So the NY Times shouldn't post this story because it is old news to you? I'm no dummy on the tech front, but this is news to me and probably thousands of others, given the NY Times editors thought it worthy. It's not like they are posting a story about those new-fangled Microsoft Xboxes.
To be even more contrarian, I think it is a GREAT concept to be able to hear more from the people quoted in an article, because the press has a bad habit of picking and choosing (taking out of context) their favorite sound bites. This seems like it could give a little more depth to any story.
All excellent points, and I don't really disagree with you on the details. The general attitude of "Majority Rules", however, is dangerous and leads to homogenous societies and dictatorial rule (after a while). In other words, it is perfectly healthy for the 5% to have a voice and influence when it comes to public policy. Of course, society shouldn't sway 95% in favor of the 5%'s voice, but the 66% majority also shan't dictate what happens to the 5% either (who the hell uses shan't anymore?).
I don't really understand WHO makes all the rules, although I'd argue that motivated cliques of society push their agendas on the rest of us (such as church, Big Business, the Open Source Movement, fill-in-the-blank). Unfortunately, the average Ma and Pa Majority Rules Crowd seems to get their way, and our country flounders around in mediocrity. The rest of the world notices too.
I was once interested in becoming a copyright attorney because of my interests in both music (part-time professional) and multimedia design, but lost interest due to all the freeloaders out there trying to revolutionize the industry by, well, taking and not paying. The laws may be draconian, but that's only because of the MPAA and the RIAA's overzealous litigious approach to enforcing existing (and I'll agree outdated) laws.
Now that I'm done rambling, I've totally forgotten which thread this is a part of (the wireless access on planes?) so I'll be off now.
Believing in "majority rules" is one of the most fallacious arguments persistent in modern societies. In the US, at least, we aren't governed by "majority rules". The consitution doesn't protect the majority, nor does he with the most votes win elections.
Because, unlike the net, magazines and movies aren't usually pushing unexpected porn spams on you. When I buy Sports Illustrated I expect to see sports pictures, but when I type whitehouse.com, I get a nasty surprise.
Do I understand this correctly? Google is the media darling for saying they will be in an auction next year and they are rumored to be making a phone? How does this make them a darling? I thought they just made new and innovative ways for me to be innundated by advertisements.
The context is that a private company (an airline company) is choosing to filter what content will be available to protect themselves from liability (not to mention, not offended thousands of customers and lose them to another airline). This is not censorship, unless, like someone else already stated, the FAA gets involved.
I guess your "shut up" comment is an attempt at censorhip, but since you aren't a government, I'll just consider it a lame insult instead.
Actually, I posted the same claim (that censorship is only by a government), and then got flamed into oblivion by the the dictionary police slashdot crowd. Gee, as if the meaning of words in context don't ever change, right? So yeah, you are right, the/. crowd DOESN'T understand that censorship is only done by the government (especially in this context).
As if Hannah Montana were some sort of manufactured insta-hit? Her dad is a one-hit wonder mullet-wearing country singer. Hardly the formula for insta-success. Maybe, just maybe, Hannah Montana is a well developed show with a really talented teen? Maybe Hanna Montana is popular because kids and families alike like it?
Then again, the same thing could be said about pretty much any pop-culture icon, but at least Hannah is the least offensive of them all.
You people are reading WAY too much into David Pogue's comments. He isn't accusing anyone of anything. He is merely pointing out the generational attitudes towards downloading music/movies. He doesn't editorialize or demonize the activity at all, he simply shows how attitudes are different amongst different age groups through a fun, informal speaking engagement. If you think he is implicating you for illegal activities, that is probably your own rationalization defense mechanisms kicking in.
The slashdot summary doesn't help, by tying their commentary against Mr. Pogue to a link that has nothing to do with the Pogue article. Instead, the second link sends us to an unrelated article, that appears to be accredited to Mr. Pogue, even though he said no such thing. Come on slashdot editors, get with it already.
