, twenty years on, to watch the cost basis shrink by an order of magnitude while the brazen bastards force an annuity model on the peeps. Don't think these guys don't know exactly what they are doing. Once Napster and the rest are dead, watch the proliferation of music downloading software linked to number of replays and your hardware IDs. Fscking fabulous.
Gotta nice pile of vinyl, though. Okay, the refrain from Capital Radio; altogether now!
ICANN's legitimacy has been questioned from the get-go by policy wonks. I am frankly suprised that the left wing doesn't get more upset about this, or the hard right for that matter. There are other private corporations organized by charter with the imprimature of public agencies, the old HEAF (Higher Education Assistance Foundation) comes to mind, as well as organizations administering certain HUD programs and mortgage resellers. They all raise various degrees of stink WRT accountability, responsiveness and monopoly power.
They are, nearly all, the fruit of the small government movement championed by Reagan and Bush pere. Ironically, they are held up as exemplars of quality public/private partnership by free market moderates (Clinton, Dole, et. al.)
get...titanium...laptop....
The only difference between Cosmopolitan and Playboy is that Cosmo sells sex from a "Producer" perspective and Playboy sells it from a "Consumer" perspective.
The perversity of this remark really encapsulates the problem with modern sexual attitudes. Working from this position, that women have sex and men rent it from them, we arrive at a whole host of dysfunction, ne?
Hrmm. What if men could get over their guilt at being penetrators; women get over having to cling to something? What if women had the power of choice and men could take responsibility for their desire. What a strange and wonderful world where men might accept that they have something to offer and women might have something to look forward to.
Talk is cheap. It also makes girls horny.
- non-radio formatted audio
- television
- cellular communications
And dramatically limited the following:- cinema (it helps having small babies)
- periodical print media (WSJ being the sole exception)
I'm a long-term investor who knows enough to trust a professional financial advisor. I need 24x7 access to my portfolio. Oh, the contradictions of contemporary life.And you say I'll need high bandwidth access to fill that 544x372 screen? Interesting.
That is an excellent point, my friend, and rings the bell of my following contention: if you ever let yourself be serviced, either dail-up or dsl, by USWorst or its happy owner, you're a patsy deserving little sympathy. Its one thing to be forced to use their plumbing....
Although, to be honest, dude, one wonders what part of the twentieth century one would have had to sleep through to be surprised that consumers and a commodity. Been to any movies lately?
A monopoly of what, the information feed available to the 25 million idiots willing to pay for their hanging gardens. That's like saying my landlord has a monopoly on the living arrangements of the forty people living in my building. Snap out of it.
And another goddam thing, IM cannot survive without the self-same idiots? Cannot we consider this a Darwinian moment? Call it one of those periodic, catastrophic cleansings of the icology. If you're on AOL, your contribution to the icosystem is almost certainly negligible. You are the weakest link.
was funniest thing I ever read on slashdot what I didn't write myself.
I am sure I have never been privileged to live under a regime characterized as *capitalist* in any terms other than those of popular usage. Capitalism,whatever you may believe it to be, doesn't exists in the US, my nation of origin, except as a sort of National Lampoon parody of a National Enquirer article about Marxism.
I made no mention of the *suck* of my interlocutor. The bollocks of libertarianism consists in its elaboration as a defense of one's innate right to pornography, cannibis and contempt of the weak. I was referring to my experience of libertarianism as a faddish, unsupported mish-mash of adolescent selfishness, an half-baked fetishisation of lucre and a quite startling reverence,verging on obsession, for individuals who happen to have made a pile of it. Money, for the libertarian, is not a tool, nor a normative social construct, nor even a metric for determination of value, but an exhilaratingly explicit token of power. Consequently, the state's raison d'etre, in the common libertarian construction, is to prevent said power from expropriating the libertarian's pornography, narcotics, sack of loot, etc.
