You could be right, but, it has already started to happen to a degree, people not purchasing their products anymore. Instant gratification can be had all over the net with things that don't involve music(or porn). It's just a matter of getting the right trend going.
And of course, it starts with us as individuals. There's some artists I will buy from because of their public stance on all this, and some who will never see a dime of mine again(I used to be a big Metallica fan, now they can sod off and die now for all I care).
We can't control others, but we can control ourselves and that will influence those around us.
And really, the first time someone got fined that much for copying a CD, don't think there won't be a substantial public backlash. Instant gratification or not, being fined so severely for something so trivial will rile up oceans of illwill, of that I would bet money.
I hope it passes for that and for the tact I expect most to take... you don't need their shit, you don't need it. Why does anyone need a CD or to listen to the music produced by the people funding this? We don't.
It's not like software that we might need for work to get paid. It's not like clothing where you tend to get in trouble if you go around without it(damn conservative society). It's not like food where you starve to death without it. This is entertainment. It's just not neccessary. If they get this passed, I predict a major collapse of the recording industry as it is today. Big names will begin striking out on their own to distance themselves from the companies associated with these moves.
Sorry Metallica, U2, and whoever else, life was good before you and life will be good after you. May this legislation pass so they can have the rude awakening they so desperately deserve.
You know how I know there's no God. Because if there was, a lightning bolt would come from the sky and blast this guy to smithereens.
I've agreed with many of your posts, but I can't agree here. I'm not saying there is a God, but I could see a God with a sense of humor keeping this guy around to make him laugh. I laughed myself to tears when I read this. With just a few tweaks, this could have been a good onion article.
Whenever someone mentions classic gaming, the first device that is always mentioned is the NES... The venerable 2600 is nearly forgotten, yet it was the most prolific and the hardiest of the gaming systems. Never forget!
I see that problem too. People joke about it, and don't stop to really think of its impact. It really was a kick ass system that primed a generation to be console consumers.
I'll never forget the first time I won Adventure on level 3, or flipped asteroids, or space invaders... Let's never forget the Atari logo in Blade Runner.
In other words, you are buying into to all the anti-science propaganda.
No, in other words he's being a rational open minded person who isn't treating science like a holy can't-do-no-wrong religion. The second you stop questioning the possible ramifications of any given advance, is the second you become an unthinking true believer.
Wouldn't it have been nice if someone way back would have stopped and asked "what could possibly go wrong" when they began exploiting crude oil? Or we could go down the list of medications that have been pulled off the market by the FDA because "what could possibly go wrong" wasn't a question seriously considered early on.
Few people here who tag it are even being serious in the first place, but in humor there is terrible truth and the terrible truth is, we have to be very careful how we proceed with new developments and technologies and it needs to be done with the recognition that they can and often have had unintended consequences. That's not anti-science or irrational, that's being a realist.
I have to agree. Centralized vote counting? Forget people trying to correct their mistakes for a moment(I do think that's important though), how in the hell can people independently validate the vote tallies? In my state, the vote tallies for each precinct at the end of the day are posted outside of the voting stations. There are numerous individuals representing numerous interests who go around and count those tallies. I'm not saying my state's system is perfect or anything, but there is a degree of transparency in our system that I just can't see a central counting system ever having. Is it as "efficient"? No, but this isn't mass production in a free market for christ's sake, this is the vote of the people of our republic deciding the future of our government.
Getting back to the error getting corrected at the polling place... I saw this on several occasions having grown up in a neighborhood with a lot of seniors. When you have trembling hands, mistakes can be made. I don't see why having trembling hands should mean their vote gets disqualified as if that means they're stupid or something. There's a lot of valid physical ailments people can have that might lead to a mistake, and I personally have seen optical scanners onsite at polling stations catch them and allow the person to correct them.
Voting is indeed a serious activity, serious enough to warrant a system that concerns itself with making sure that everyone's vote gets counted accurately whether they make a mistake or not.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but politicians don't usually lie outright,
Really, so I can't take a typical politician in general and compare his campaign promises to his actions in office and find blatant inconsistencies that most reasonable people would believe indicate lies? Last time I looked it into, I was able to do just that. Maybe there's a new breed of politician out there I'm not aware of that has suddenly infiltrated the mainstream. I understand there are exceptions to this, but the last time I sincerely looked into it, it seemed to be the rule.
