to reduce warfare! Ban Monopoly to reduce greed! Ban Poker to reduce deception! Games don't cause the darker side of human nature...they allow a safe acceptable way to explore it in symbolic simulacrum.
Intellectual honesty? Your conclusions and arguments imply that you haven't even read the original article. Nowhere in the article is it implied that this was a "scientific" study. It was an analysis of a online media marketing campaign. It was not just done by "someone" but by Big Champagne. They have been making a profitable business out of analyzing P2P data for the media industry since the old school Napster days. Google them, I did. Eric Garland, CEO and the co-author of the study, is quoted nowhere in the article drawing a conclusion such as "downloads==good." You can make the original study say whatever you want it to say, but you aren't even trying. Garland's own conclusions: "Rights-holders should be aware that these non-traditional venues are stubbornly entrenched, incredibly popular and will never go away," and "The expectation among rights-holders is that, in order to create a success story, you must reduce the rate of piracy - we've found that is not the case." If anything, the conclusion of this industry study is better over-simplified as "downloads unstoppable" and "downloads do not equal bad." That sure sounds like intellectual honesty and middle ground to me. I suppose that one could argue that the Radiohead release is too narrow a set of data to draw these conclusions, but Big Champagne has been analyzing a massive amount of P2P data for the last 8 years. It is just my belief that Garland's conclusions are as qualitatively based on that experience as they are quantitatively based on In Rainbows. This is suddenoutbreakofcommonsense material here. These are the things "we" have been saying all along!
Napster's original centralized server getting taken down was high profile and had long term ramifications: it led directly to BitTorrent. Only one "hard core" person created it and now an estimated 18-35% of all broadband traffic is BT. This probably could have been forestalled if instead of trying in vain to kill P2P at the time, they had been more willing to compete and distribute songs online as they do now. I don't see the conditions that you have set for their victory being met now or anytime in the near future without outright criminalization of connecting to P2P. Even that wouldn't do it because I think ripping friends' discs and copying their media libraries is already a far bigger problem for the industry than P2P. I have never seen anyone seem afraid when asked if they wanted to rip a CD. Much more instillation of fear will be needed apparently...maybe another high profile lawsuit might accomplish that?
The RIAA/MPAA continue to view P2P as a phenomenon that can be somehow eradicated or at least controlled by attacking it with a combination of technology and lawsuits. The ironic thing is even while most of these countermeasures don't even work at all, when they do the effect is short term and ends up serving as a sort of selection pressure to force P2P to evolve and adapt. I think before too long most BT searches will be decentralized. Most of the geek barrier problem with BT is that it involves browsing outside of the application to download files that are not even the files you really want. Forcing BT to work around this is just hastening the development of a client that eliminates all of this from the GUI and is 3 clicks easy for everyone to use. Then TSWHTF.
My theory is that some observers did not get the joke because the dimming effects of interstellar dust partially obscured its hilarity. This effect could be increased if observers are viewing the joke edge-on. Some hilarious jokes may even be completely undetectable to some observers. If my theory is true, most comments on/. may actually be twice as funny as they seem.
You misunderstand. I am not ignoring these things. I am paraphrasing the entire parent comment by Dputiger to make a mockery of it, because I thought it was an empty, indirect, and self-contradictory exhortation to fear and obey. I don't mean to be negative, but I hate that sort of thing for some reason. I completely agree with you that "obey or you will deserve it" is a stupid idea. It is so for eeryone regardless of any special circumstances such as you mention. It is anathema to our basic ideals of freedom.
Hysterical!! (Rhetorical question that really posits the thesis opinion that they all deserve it anyway.) Police work is hard and dangerous. Non-lethal weapons like Tasers are a needed tactical substitute for lethal force that can save lives; therefore, we shouldn't question the police. For fear of this weapon, obey the police or else you will deserve it like the rest of them. Few people have died when shot with this weapon, in most of those cases it wasn't even possible to attribute their cause of death to being shot with the weapon. (Rhetorical question that implies that police use of Tasers is almost always appropriate, therefore deserved.) Please allow me to sound reasonable by trotting out tired concessions like "There are a few bad apples" and "Hey, $H!# happens!" If a person were to be killed through police misuse of a Taser, of course the officer should be charged; but this is only a rhetorical possibility and has yet to occur, despite my admission to the contrary in the previous sentence. I also dismiss accusations that such things may happen by limiting the evidence only to that which say I have seen. If you really fear this weapon then fear the police and obey or you will deserve it like the rest of them.
