Sure, as long as you mail the band a check* afterward. Because trust me: they don't have the money that you think they do, and downloads do hurt the artist directly, not only from lost sales but also in contract negotiations ("you have 10,000 fans? that's not what our numbers say").
Practicing civil disobedience and being socially irresponsible are different animals.
I have no idea how that would work with movie studios, however.
This happened to Wilco after one of their albums leaked, they made about $15,000 but donated it to Doctors Without Borders, then made triple their production costs back by getting signed to a different label. The whole thing was incredible example of what's possible when the RIAA moves the hell out of the way (but fans retain their principles).
I understand that part but where I'm from we have a lot of sin taxes that don't affect the public health, like taxes on gambling and tattoos. Some places even have taxes on illegal drugs. The taxes tend to be on activities that are also restricted...in my state only certain forms of gambling are allowed, and then only in certain places. There's no alcohol sold after 9pm or on a Sunday.
Likewise, there are many socially acceptable but healthcare-cost-creating things, like becoming obese, that are not taxed. People wouldn't stand for that, at least not in the US. My guess is that it's because stepping on a scale just feels more police-statish, but taxing cigarettes is indirect enough that it doesn't bother folks in the same way.
Video games contribute to a sedentary lifestyle, so why not tax them to the degree that a statistical link can be verified? Frankly I think the answer is that "because more people play games on Slashdot than smoke". It's not that one tax is fair and the other isn't, because you could always make the video game tax lower to match the amount of evidence.
The taxes exist to raise revenue and discourage somewhat-unacceptable activities and I'm sure they existed in most places before state healthcare was in place. If anything, the push to tax violent video games should be proving to everyone exactly what a sin tax is about: a tax that gets levied because complaining about it makes you look like a bad guy.
So most of Slashdot seems to be ok with the present sin taxes, on things like alcohol and tobacco. But they are not ok when video games are involved. I can't say I'm surprised.
Try to understand that a lot of people see vice taxes the way that you see violent video game taxes: completely ridiculous. A cash grab, an attempt to tell people how to behave without having to meet the criteria for making something illegal, and a situation where the rich have more freedoms than the poor.
Why not have a fat tax? Fat people do way more harm to the public health. The short answer is that in America we don't base everything around whether or not it affects society at large. We value the individual freedoms first.
What about tattoos? Those are often taxed above and beyond regular sales tax. What are the negative effects on society?
What about gambling?
Sin taxes are not about making up for extra money spent on the consequences of the "sins". It is about squeezing a little extra from the minority because everyone else will say, "yeah, screw those inconsiderate smokers, let 'em pay more!"
You can in fact be sued by the people on your street for not mowing your lawn, many neighborhoods have such agreements. Granted, that's not the government, but it's the same result: people get to enforce their will on you, and make a little money (in the form of increased property value). The difference with the government is that you don't get to decide which "neighborhood" of the world to be born in.
If you're born into a place where everyone else has decided that body art is a Bad Thing and where the government is opportunistic to make a little money by building a thicker wall around that ghetto, then so be it, time to pay up.
Heh, I'm not a twitter developer. I didn't intend to compare it to the telephone, that's for sure. It's a cute toy.
It's basically replaced IM for me, and in some cases short emails. I understand that it gets mentioned way too much on CNN, etc, and trust me I cringe as much as anyone else when that happens. But it's not like the world's gonna end because people are firing off quick messages from their phones.
It's like RSS...I don't need it, but I like it. I'm sure I could karma whore a little bit by making disparaging comments about it but the fact is it's interesting and somewhat useful.
Oh, I wasn't trying to make a definitive statement or proposition one way or the other. Just saying that that's how it's going to be presented to my government by the industry lobbyists. "Look, we got stricter and they went legal! I guess it was just about getting something for nothing after all." It saddens me.
The game I've logged in the most hours on recently was Road Rash 3, and before that it was Cool Spot. For whatever reason I just never got over the allure of 16-bit gaming, especially platformers and beat-'em-ups.
But I think you could make a clear case that the camera systems in 3D platformers have come pretty far since the early ones. The checks against "is the camera about to end up somewhere really stupid?" have gotten more involved. I don't remember even noting the camera in, say, Okami.
