I disagree strongly with people considering music as just information. These "information wants to be free" people do have some validity, but too many people are trying to take it too far, and want to turn everything into "information", so they can get their hands on it without paying or working for it. Music isn't some cosmological constant just discovered. It's not something like the the human genome that has existed and the musician just discovers. Good music is a very personal and developed thing that people spend incredible amounts of time, energy, and talent to create, and I think any musician would argue that their work is more than just "information" pulled out of nowhere. Just because you can turn something into ones and zeros and broadcast it across the internet does not me that it's pure data, free for anyone to do with as they please. I'm not particularly fond of the MPAA and RIAA, or the actions they're taking. I don't like the thought of corporations controlling what we can and cannot experience. But it's important to realize the difference between what is information that should be available to all, and what types of things belong to people and should be respected as their property.
It'll be interesting to see if an occurance so incredibly hyped by the media, just not happening like this will help the masses realize just how uniformed their informers are. How many times does the media have to be entirely wrong before people stop listening. Especially in regards to technology.
no kidding...when I was trying to convince my mom to get a macintosh, she asked some questions about email, and for some reason I mentioned that she wouldn't be able to open any attachments that were.exe files. While that'd actually be a rather good thing, (for her computer and her little on call 24/7 tech support slave) she wanted none of that. I wonder what sort of overall effect on bandwidth these people have with their little email circles.
I wouldn't consider code to be strictly "data" in that sense either. Both good programming and good music require talent, creativity, and large amounts of time. When someone puts out something nice, to just grab it and feel that you have the right to do whatever you want with it isn't defendable in my opinion. Now, why do OSS people do it? Because software is something that can benefit by being seen and modified and used by many many people. Music doesn't evolve in the same way. (If it did, I bet it'd be pretty interesting.) I started the analogy between them in my previous post, but now looking back at it, I don't think that analogy works that well.
The problem with this is that one of those experts will create a piece of software that allows the casual person to copy everything as well, and when they release it, they'll either claim to be forcing the companies to do something about their weak security measures, or they'll spout off something about freedom of information and how they feel like they shouldn't have to pay for anything.
I'd have to say I object to music being refered to as just "data". It's a created thing, and while it may not exist in the most physical tangible sense, it's not just a type of information. It's important to realize the difference here. Music can't be put under the same understanding as something like OSS, it just doesn't work that way. Perhaps I'm not understanding all of your comments correctly. Infact, I'm sure I'm not, cause some of it doesn't make any sense to me. *shrug*
It seems to be more of an issue of perhaps the music industry sees the potential of online music sales to provide profit, but they just aren't sure how to best exploit it, and since it's hard to get an organization such as the music industry to change direction quickly, they might just be trying to control it as much as possible while they try and make the change, in hopes of avoiding smaller unknown companies from jumping in and grabbing up all the business.
I don't really think of this as a valid excuse for all the headaches the record companies are causing, but it's maybe a slightly optimistic take on it all.
I think a big problem is that the uninformed citizenry doesn't care to be informed. They've got better things to do. This is especially the case with many of the older people in positions to make decisions that involve computers. They've been running a business for years,when suddenly computers appear. These people don't understand them, they may even be afraid of them, either way, they don't fully see the importance of them. They've been making a living for years without them. Or even if they see how relevant computers can be, they still don't want to take the time to study and learn them. My mom is a perfect and very frustrating example of this. She has an old pentium running win95 that she uses to check her email. Repeated efforts by me to get her to switch to a mac have failed, even when I offer to pay for the machine myself (The family tech support time it would save me would quickly make up for even the most overpriced of apple's software;)).
This really confused me for a long time. Her usual response was "But I don't know macs, I know my computer." I finally realized that she doesn't know any computer, she knows at most, a little about outlook express. Furthermore, she doesn't want to learn anything, which is why all my attempts to upgrade her equipment or to teach her anything haven't worked.
Now my mom can't be swayed by her own son, a definate windows hater, and someone she would readily admit knows about a billion times more about computers than her. Take some guy off the street with no knowledge, no desire to gain knowledge, and no child to constantly assult you with that knowledge anyways, and you've got a permenently uniformed citizen. They don't want to learn, trying to teach them isn't going to help, we just need to minimize their impact as much as possible, and wait for the world to pass them over. It won't be much longer.
For God's sake...Get rid of that threatening pelican. You need something a little less scary...like an inanimate piece of fruit, or something with nice geometric shapes and primary colors. Not some obviously deranged and scheming bird with a sharp looking beak.
I don't see how any sort of legal or patent system can fail to see the goofiness of all of this. How can you patent something like a normal business process. Something so vague as "one-click shopping"...that's like a normal store patenting displaying merchandise in a window. And this article bashing wired for following the "info should be free" line of thought just shows how quickly the internet is being lost to the capitalists. While capitalism is alright in and of itself, its ideals don't really mesh all that nicely with the ideals that helped found the internet. It's interesting how in our current society and economy, information and money can sometimes go hand and hand, yet at the same time, be going head to head. I think it's silly to try and predict how this will turn out even 3 or 4 years from now, but I seriously don't like how things are looking.