Respectfully, I don't agree with the argument you are making here. First of all, these days the camera and the "camcorder" are often the very same tool. How is it that pressing one button on it makes one strive to create something beautiful, while pressing a different button to record video causes one to stop wanting to make art and instead desire to go yell at the house cat? Since when has it not been the major consumer use of still photography to record antics and personally meaningful things, not necessarily art? There is plenty of art and banal crap on both Flickr and Youtube. I am also a little confused by the argument that video is more technically difficult, therefore people do mindlessly artless things with it. The idea that some media just don't make for "good" (or is it "real") art is very old and has been debunked over and over again. Photography was initially discounted by artists as a medium of record, like a scientific process of measurement. All you had to do was press the release, and all of the subtlety of the image was just created by the process. Anyone could do it. There was no skill or hand of the artist in the creation of it; therefore, it was not art. You sound like you love photography so I don't think I need to argue to you why that really isn't true at all.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&ct=5&w=all&q=bill's+party&m=texthttp://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22video+art%22&search_type=
I think the idea is to hire all the ruthless people, not kill them. Then you have them kill all the defiant people, including the ruthless ones. I wonder if they can discover a gene for defiance?
That hasn't been my experience at all. It's paranoia even when they are out to get you. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Maybe I should have posted this anonymously.
The story says that the connections are expected to to enhance economic growth and internet literacy, which makes sense to me. It makes me uneasy to hear insinuations from presumably intelligent people that a developing and/or Muslim nation has little need for broadband except as a weapon. The story about ambition to use the internet as a weapon is over here: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/02/1734212
OK, I'm back from the FAQ I found out what moderation points are and who they are and I want to thank them for them. Also hi there to them and nice place you have here...and I'll try to post less vapid crap. Cheers.
What are moderator points? I saw somewhere that I got some but they expire soon. I'm off to the Google. While I'm at it, I'm going to find out who they are and order some peetzha.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article: "NASA reserves the right to choose an appropriate name."
to reduce warfare! Ban Monopoly to reduce greed! Ban Poker to reduce deception! Games don't cause the darker side of human nature...they allow a safe acceptable way to explore it in symbolic simulacrum.
these [censored] wars have.
It will be compatible with the new Phillips Electronics actuated rumble pants.
You mean your YQ.
We might have a non-invasive method to tell if the guy you are torturing is just making stuff up to get you to stop torturing him.
that primates can plan ahead!
I don't have heat and my room is the warmest room in the house with 3 computers and CRT's running in it.
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html The answer to "Why is the sky blue?" is reproduced from copyrighted material at sciencemadesimple.com
Intellectual honesty? Your conclusions and arguments imply that you haven't even read the original article. Nowhere in the article is it implied that this was a "scientific" study. It was an analysis of a online media marketing campaign. It was not just done by "someone" but by Big Champagne. They have been making a profitable business out of analyzing P2P data for the media industry since the old school Napster days. Google them, I did. Eric Garland, CEO and the co-author of the study, is quoted nowhere in the article drawing a conclusion such as "downloads==good." You can make the original study say whatever you want it to say, but you aren't even trying. Garland's own conclusions: "Rights-holders should be aware that these non-traditional venues are stubbornly entrenched, incredibly popular and will never go away," and "The expectation among rights-holders is that, in order to create a success story, you must reduce the rate of piracy - we've found that is not the case." If anything, the conclusion of this industry study is better over-simplified as "downloads unstoppable" and "downloads do not equal bad." That sure sounds like intellectual honesty and middle ground to me. I suppose that one could argue that the Radiohead release is too narrow a set of data to draw these conclusions, but Big Champagne has been analyzing a massive amount of P2P data for the last 8 years. It is just my belief that Garland's conclusions are as qualitatively based on that experience as they are quantitatively based on In Rainbows. This is suddenoutbreakofcommonsense material here. These are the things "we" have been saying all along!
Dear Sir, Those who politely sacrifice liberty for security especially deserve neither. Cheers!
If you want XP without any bells or whistles, try it you'll like it.
Napster's original centralized server getting taken down was high profile and had long term ramifications: it led directly to BitTorrent. Only one "hard core" person created it and now an estimated 18-35% of all broadband traffic is BT. This probably could have been forestalled if instead of trying in vain to kill P2P at the time, they had been more willing to compete and distribute songs online as they do now. I don't see the conditions that you have set for their victory being met now or anytime in the near future without outright criminalization of connecting to P2P. Even that wouldn't do it because I think ripping friends' discs and copying their media libraries is already a far bigger problem for the industry than P2P. I have never seen anyone seem afraid when asked if they wanted to rip a CD. Much more instillation of fear will be needed apparently...maybe another high profile lawsuit might accomplish that?