I'm sick of the censorship tag. 300 passengers sitting elbow-to-elbow for hours on end REQUIRES "censorship". What makes everyone think you have the right to do whatever you like on a plane and should be free from censorship in the first place? Better yet, I'll let you access whatever you like, and as soon as you expose a small child to some porn, I'll have your ass thrown in jail as soon as we land.
You people are forgetting that we can't even bring a pair of nail clippers on board an airplane, and you all want unfettered access to all the seedy corners of the Internet?
And pray tell, how is NO access at all better than limited access?
Your thought processes is dangerous. Just because 50.1% of the populace believes something to be true, doesn't make it so. Wow. Just wow wow wow. There are absolute truths in the world, regardless of what a bunch of flawed humans think. With your mentality, there would be no minorities to "try to become majorities by debate" because you'd either, a) imprison them all, or b) deport them.
Have you ever thought for one second that maybe anyone in the minority of any issue doesn't mind being the minority, and doesn't care to be in the majority? I'll give you an example. I'm a Mac user, and could care less if Apple ever gets over 5% market share. Otherwise, I'd be hanging out with a bunch of Windows using Sheeple.
Also, not everyone wants to use their personal convictions to convince others. Your egocentric p.o.v. is very flawed and not everyone thinks like you. Even if 50.1% of the people did think like you, it still doesn't make you right.
Thanks for all the advice (everyone). I have a license for Photoshop versions 1-4, but I don't think they allow upgrades to the latest one for one cheap upgrade price. But yeah, that's always a good strategy. My college has Macromedia Studio 8 (or whatever it's called) for $75. I could buy that and upgrade to CS3 I bet, for substantially less than full retail.
Or they could be like me and not find an easy install package for Gimp on OSX. Can anyone point me to a single file that I double click (or drag to apps) to install Gimp, or must I go through about 2 hours of web surfing just to figure out how to install the installer?
But I agree. People who pirate Photoshop don't have the money to buy it in the first place and that corporations more than pay their share for those of us...errr, you that have downloaded Photoshop for your home use. If they'd make a "home" edition that was around $150 or so, I'd buy it.
"Bemoan"? I read the FA and Pogue does no such bemoaning. He does, however, point out the vast generational differences in attitudes towards intellectual property. He doesn't editorialize at all; something slashdot contributors and editors should try doing once in a while.
I didn't read the TFA, but what about those people who don't want to void their warranties? Or is it THAT wrong to not know (or care) how to do what you described?
Ron Paul will take away abortion rights, discriminate against homosexuals, and run the economy into the ground by abolishing income tax and allowing the use of gold and silver as legal tender (coo-coo). I just want to be able to play GTA IV when it comes out. Whichever candidate wants to play co-op mode with me will get my vote.
Could you spew any more inaccurate cliches about the Mac while you are at it? I bet you think Macs have no software, only have one mouse button, and use proprietary monitor connectors too?
You forgot #4. Flash content can be created for off-line use. I make a very comfortable living designing tutorials and simulations in Flash that are self contained and thus aren't exposed to these supposed vulnerabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
To be even more contrarian, I think it is a GREAT concept to be able to hear more from the people quoted in an article, because the press has a bad habit of picking and choosing (taking out of context) their favorite sound bites. This seems like it could give a little more depth to any story.
I don't really understand WHO makes all the rules, although I'd argue that motivated cliques of society push their agendas on the rest of us (such as church, Big Business, the Open Source Movement, fill-in-the-blank). Unfortunately, the average Ma and Pa Majority Rules Crowd seems to get their way, and our country flounders around in mediocrity. The rest of the world notices too.
I was once interested in becoming a copyright attorney because of my interests in both music (part-time professional) and multimedia design, but lost interest due to all the freeloaders out there trying to revolutionize the industry by, well, taking and not paying. The laws may be draconian, but that's only because of the MPAA and the RIAA's overzealous litigious approach to enforcing existing (and I'll agree outdated) laws.
