I may be risking all my claims to femininity here, but for me it's Dr. Pepper, Pizza, and Steve Reich coming out of the speakers. (N.B. "coming out of the speakers" refers only to Steve Reich, not to the soda or the pie.)
As a member of the female species, I would like to nominate my trifecta: A healthy and nutritious alfalfa salad; some Evian water (in the branded bottle, of course); and an episode of "Sex and the City" playing in the background.
I mean, get serious. Having a manicure? Whilst trying to type? I'm not gonna let anyone be in my vicinity while I'm coding, let alone some vapid manicurist. Sheesh.
Yeah - there were loads of pirated editions of books in previous centuries, too. You'll often find a first edition published in London and then a couple of editions published very soon after usually in Dublin - seems to have been a centre for book piracy in the eighteenth century.
I'm with you. I recently started a policy of (mainly) only reading books that have won awards - don't get me wrong, I'm including things like the Eisner, the Hugo, and the Golden Dagger, so it's not just wanky fancy shit, but I've found it's made a huge difference. I'm enjoying my reading-time a lot, lot more. Okay, I'll miss some good stuff, but I'm also a lot less likely to have to wade through loads of trash, or to fall for the ubiquitous 3 for 2 offers that seem to suck cash out of my bank account if I so much as look at them.
"books (both print and e/kindle) are priced fairly"
Hrm... I think I may have to disagree. As an academic, I see a lot of overpricing of niche books, on the basis that libraries will pay that amount for them. There's also the issue that hardcovers cost very little more to produce yet incur a big price-hike and are usually out for quite a while before softcovers, essentially forcing you to pay a premium for an "advantage" that gains you very little.
But yeah, if people can charge £15 for a CD, I think £8 for a book is not so bad. Costs about the same as going to the movies, and the fun lasts a lot longer!
Not much difference between the two in the earlier period, really. There are still people who argue that Christianity is no more than a sect of Judaism. Historically they're right, although theologically I can't see any real way to fit Christianity within Judaism any more.
That only works in a binary system - God/No God. If I choose the Muslim God, and there's a Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Jain, Sikh, or any other type of God, I'm as screwed as an atheist is. If I choose the Jewish God but God is really the Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or any other God, I'm as screwed as an atheist is.
And don't jump to assumptions - I do believe, just not in the divinity of Jesus.
"Jews back then kept a record of pretty much everything they did"
How do you know? Because surely, if there were things they didn't keep records of, we wouldn't have any records to tell us there were no records? Seriously, am I missing something? Perhaps you mean that there are no externally-verified events which are not also internally-verified? But then I think my objection still applies...
Either way, I'm not particularly invested in the question of whether J was real or not, but I've read some relatively convincing books that suggest he did have an historical existence. If you want to point me at some scholarship that gives the opposite pov, I'd be grateful (no sarcasm!)
I think calling the Bible a "work of fiction" is ingenuous. Whether or not you believe in the supernatural parts of it, there's a lot there that has to be classified as non-fiction in some way or another. The law codes, for example, are clearly not "fiction" in the recognised sense of the term - they're codifications of precepts by which people did, and still do, live their lives. So, yes, it's an utterly frustrating task to try to interpret what's there in the Bible, but we can't write the entire thing off as fiction even if it makes our lives easier to do so.
Okay, okay, I bow to your superior knowledge. I've read some persuasive historical studies that suggest otherwise, but it makes little difference to me, to be honest. I do find it hard to believe that this whole bloody thing grew up out of nowhere - that some randomers decided to invent a fictional human being and base a whole new religion around him... But I guess it happens.
There is already evidence for the existence of Jesus - the fact that he was an historical figure is pretty much accepted. Proof that he was actually God - now, that would be the big thing! It's not going to be found, though, for one of two reasons:
a) If it were proven, there would be no more need for faith, and that would undermine the whole raison d'etre of religion.
"Suddenly is was no longer possible for the monks to censor religious or political incorrect ideas."
You think? They may have lost some control over what was actually produced, but the Church and the State compensated for that by introducing draconian laws about things like heresy which effectively forced writers to self-censor. 1401, England, De Haeretico Comburendo - from this point on, heretics would be burned at the stake, which is exactly what happened to poor old William Tyndale when he dared to translate the Bible into English.
If you can't control the actual productions, all you need is to legislate against content you don't like and provide sufficiently harsh penalties for contravention. Plenty of states are still using this model - China, North Korea, Iran, etc.
Yeah, I guess that's probably true, too. But in the situation that the article is talking about - where there are few legal ways of getting movies via the internet - all the studios would likely see would be a decrease in pay-per-view and DVD sales. Until they rework the system and come up with a good download service that actually offers what customers want, rather than a tiny selection of movies for a limited time, they're going to find it hard to compete with the torrents which offer pretty much everything for free download. iTunes for movies would benefit from shorter downloads, but until it can actually offer the content that customers want it's effectively hamstrung.