If you deliberately fail to mention that you didn't vote for them, you basically are at their level.
Not at all, if I were asked by them whether I voted for them or not, and dodged it, then I would be at their level. I might also fail to mention the relevant fact that I think most of them are lying sacks of shit who should be selling used cars instead of legislating the laws of our republic, but I don't see how failing to mention that puts me on their level either.
I'd vote for the N64 too - solid 3D graphics, inventing 3D genres, the triumphant return of the analog stick and 4 controller ports builtin, and load-time free carts... maybe the BEST social couch system ever, and solid for single player as well.
Everything you said. Couldn't agree more.
The 2600... you know, the very early catalog isn't that impressive, it really is a transition from the TV Pong and Tank games that proceeded it.
I would say it's true of every system in general that it's full potential is not exploited by its initial catalog of games. I'm assuming you're talking about the first 9 games for it. Sure, you could see it as a transition, but the system itself represented a substantial leap in capabilities over those dedicated pong games. Consider this... what was a greater jump... from those dedicated pong paddle games to the atari 2600, or from say, NES to SNES? Sure there's a good jump, but it didn't fundamentally alter the home video game marketplace like the 2600 jump did. It wasn't just a graphics capability and better audio jump, it was a whole new paradigm jump.
If you do call your senators for this or any reason, remember to be polite, courteous, yet let your convictions come through and without directly threatening to vote them out of office, be very firm(while being polite and courteous) that their position on this matter will weigh heavily on the choice you make in the next election. Also, NEVER EVER EVER STATE THAT YOU DID NOT VOTE FOR THEM. If you didn't, then don't lie unless you want to be lowered to their level, just don't bring up who you did vote for. Saying you didn't vote for them makes them even less likely to give a damn what you have to say.
based on this from the summary:
"However, the NES and PlayStation could both easily be called the best, based on the standards they set and the advances they presented to gaming."
I would say that argument could be reasonably made within the context of advancing gaming. Obviously NES and Playstation were more advanced in and of themselves, but did they really advance console gaming as much as the 2600 did in its day by comparison? NES maybe, but definetly not playstation. Play station was largely a console offered as an upgrade to a pre-existing marketplace. Atari 2600 was a console that pioneered that marketplace. The same could be said about the NES later, but even then it still started its journey down the path the 2600 first blazed before it.
I'm not saying I would vote the 2600 as the best, so far in my opinion I vote the N64(loved that console). It's just really hard to top the 2600s feat of not just being a successful console, but being a successful console when there was no real established market for it before hand.
The world isn't black and white, realty is nuanced. Unless you're a retard.
Hell yeah. The real world is in full color.
we have different laws surrounding these phenomenon because they are fundamentally different. Stealing a car takes it away from the original owner. copying his car does not. It MAY take money away from ford/GM/whoever, but there's nothing to say that had you been prevented from copying that you would have bought on anyway.
There used to be a time when bands/artists were happy and grateful to get exposure to people at all. Now a lot of them are acting like they're owed a living. They don't even produce anything neccesary to society. If all the pop shit music made today stopped being made tomorrow, society might actually improve, it certainly wouldn't get worse.
Point is they don't produce anything critical to society and yet they act like they're owed something to the point where they think our society should slow down progress in the name of safeguarding their fat profits off of what is in essence, luxury items. I wish these idiots would stop and listen to how ridiculous they sound.
Actually, making a phone call is more "immediate" and intrusive than a text message.
That's true, but, I'll just type an email when I get home if something's not important. I don't see the value of paying to communicate trivial things.
Try sitting in a group and just let the phone ring. Everyone will get antsy until the phone stops ringing. The same tension doesn't happen with a text message.
Typically when I'm in a group, I turn off all audible notifications if not the phone itself. If I forget, and it rings, I can press a button that will stop the audible ringing. My phones have been able to do this for at least the last 7 years.
And, looking at a text message is much less convenient than a voice mail. If someone sends me a text, I can just look at my phone and read it. To get my voice mail, I have to call and wait through all the prompts to finally hear the message.
Well, a couple things... when I typed that about convenience, I was thinking about driving. I drive a helluva lot for work. While I don't drive and talk, I do check my voice mails while I drive. The way my phone works for voice mails, is I press a button for voicemail and then my voice mails start playing. it's a pretty straightforward process I can do without taking my eyes off the road. So that's where I'm coming from.