*My* anarchy is the minimization of hierarchical authority, particularly that predicated upon conventional ideas of truth, justice and beauty. It makes no reference to your property, however you regard it, except as it may constitute an expression of power.
Anarchist: best government is no government. Correct.
government: organization with a monopoly on using force to enforce its decisions over a defined geographical area. Correct. The state defined as the monopoly of the coercive apparatus, you've been doing your reading.
capitalist: believes in private property, may not believe in the current American model of private property. Profoundly erroneous.
For additional filer of terms, refer to another reply of mine in this thread.
I am sure whatever *economy* happens to be currently fashionable will allow for me to contract for the provision the goods and services I require. In fact, I make a point of refusing a large proportion of that which modern *society* regards as its perquisites. Neither fact requires or even suggests *capitalism,* whatever that may be. Get your terms in order and get back to me.
And while I beg terminal accuracy of my interlocutor, allow me to clarify *anti-capitalist* as signifying nothing in relation to a popular notion of the pursuit of one's personal interest, rather an opposition to a malformed, dix-neuvième siecle reaction to Marx's critique of political economy as fashioned in his Grundrisse and Kapital. Kapitalismus only has meaning within this frame of reference; it may be even more closely localized to a group of Austrian philosophers and their truck with Hegel.
I never make up my bollocks any longer, not since the accident with the acetone.
atheist, anarchist, anti-capitalist.
never met a libertarian who wasn't bollocks to the eyeballs.
mark it a flame, please.
Hrmm. I hope you're mistaken. A book printed is printed "for keeps" as well. I just find the idea of electronic distribution too compelling to let it rest in the hands of the big houses. E-rights are separable and should be negotiated in this light, but unless you are SK or someone of comparable stature, this is problematic.
The argument I am making, I'd like to see made, is that the new distribution model dramatically alters the value proposition the big publishing houses make for authors, but this has thus far had no impact on the status of authors in negotiation for their IP. The production, inventory and distribution costs have essentially vanished and with no impact on rights valuations; the situation is precisely comparable to that in the music industry. The only value-add publishers provide is editing and quality assurance, effectively noise filtration. Against this the terms of the typically first-time novelist's contract are profoundly insufficient.
Big publishing has only recently allowed its accounting procedures to be audited by a professional association of American writers and they found gross negligence and outright fraud, with costs being inflated in order to ensure that little or no royalties would be due. It is quite common for new authors to be required to reimburse the publisher a portion of their advance. Perfectly criminal, IMHO.
I shamelessly invite you to have a glance at scripsi.com in a week or two.
There is a good one: the afficion (passion) model. Let the big money folders retread their backlist. There is going to be an explosion of really good writing soon. It makes market for all the stuff that is to small to hit the radar screen of the big boys. First indie music, then indie movies, now indie fiction.
I am with you. I think that the serial has a new lease on life with the distribution economies the web makes available. Its also a great way to tell a story if done well. The plodding and repetetive cliffhangers of pulp's hayday are thin gruel against the plotting of a Dickens.
of the qualities of the medium. Serialization allows for content to be refreshed regularly, for audience to build through word of mouth as the series progresses. It is also widely accepted conventional wisdom that folks don't like to sit and read from the screen for extended periods of time, present company excepted.
you've pretty much blown your chance of getting a conventional publisher to pick it up.
So you say. I argue: a) online distribution is not a bellweather for print success, nor do the audiences overlap to any great extent; b) the market for e-books of any format remains largely nascent.
The fact is that this is an established author, not King, granted, but he could get this book between covers if he wanted to. I'd be more interested in the experience of a new author using this model more. I think this is a legit road to print for a new author, building a demonstrated market for her work which only enhances its value to potential publishers.
...and a corresponding lack of relevance.
This is total froth. Whipping up a little OS flamery and fishing for referrals from /. and the Mac sites.
Whussumatta? Running out of XP screenshots? And it shouldn't have made any editors' cut at this noble forum.