Just to play DA...what about passwords that are over 12 characters because they're a string of words?
Like HelloBeanSmile instead of !09jxkleZ. I'd probably have an easier time remembering the long url, assuming I understand "what it meant"...I don't even bother trying to remember YouTube URLs.
You're spot on about the problem of typing what you hear instead of what needs to be spelled, grey/gray, etc. Longer URLs introduce the problem of homophones and the awkardness of pronouncing syntax characters, even slashdot.org is an example of that.
It's not quite the same thing, but I went back and played Mario 64 recently and was frustrated by how primitive the camera system is compared to newer 3D games. You feel like you're fighting with it the whole time. It's still one of my favorite games, but hey, progress is progress.
I tend to be a skeptic as a rule but the more I've read on this the more I see of the opposite: that is, the scientists generally agree, but the few that don't get played up in the media because the politicians love to give them undue credit. And of course there are a whole raft full of people (usually House reps) who have opinions on these matters but aren't actually scientists or citing scientific journals.
Even on this board I see that: the couple of actual climate scientists that frequent slashdot are damn sure of AGW, while people afraid of the political implications trot out already-debunked links to Watts' blog or what have you. I don't know if it's the underdog effect or a general dislike of Al Gore and his ilk, but somewhere in all this people seem to be ignoring the science and just assuming it's a liberal vs. conservative thing.
Most of the arguments I see and hear, and CNN is no exception, include things like "it's a cycle", "it's the sun", "it's water vapor", "it's orbits", "it's volcanos"...these have all been accounted for. Then you get your "the models are flawed" (how?), "there's no consensus", and so on. Again, the sort of thing a quick googling will fix. But much like with evolution vs. creationism, the anti-science crowd gets the benefit of using these quick arguments that take a long time to properly debunk, and they circle around like memes forever as new groups of people say "guess what I heard on CNN! I knew all those scientists were full of it!"
I'm not saying that you're wrong for questioning anybody, since that's always the right approach. But I have to point out that what I have seen in terms of money and politics with this issue has been the opposite. There is big, big money in showing that global warming science is flawed. Probably a Nobel prize too. No one has stepped up to the plate.
And you're right...I'm sure there are a number of politicians who'd love to use climate change as a vehicle for pushing one policy or another through, just as every single company this year miraculously "went green". But who said we had to listen to the politicians in the first place? This research has been out there, in some cases for decades, and all I say definitively is I'm doing my best to catch up on it now and IMO there is a massively solid case for AGW. Which is unsettling.
$260 from his aunt in a nursing home is not substantial. If there's talk of that number being higher than I hope the accusers had hard evidence and it isn't just another "birth certificate" story.
Not that I'm not infuriated by his reversal on wiretapping.
As someone who had previously read the book, I felt that it's not a story that translates well to film, and on top of that Snyder's "style" (lots of slo-mo with those low whooshy sounds) distracts too much from the little bit of story they left in.
As an action movie, it's very different and you may appreciate and enjoy that difference. Watchmen broke enough cliches 20 years ago that even now told as a movie there are still some moments where you will be pleasantly surprised at the story-telling.
It's a good story and they got the main gist of it, but a lot the gravity of the original had to do with the time spent fleshing out the characters, time you don't have in a typical movie format. Also, the comic itself played around with the form of a comic book, for instance, there's another comic within it, and it has a few straight-up book chapters as well.
It's definitely entertaining, and it's off the beaten path. But if you like the movie you'll love the book. And I know everyone says that about everything, but I'm someone who doesn't always find that to be true and I found it to be true for Watchmen.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, as long as you mail the band a check* afterward. Because trust me: they don't have the money that you think they do, and downloads do hurt the artist directly, not only from lost sales but also in contract negotiations ("you have 10,000 fans? that's not what our numbers say").
Practicing civil disobedience and being socially irresponsible are different animals.
I have no idea how that would work with movie studios, however.
This happened to Wilco after one of their albums leaked, they made about $15,000 but donated it to Doctors Without Borders, then made triple their production costs back by getting signed to a different label. The whole thing was incredible example of what's possible when the RIAA moves the hell out of the way (but fans retain their principles).