I'm not sure why the linux community as a whole is generally looking towards creating software for the general masses. The more linux grows, the more money will be involved in it. Look at the few ipo's already. With the scent of money will come lots and lots of people. People interested only in the money, not in the betterment of the platform. One of the reasons that linux is the way that it is is because it's a labor of love, made by people who care, for people who care. I'm already reading things about companies planning to ipo on the linux hype, while not offering much that betters the software. If this keeps up, yeah, you'll get your applications, but a lot of them will suck. And regardless of how stable and nice the OS is, if the apps suck, then to the average person, the whole thing sucks.
I honestly think that linux is going to hurt itself by attempting to go mainstream right now. Any inroads that it makes into the average home right now will be based on hype. Hype spread by underinformed media to completely uninformed people. The hype that everyone is hearing about doesn't flaunt the technical marvels of linux, because the average person doesn't understand or care about that. Any computer novice that tries to install linux will run into problems, they'll get super frustrated, they'll hate it, and that'll be the end of it for them, back to windows. When linux gets all of this cleared up, it'll be too late.
What exactly do all the people throwing out the term "desensitized to violence" mean by it? It sounds to me like they're saying I'll get used to seeing blood and guts flying everywhere so it won't bother me in real life. Ok, maybe that can happen, but is that why I'm not out shooting people that piss me off? Cause seeing blood is going to make me sick to my stomach? If that's the only thing holding a person back, they've got some really deep problems that have to have a deeper cause then half-life.
And how many games have you played where you score points for sticking a gun under a desk and shooting a scared kid, or firing wildly into an unarmed crowd of civilians? The parallels being drawn between these real life incidents and video games are kind of silly. How about kids playing with those little plastic green army men? Sure they're a little less hi-tech, but it's the same line of thought as a video game, simulating war and conflict. And people die in war and conflict. That's the way it goes, for better or for worse.
And why do they always bring up Doom? The only way doom would drive me to kill is maybe cause I'd be pissy cause I couldn't afford a computer new enough to play at least quake.
I don't understand how you pull "insecure" from that. More important than the potential that God has given us is the choice we've been given. If we were only able to do exactly what God wanted, we'd be machines, not people. We'd be mindless, without free will, our choices wouldn't be our own, and the world would be a far less interesting place.
God has given us the ability to choose for ourselves if there is even an existance of a higher power. I think an "insecure God" wouldn't allow that. Not agreeing with organized religion is fair enough, but despising and detesting any and all forms of organized religion? That seems a bit judgemental and ignorant.
I definately agree here. I'm a huge fan of Apple because their products are excellent, and the whole user community is a really nice thing. But defending this sort of decision just doesn't make sense. There's no excuse for screwing over customers like that. Yeah, motorola messed up, and it could hurt Apple financially some. But it seems to me that Apple can take a little financial hit right about now. In the personal computer industry, the average consumer can't understand the specs between two machines, which is why hype and pr are so effective. A big thing like this is far worse for apple than a lower profit per G4. As for the Mac-fanatics, yeah, some people are going to try to excuse apple, but don't take that too seriously. The wintel and oss groups have their own obsessed diehards that refuse to admit wrong doing as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Now even those of us who don't naturally have video game induced seizures can enjoy the feeling of uncontralable shaking! yay for technology!
I disagree strongly with people considering music as just information. These "information wants to be free" people do have some validity, but too many people are trying to take it too far, and want to turn everything into "information", so they can get their hands on it without paying or working for it. Music isn't some cosmological constant just discovered. It's not something like the the human genome that has existed and the musician just discovers. Good music is a very personal and developed thing that people spend incredible amounts of time, energy, and talent to create, and I think any musician would argue that their work is more than just "information" pulled out of nowhere. Just because you can turn something into ones and zeros and broadcast it across the internet does not me that it's pure data, free for anyone to do with as they please. I'm not particularly fond of the MPAA and RIAA, or the actions they're taking. I don't like the thought of corporations controlling what we can and cannot experience. But it's important to realize the difference between what is information that should be available to all, and what types of things belong to people and should be respected as their property.
It'll be interesting to see if an occurance so incredibly hyped by the media, just not happening like this will help the masses realize just how uniformed their informers are. How many times does the media have to be entirely wrong before people stop listening. Especially in regards to technology.
no kidding...when I was trying to convince my mom to get a macintosh, she asked some questions about email, and for some reason I mentioned that she wouldn't be able to open any attachments that were .exe files. While that'd actually be a rather good thing, (for her computer and her little on call 24/7 tech support slave) she wanted none of that. I wonder what sort of overall effect on bandwidth these people have with their little email circles.