The RIAA/MPAA continue to view P2P as a phenomenon that can be somehow eradicated or at least controlled by attacking it with a combination of technology and lawsuits. The ironic thing is even while most of these countermeasures don't even work at all, when they do the effect is short term and ends up serving as a sort of selection pressure to force P2P to evolve and adapt. I think before too long most BT searches will be decentralized. Most of the geek barrier problem with BT is that it involves browsing outside of the application to download files that are not even the files you really want. Forcing BT to work around this is just hastening the development of a client that eliminates all of this from the GUI and is 3 clicks easy for everyone to use. Then TSWHTF.
My theory is that some observers did not get the joke because the dimming effects of interstellar dust partially obscured its hilarity. This effect could be increased if observers are viewing the joke edge-on. Some hilarious jokes may even be completely undetectable to some observers. If my theory is true, most comments on /. may actually be twice as funny as they seem.
You misunderstand. I am not ignoring these things. I am paraphrasing the entire parent comment by Dputiger to make a mockery of it, because I thought it was an empty, indirect, and self-contradictory exhortation to fear and obey. I don't mean to be negative, but I hate that sort of thing for some reason. I completely agree with you that "obey or you will deserve it" is a stupid idea. It is so for eeryone regardless of any special circumstances such as you mention. It is anathema to our basic ideals of freedom.
Hysterical!! (Rhetorical question that really posits the thesis opinion that they all deserve it anyway.) Police work is hard and dangerous. Non-lethal weapons like Tasers are a needed tactical substitute for lethal force that can save lives; therefore, we shouldn't question the police. For fear of this weapon, obey the police or else you will deserve it like the rest of them. Few people have died when shot with this weapon, in most of those cases it wasn't even possible to attribute their cause of death to being shot with the weapon. (Rhetorical question that implies that police use of Tasers is almost always appropriate, therefore deserved.) Please allow me to sound reasonable by trotting out tired concessions like "There are a few bad apples" and "Hey, $H!# happens!" If a person were to be killed through police misuse of a Taser, of course the officer should be charged; but this is only a rhetorical possibility and has yet to occur, despite my admission to the contrary in the previous sentence. I also dismiss accusations that such things may happen by limiting the evidence only to that which say I have seen. If you really fear this weapon then fear the police and obey or you will deserve it like the rest of them.
Would put a very entertaining spin on the MacGyver character.
I'm excited about it because now I can post my 360 x 180 panoramas as QTVR MOVs.
Respectfully, I don't agree with the argument you are making here. First of all, these days the camera and the "camcorder" are often the very same tool. How is it that pressing one button on it makes one strive to create something beautiful, while pressing a different button to record video causes one to stop wanting to make art and instead desire to go yell at the house cat? Since when has it not been the major consumer use of still photography to record antics and personally meaningful things, not necessarily art? There is plenty of art and banal crap on both Flickr and Youtube. I am also a little confused by the argument that video is more technically difficult, therefore people do mindlessly artless things with it. The idea that some media just don't make for "good" (or is it "real") art is very old and has been debunked over and over again. Photography was initially discounted by artists as a medium of record, like a scientific process of measurement. All you had to do was press the release, and all of the subtlety of the image was just created by the process. Anyone could do it. There was no skill or hand of the artist in the creation of it; therefore, it was not art. You sound like you love photography so I don't think I need to argue to you why that really isn't true at all. http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&ct=5&w=all&q=bill's+party&m=text http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22video+art%22&search_type=
I think the idea is to hire all the ruthless people, not kill them. Then you have them kill all the defiant people, including the ruthless ones. I wonder if they can discover a gene for defiance?
That hasn't been my experience at all. It's paranoia even when they are out to get you. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Maybe I should have posted this anonymously.
The story says that the connections are expected to to enhance economic growth and internet literacy, which makes sense to me. It makes me uneasy to hear insinuations from presumably intelligent people that a developing and/or Muslim nation has little need for broadband except as a weapon. The story about ambition to use the internet as a weapon is over here: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/02/1734212
OK, I'm back from the FAQ I found out what moderation points are and who they are and I want to thank them for them. Also hi there to them and nice place you have here...and I'll try to post less vapid crap. Cheers.
What are moderator points? I saw somewhere that I got some but they expire soon. I'm off to the Google. While I'm at it, I'm going to find out who they are and order some peetzha.