I understand that part but where I'm from we have a lot of sin taxes that don't affect the public health, like taxes on gambling and tattoos. Some places even have taxes on illegal drugs. The taxes tend to be on activities that are also restricted...in my state only certain forms of gambling are allowed, and then only in certain places. There's no alcohol sold after 9pm or on a Sunday.
Likewise, there are many socially acceptable but healthcare-cost-creating things, like becoming obese, that are not taxed. People wouldn't stand for that, at least not in the US. My guess is that it's because stepping on a scale just feels more police-statish, but taxing cigarettes is indirect enough that it doesn't bother folks in the same way.
Video games contribute to a sedentary lifestyle, so why not tax them to the degree that a statistical link can be verified? Frankly I think the answer is that "because more people play games on Slashdot than smoke". It's not that one tax is fair and the other isn't, because you could always make the video game tax lower to match the amount of evidence.
The taxes exist to raise revenue and discourage somewhat-unacceptable activities and I'm sure they existed in most places before state healthcare was in place. If anything, the push to tax violent video games should be proving to everyone exactly what a sin tax is about: a tax that gets levied because complaining about it makes you look like a bad guy.
So most of Slashdot seems to be ok with the present sin taxes, on things like alcohol and tobacco. But they are not ok when video games are involved. I can't say I'm surprised.
Try to understand that a lot of people see vice taxes the way that you see violent video game taxes: completely ridiculous. A cash grab, an attempt to tell people how to behave without having to meet the criteria for making something illegal, and a situation where the rich have more freedoms than the poor.
Why not have a fat tax? Fat people do way more harm to the public health. The short answer is that in America we don't base everything around whether or not it affects society at large. We value the individual freedoms first.
What about tattoos? Those are often taxed above and beyond regular sales tax. What are the negative effects on society?
What about gambling?
Sin taxes are not about making up for extra money spent on the consequences of the "sins". It is about squeezing a little extra from the minority because everyone else will say, "yeah, screw those inconsiderate smokers, let 'em pay more!"
You can in fact be sued by the people on your street for not mowing your lawn, many neighborhoods have such agreements. Granted, that's not the government, but it's the same result: people get to enforce their will on you, and make a little money (in the form of increased property value). The difference with the government is that you don't get to decide which "neighborhood" of the world to be born in.
If you're born into a place where everyone else has decided that body art is a Bad Thing and where the government is opportunistic to make a little money by building a thicker wall around that ghetto, then so be it, time to pay up.
Do you guys have an actual objection to it? Is it clogging up the tubes? I don't understand.
If they did, at least they'd be less hypocritical. The Bible's pretty gruesome.
AOL circa 1997 called, they said to come back home, your dinner's getting cold.
Heh, I'm not a twitter developer. I didn't intend to compare it to the telephone, that's for sure. It's a cute toy.
It's basically replaced IM for me, and in some cases short emails. I understand that it gets mentioned way too much on CNN, etc, and trust me I cringe as much as anyone else when that happens. But it's not like the world's gonna end because people are firing off quick messages from their phones.
It's like RSS...I don't need it, but I like it. I'm sure I could karma whore a little bit by making disparaging comments about it but the fact is it's interesting and somewhat useful.
What are you talking about, they never made 3D Sonic games.
Oh, I wasn't trying to make a definitive statement or proposition one way or the other. Just saying that that's how it's going to be presented to my government by the industry lobbyists. "Look, we got stricter and they went legal! I guess it was just about getting something for nothing after all." It saddens me.
The game I've logged in the most hours on recently was Road Rash 3, and before that it was Cool Spot. For whatever reason I just never got over the allure of 16-bit gaming, especially platformers and beat-'em-ups.
But I think you could make a clear case that the camera systems in 3D platformers have come pretty far since the early ones. The checks against "is the camera about to end up somewhere really stupid?" have gotten more involved. I don't remember even noting the camera in, say, Okami.
Yes! And RSS, too. Back in my day we sent our content via carrier pigeon, and we had to train the pigeon ourselves!
Just to play DA...what about passwords that are over 12 characters because they're a string of words?
Like HelloBeanSmile instead of !09jxkleZ. I'd probably have an easier time remembering the long url, assuming I understand "what it meant"...I don't even bother trying to remember YouTube URLs.