I agree with you, but I think there's an important point to be made about this, which Manjoo also hinted at. If the studios and so on don't start changing their business model to tap in to the internet market and clean up obsolete restrictions (like 24 hrs to watch), people will get the movies illegally. Some people will get them illegally anyway, but a decent, legal service would be a big draw and would remove the kind of argument that says "well, they don't want to provide me with their stuff legally, so I may as well get it illegally".
Technically, you're right. But it doesn't work like iTunes - it has a very limited range of movies on offer and the prices are often not at all competitive. If you're outside the US, the range of stuff on offer is even worse, and the prices are much more prohibitive. So although it runs out of the iTunes store, it's very far from being an iTunes for movies in anything but name.
Interesting article. It seems that the studios etc. are wary of losing the guaranteed revenue that comes from the premium and pay-per-view TV channels. But what happens when these channels wise up to the fact that an increasing number of people are getting these films for free online? Will they become more reluctant to pay the studios for the right to show a movie that everyone's already seen via bittorrent?
Does anyone have any figures on how pay-per-view services are doing? I wouldn't be surprised to see that the number of people paying for the Hollywood blockbusters is on a downward trend as broadband speeds increase.
I'm amazed no-one's mentioned Greg Egan's Permutation City yet - this is pretty much the concept of the novel. What happens when you can save a whole person onto a computer and let them loose in a virtual reality? And what happens if the original of the copy is still alive and controlling the copy's ability to interact with its surroundings?
Only for certain values of "EVERYONE", surely? After all, the guys making the money aren't going to lose. More ads might start to help the situation, without really hampering the user experience. And an upgradable paid service (e.g. you can upload up to n videos with a free account; upgrade to a paid account for more) would bring in some revenue without completely shutting out any users. A lot of what's on YouTube is duplicated content - setting a limit on free uploads would surely streamline the service for users, too.
Just keeping out of the way of oppressive laws is certainly one option, but acting so as to expose the unjust nature of those laws is also a valid response and, I would argue, a particularly moral one, too.
Change through democratic process? How is that possible when the mechanisms of democracy have themselves been legislated out of existence?
Yes, it was a Godwinism, but at least it was to the point - plenty of foreign nationals broke Germany's laws in order to save Jews and others from the Nazis. According to your account of things, they should have stayed home.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh! Absolutely.
I may be risking all my claims to femininity here, but for me it's Dr. Pepper, Pizza, and Steve Reich coming out of the speakers. (N.B. "coming out of the speakers" refers only to Steve Reich, not to the soda or the pie.)
As a member of the female species, I would like to nominate my trifecta: A healthy and nutritious alfalfa salad; some Evian water (in the branded bottle, of course); and an episode of "Sex and the City" playing in the background.
I mean, get serious. Having a manicure? Whilst trying to type? I'm not gonna let anyone be in my vicinity while I'm coding, let alone some vapid manicurist. Sheesh.
Because it excites them sexually? Man, I'm gonna get onto this copyright-violation thing if it's as good as licking your own balls...
Yeah - there were loads of pirated editions of books in previous centuries, too. You'll often find a first edition published in London and then a couple of editions published very soon after usually in Dublin - seems to have been a centre for book piracy in the eighteenth century.
In an ideal world, yes. In our world, social control over who gets paid to write = very bad idea.
I'm with you. I recently started a policy of (mainly) only reading books that have won awards - don't get me wrong, I'm including things like the Eisner, the Hugo, and the Golden Dagger, so it's not just wanky fancy shit, but I've found it's made a huge difference. I'm enjoying my reading-time a lot, lot more. Okay, I'll miss some good stuff, but I'm also a lot less likely to have to wade through loads of trash, or to fall for the ubiquitous 3 for 2 offers that seem to suck cash out of my bank account if I so much as look at them.
"books (both print and e/kindle) are priced fairly"
Hrm... I think I may have to disagree. As an academic, I see a lot of overpricing of niche books, on the basis that libraries will pay that amount for them. There's also the issue that hardcovers cost very little more to produce yet incur a big price-hike and are usually out for quite a while before softcovers, essentially forcing you to pay a premium for an "advantage" that gains you very little.
But yeah, if people can charge £15 for a CD, I think £8 for a book is not so bad. Costs about the same as going to the movies, and the fun lasts a lot longer!
Not much difference between the two in the earlier period, really. There are still people who argue that Christianity is no more than a sect of Judaism. Historically they're right, although theologically I can't see any real way to fit Christianity within Judaism any more.
'kay - I'd read differently, but I guess you have more experience in this than I do.
That only works in a binary system - God/No God. If I choose the Muslim God, and there's a Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Jain, Sikh, or any other type of God, I'm as screwed as an atheist is. If I choose the Jewish God but God is really the Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or any other God, I'm as screwed as an atheist is.
And don't jump to assumptions - I do believe, just not in the divinity of Jesus.
"Jews back then kept a record of pretty much everything they did"
How do you know? Because surely, if there were things they didn't keep records of, we wouldn't have any records to tell us there were no records? Seriously, am I missing something? Perhaps you mean that there are no externally-verified events which are not also internally-verified? But then I think my objection still applies...