Now that I'm done rambling, I've totally forgotten which thread this is a part of (the wireless access on planes?) so I'll be off now.
Believing in "majority rules" is one of the most fallacious arguments persistent in modern societies. In the US, at least, we aren't governed by "majority rules". The consitution doesn't protect the majority, nor does he with the most votes win elections.
Because, unlike the net, magazines and movies aren't usually pushing unexpected porn spams on you. When I buy Sports Illustrated I expect to see sports pictures, but when I type whitehouse.com, I get a nasty surprise.
Do I understand this correctly? Google is the media darling for saying they will be in an auction next year and they are rumored to be making a phone? How does this make them a darling? I thought they just made new and innovative ways for me to be innundated by advertisements.
I guess your "shut up" comment is an attempt at censorhip, but since you aren't a government, I'll just consider it a lame insult instead.
Actually, I posted the same claim (that censorship is only by a government), and then got flamed into oblivion by the the dictionary police slashdot crowd. Gee, as if the meaning of words in context don't ever change, right? So yeah, you are right, the /. crowd DOESN'T understand that censorship is only done by the government (especially in this context).
Then again, the same thing could be said about pretty much any pop-culture icon, but at least Hannah is the least offensive of them all.
The slashdot summary doesn't help, by tying their commentary against Mr. Pogue to a link that has nothing to do with the Pogue article. Instead, the second link sends us to an unrelated article, that appears to be accredited to Mr. Pogue, even though he said no such thing. Come on slashdot editors, get with it already.
If you think making money is immoral, might I suggest you move to a different country?
You people are forgetting that we can't even bring a pair of nail clippers on board an airplane, and you all want unfettered access to all the seedy corners of the Internet?
And pray tell, how is NO access at all better than limited access?
Have you ever thought for one second that maybe anyone in the minority of any issue doesn't mind being the minority, and doesn't care to be in the majority? I'll give you an example. I'm a Mac user, and could care less if Apple ever gets over 5% market share. Otherwise, I'd be hanging out with a bunch of Windows using Sheeple.
Also, not everyone wants to use their personal convictions to convince others. Your egocentric p.o.v. is very flawed and not everyone thinks like you. Even if 50.1% of the people did think like you, it still doesn't make you right.
Thanks for all the advice (everyone). I have a license for Photoshop versions 1-4, but I don't think they allow upgrades to the latest one for one cheap upgrade price. But yeah, that's always a good strategy. My college has Macromedia Studio 8 (or whatever it's called) for $75. I could buy that and upgrade to CS3 I bet, for substantially less than full retail.
But I agree. People who pirate Photoshop don't have the money to buy it in the first place and that corporations more than pay their share for those of us...errr, you that have downloaded Photoshop for your home use. If they'd make a "home" edition that was around $150 or so, I'd buy it.
Is he making "inflamatory" statements, or are you just reading into his clearly stated observations?
"Bemoan"? I read the FA and Pogue does no such bemoaning. He does, however, point out the vast generational differences in attitudes towards intellectual property. He doesn't editorialize at all; something slashdot contributors and editors should try doing once in a while.
I didn't read the TFA, but what about those people who don't want to void their warranties? Or is it THAT wrong to not know (or care) how to do what you described?
Ron Paul will take away abortion rights, discriminate against homosexuals, and run the economy into the ground by abolishing income tax and allowing the use of gold and silver as legal tender (coo-coo). I just want to be able to play GTA IV when it comes out. Whichever candidate wants to play co-op mode with me will get my vote.
Could you spew any more inaccurate cliches about the Mac while you are at it? I bet you think Macs have no software, only have one mouse button, and use proprietary monitor connectors too?
You forgot #4. Flash content can be created for off-line use. I make a very comfortable living designing tutorials and simulations in Flash that are self contained and thus aren't exposed to these supposed vulnerabilities.