You're spot on about the problem of typing what you hear instead of what needs to be spelled, grey/gray, etc. Longer URLs introduce the problem of homophones and the awkardness of pronouncing syntax characters, even slashdot.org is an example of that.
It's not quite the same thing, but I went back and played Mario 64 recently and was frustrated by how primitive the camera system is compared to newer 3D games. You feel like you're fighting with it the whole time. It's still one of my favorite games, but hey, progress is progress.
It sounds better than twitted, and twat is right out.
It demonstrates that it was never about sharing culture or overcoming draconian copyright. Just getting stuff for free.
At least, that's how they'll be able to sell it.
So many handbrake searches. I wonder how many people heard of lmgtfy for the first time today.
Seeing one for "dog helmets" :)
Look, Alaska has the same animals as the rest of the country. Mostly. Yeah.
I tend to be a skeptic as a rule but the more I've read on this the more I see of the opposite: that is, the scientists generally agree, but the few that don't get played up in the media because the politicians love to give them undue credit. And of course there are a whole raft full of people (usually House reps) who have opinions on these matters but aren't actually scientists or citing scientific journals.
Even on this board I see that: the couple of actual climate scientists that frequent slashdot are damn sure of AGW, while people afraid of the political implications trot out already-debunked links to Watts' blog or what have you. I don't know if it's the underdog effect or a general dislike of Al Gore and his ilk, but somewhere in all this people seem to be ignoring the science and just assuming it's a liberal vs. conservative thing.
Most of the arguments I see and hear, and CNN is no exception, include things like "it's a cycle", "it's the sun", "it's water vapor", "it's orbits", "it's volcanos"...these have all been accounted for. Then you get your "the models are flawed" (how?), "there's no consensus", and so on. Again, the sort of thing a quick googling will fix. But much like with evolution vs. creationism, the anti-science crowd gets the benefit of using these quick arguments that take a long time to properly debunk, and they circle around like memes forever as new groups of people say "guess what I heard on CNN! I knew all those scientists were full of it!"
I'm not saying that you're wrong for questioning anybody, since that's always the right approach. But I have to point out that what I have seen in terms of money and politics with this issue has been the opposite. There is big, big money in showing that global warming science is flawed. Probably a Nobel prize too. No one has stepped up to the plate.
And you're right...I'm sure there are a number of politicians who'd love to use climate change as a vehicle for pushing one policy or another through, just as every single company this year miraculously "went green". But who said we had to listen to the politicians in the first place? This research has been out there, in some cases for decades, and all I say definitively is I'm doing my best to catch up on it now and IMO there is a massively solid case for AGW. Which is unsettling.
He just gave a statement to Turkey's parliament where he actually brought up separation of church and state. He's not Bush III.
That doesn't mean he's the offspring of Zeus and the Fonz, however. In short: a politician, but not a neocon. It's progress.
$260 from his aunt in a nursing home is not substantial. If there's talk of that number being higher than I hope the accusers had hard evidence and it isn't just another "birth certificate" story.
Not that I'm not infuriated by his reversal on wiretapping.
You let your kids play with the light bulbs?
Well, you didn't ask me, but...
As someone who had previously read the book, I felt that it's not a story that translates well to film, and on top of that Snyder's "style" (lots of slo-mo with those low whooshy sounds) distracts too much from the little bit of story they left in.
As an action movie, it's very different and you may appreciate and enjoy that difference. Watchmen broke enough cliches 20 years ago that even now told as a movie there are still some moments where you will be pleasantly surprised at the story-telling.
It's a good story and they got the main gist of it, but a lot the gravity of the original had to do with the time spent fleshing out the characters, time you don't have in a typical movie format. Also, the comic itself played around with the form of a comic book, for instance, there's another comic within it, and it has a few straight-up book chapters as well.
It's definitely entertaining, and it's off the beaten path. But if you like the movie you'll love the book. And I know everyone says that about everything, but I'm someone who doesn't always find that to be true and I found it to be true for Watchmen.
Funnily enough, the Lost blogs call show extras "redshirts" because so many of them die in the same episode they debut in.
Also, giving the fans a screening before the media, that's pretty respectable.