Either way, I'm not particularly invested in the question of whether J was real or not, but I've read some relatively convincing books that suggest he did have an historical existence. If you want to point me at some scholarship that gives the opposite pov, I'd be grateful (no sarcasm!)
I think calling the Bible a "work of fiction" is ingenuous. Whether or not you believe in the supernatural parts of it, there's a lot there that has to be classified as non-fiction in some way or another. The law codes, for example, are clearly not "fiction" in the recognised sense of the term - they're codifications of precepts by which people did, and still do, live their lives. So, yes, it's an utterly frustrating task to try to interpret what's there in the Bible, but we can't write the entire thing off as fiction even if it makes our lives easier to do so.
Okay, okay, I bow to your superior knowledge. I've read some persuasive historical studies that suggest otherwise, but it makes little difference to me, to be honest. I do find it hard to believe that this whole bloody thing grew up out of nowhere - that some randomers decided to invent a fictional human being and base a whole new religion around him... But I guess it happens.
"the message is one of peace, forgiveness, trying to help others and no violence!"
Have you read the New Testament?
John 3:18: "...whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
There's a big Christian movement out there which doesn't believe in this, which is nice and all, but it's not what their Scripture actually teaches.
There is already evidence for the existence of Jesus - the fact that he was an historical figure is pretty much accepted. Proof that he was actually God - now, that would be the big thing! It's not going to be found, though, for one of two reasons:
a) If it were proven, there would be no more need for faith, and that would undermine the whole raison d'etre of religion.
or
b) It isn't true.
I subscribe to b); YMMV.
"Suddenly is was no longer possible for the monks to censor religious or political incorrect ideas."
You think? They may have lost some control over what was actually produced, but the Church and the State compensated for that by introducing draconian laws about things like heresy which effectively forced writers to self-censor. 1401, England, De Haeretico Comburendo - from this point on, heretics would be burned at the stake, which is exactly what happened to poor old William Tyndale when he dared to translate the Bible into English.
If you can't control the actual productions, all you need is to legislate against content you don't like and provide sufficiently harsh penalties for contravention. Plenty of states are still using this model - China, North Korea, Iran, etc.
Yeah, I guess that's probably true, too. But in the situation that the article is talking about - where there are few legal ways of getting movies via the internet - all the studios would likely see would be a decrease in pay-per-view and DVD sales. Until they rework the system and come up with a good download service that actually offers what customers want, rather than a tiny selection of movies for a limited time, they're going to find it hard to compete with the torrents which offer pretty much everything for free download. iTunes for movies would benefit from shorter downloads, but until it can actually offer the content that customers want it's effectively hamstrung.
I agree with you, but I think there's an important point to be made about this, which Manjoo also hinted at. If the studios and so on don't start changing their business model to tap in to the internet market and clean up obsolete restrictions (like 24 hrs to watch), people will get the movies illegally. Some people will get them illegally anyway, but a decent, legal service would be a big draw and would remove the kind of argument that says "well, they don't want to provide me with their stuff legally, so I may as well get it illegally".
Technically, you're right. But it doesn't work like iTunes - it has a very limited range of movies on offer and the prices are often not at all competitive. If you're outside the US, the range of stuff on offer is even worse, and the prices are much more prohibitive. So although it runs out of the iTunes store, it's very far from being an iTunes for movies in anything but name.
Interesting article. It seems that the studios etc. are wary of losing the guaranteed revenue that comes from the premium and pay-per-view TV channels. But what happens when these channels wise up to the fact that an increasing number of people are getting these films for free online? Will they become more reluctant to pay the studios for the right to show a movie that everyone's already seen via bittorrent?
Does anyone have any figures on how pay-per-view services are doing? I wouldn't be surprised to see that the number of people paying for the Hollywood blockbusters is on a downward trend as broadband speeds increase.
Great novel.
I dunno - I could watch the dramatic chipmunk for hours without getting bored, which is more than can be said for Stuart Little...
Only for certain values of "EVERYONE", surely? After all, the guys making the money aren't going to lose. More ads might start to help the situation, without really hampering the user experience. And an upgradable paid service (e.g. you can upload up to n videos with a free account; upgrade to a paid account for more) would bring in some revenue without completely shutting out any users. A lot of what's on YouTube is duplicated content - setting a limit on free uploads would surely streamline the service for users, too.
I have a doctorate in English literature, you insensitive clod!
No, seriously, I actually do. And I earn less than the minimum wage.
Just keeping out of the way of oppressive laws is certainly one option, but acting so as to expose the unjust nature of those laws is also a valid response and, I would argue, a particularly moral one, too.
Change through democratic process? How is that possible when the mechanisms of democracy have themselves been legislated out of existence?
Yes, it was a Godwinism, but at least it was to the point - plenty of foreign nationals broke Germany's laws in order to save Jews and others from the Nazis. According to your account of things, they should have stayed home.