I wouldn't consider code to be strictly "data" in that sense either. Both good programming and good music require talent, creativity, and large amounts of time. When someone puts out something nice, to just grab it and feel that you have the right to do whatever you want with it isn't defendable in my opinion. Now, why do OSS people do it? Because software is something that can benefit by being seen and modified and used by many many people. Music doesn't evolve in the same way. (If it did, I bet it'd be pretty interesting.) I started the analogy between them in my previous post, but now looking back at it, I don't think that analogy works that well.
The problem with this is that one of those experts will create a piece of software that allows the casual person to copy everything as well, and when they release it, they'll either claim to be forcing the companies to do something about their weak security measures, or they'll spout off something about freedom of information and how they feel like they shouldn't have to pay for anything.
I'd have to say I object to music being refered to as just "data". It's a created thing, and while it may not exist in the most physical tangible sense, it's not just a type of information. It's important to realize the difference here. Music can't be put under the same understanding as something like OSS, it just doesn't work that way. Perhaps I'm not understanding all of your comments correctly. Infact, I'm sure I'm not, cause some of it doesn't make any sense to me. *shrug*
It seems to be more of an issue of perhaps the music industry sees the potential of online music sales to provide profit, but they just aren't sure how to best exploit it, and since it's hard to get an organization such as the music industry to change direction quickly, they might just be trying to control it as much as possible while they try and make the change, in hopes of avoiding smaller unknown companies from jumping in and grabbing up all the business. I don't really think of this as a valid excuse for all the headaches the record companies are causing, but it's maybe a slightly optimistic take on it all.
This really confused me for a long time. Her usual response was "But I don't know macs, I know my computer." I finally realized that she doesn't know any computer, she knows at most, a little about outlook express. Furthermore, she doesn't want to learn anything, which is why all my attempts to upgrade her equipment or to teach her anything haven't worked.
Now my mom can't be swayed by her own son, a definate windows hater, and someone she would readily admit knows about a billion times more about computers than her. Take some guy off the street with no knowledge, no desire to gain knowledge, and no child to constantly assult you with that knowledge anyways, and you've got a permenently uniformed citizen. They don't want to learn, trying to teach them isn't going to help, we just need to minimize their impact as much as possible, and wait for the world to pass them over. It won't be much longer.
For God's sake...Get rid of that threatening pelican. You need something a little less scary...like an inanimate piece of fruit, or something with nice geometric shapes and primary colors. Not some obviously deranged and scheming bird with a sharp looking beak.
I mean capitalism as the driving force of society. That's how I'd define it. Not by its ideals, but by it's actual implementation.
I don't see how any sort of legal or patent system can fail to see the goofiness of all of this. How can you patent something like a normal business process. Something so vague as "one-click shopping"...that's like a normal store patenting displaying merchandise in a window. And this article bashing wired for following the "info should be free" line of thought just shows how quickly the internet is being lost to the capitalists. While capitalism is alright in and of itself, its ideals don't really mesh all that nicely with the ideals that helped found the internet. It's interesting how in our current society and economy, information and money can sometimes go hand and hand, yet at the same time, be going head to head. I think it's silly to try and predict how this will turn out even 3 or 4 years from now, but I seriously don't like how things are looking.
I honestly think that linux is going to hurt itself by attempting to go mainstream right now. Any inroads that it makes into the average home right now will be based on hype. Hype spread by underinformed media to completely uninformed people. The hype that everyone is hearing about doesn't flaunt the technical marvels of linux, because the average person doesn't understand or care about that. Any computer novice that tries to install linux will run into problems, they'll get super frustrated, they'll hate it, and that'll be the end of it for them, back to windows. When linux gets all of this cleared up, it'll be too late.
And how many games have you played where you score points for sticking a gun under a desk and shooting a scared kid, or firing wildly into an unarmed crowd of civilians? The parallels being drawn between these real life incidents and video games are kind of silly. How about kids playing with those little plastic green army men? Sure they're a little less hi-tech, but it's the same line of thought as a video game, simulating war and conflict. And people die in war and conflict. That's the way it goes, for better or for worse.
And why do they always bring up Doom? The only way doom would drive me to kill is maybe cause I'd be pissy cause I couldn't afford a computer new enough to play at least quake.
God has given us the ability to choose for ourselves if there is even an existance of a higher power. I think an "insecure God" wouldn't allow that. Not agreeing with organized religion is fair enough, but despising and detesting any and all forms of organized religion? That seems a bit judgemental and ignorant.
I definately agree here. I'm a huge fan of Apple because their products are excellent, and the whole user community is a really nice thing. But defending this sort of decision just doesn't make sense. There's no excuse for screwing over customers like that. Yeah, motorola messed up, and it could hurt Apple financially some. But it seems to me that Apple can take a little financial hit right about now. In the personal computer industry, the average consumer can't understand the specs between two machines, which is why hype and pr are so effective. A big thing like this is far worse for apple than a lower profit per G4. As for the Mac-fanatics, yeah, some people are going to try to excuse apple, but don't take that too seriously. The wintel and oss groups have their own obsessed diehards that refuse to admit wrong doing as well.