I will usually send a text when I want to send a message that I'm not worried when the person gets it or what I'm writing about is of low importance.
I get that, it's a common use, but what I don't get is why anyone would pay to send a message of low importance regularly? You bring up your friend in a law library, I get that totally. That makes perfect sense and if I were in that situation, I would use it, but, something tells me the bulk of the profits from SMS aren't being gotten from law students and their friends.
In noisy environments, or when someone is hard of hearing, SMS is far superior to a voice call.
That's a good point. For myself, hasn't been an issue for me.
Many mobile packages charge you for receiving voicemail, whereas (outside the US at least) receiving an SMS is free, so it's a little impolite to leave a voice message as opposed to an SMS
Okay, if I was in that environment, I would definetly be using SMS. However, I've never had a plan or heard of one that had charges for receiving voicemails. In that scenario SMS makes a lot of sense.
The same reason a lot of people prefer to send an email instead of picking up the phone.
Really? So people are attaching documents, lengthy outlines, engaged in discussion for which an in depth history would be useful in SMS? It must have come along way since the last time I played with it. Those are the reasons I prefer email. I'll also send emails if I'm at my desk and email is already open, only because in that case it is more convenient.
I've always refused to reply to text messages on my phone. Not only because of the cost, but because I think it's asinine to send me a text message on my phone. If I wanted to read text, I'd check my email. And other than having an automated system send you a message, I see no practical use for it. It's even more dangerous to be reading text messages while driving(or anything other than sitting down), and it's not as convenient as simply leaving a voice message.
I'm sure if I was in environments where I needed more covert communication I would feel differently, but as it is, I just don't get why people are willing to pay so much for it.
Obviously we should all just start wearing helmets and safety gear at all times. I mean, it's just not fair to stop at warning labels, what about those poor souls who can't read?
I wish it was only warning labels. After reading TFA and watching that video, all I could think was "I better order before it's banned". Nanny nation indeed.
It makes perfect sense to me that something that could cause a public scare and cost hundreds of lives for no good reason should be regulated a little bit.
First off, you like several other posters missed my point entirely. Read my replies above, I'm not reposting it here. Second, what you just said here is a slippery slope. Should computers be regulated because the possibility exists that people using computers could hack in to xyz government/news/military/whatever website and cause a panic? That's a real possibility. Should we have to apply for a permit from the police department to own a computer? I don't see much difference between this and the "issue" the article is talking about.
Honestly, people who think like you should just admit up front you're scared of the inherent risks that living in a free society entails and that you prefer to not be free anymore. Just admit it to the rest of us plainly so at least we'll be having honest public discourse about these issues.
My point had nothing to do with whether or not free speech allows someone to incite panic. Nothing at all. Why don't people get that?
Look, when it came to criminalizing inciting panics, did they require free speech permits? No, they did not. They did not criminalize innocent behavior in the name of combating a potential problem. In this case, however, that is *exactly* what they are doing.
Who is hurt by having a Geiger counter? nobody at all. Having and operating a Geiger counter is not a public menace. Speaking your mind freely is not a public menace. Inciting panic with your words is a public menace, and that was what was criminalized... so, what does it stand to reason should be criminalized here?
Except that that's not quite right. It is already illegal to cause a panic by any means,
I didn't say it wasn't illegal, but we're talking hypothetical here, how can they be sure to keep it from happening if you have all those people free to speak? We must take action before it happens to avert it, isn't that what's going on in TFA?
What should be done is regulate them these devices like smoke detectors. You are encouraged to have them, but you pay a fine if the authorities are summoned on a false alarm.
Don't try to cloud this urgent and serious public issue with your logic and reason. The threat is too great to let intellectual types like you muddy the waters.
Slashdot Mirror
You could be right, but, it has already started to happen to a degree, people not purchasing their products anymore. Instant gratification can be had all over the net with things that don't involve music(or porn). It's just a matter of getting the right trend going.
And of course, it starts with us as individuals. There's some artists I will buy from because of their public stance on all this, and some who will never see a dime of mine again(I used to be a big Metallica fan, now they can sod off and die now for all I care).
We can't control others, but we can control ourselves and that will influence those around us.
And really, the first time someone got fined that much for copying a CD, don't think there won't be a substantial public backlash. Instant gratification or not, being fined so severely for something so trivial will rile up oceans of illwill, of that I would bet money.
I hope it passes for that and for the tact I expect most to take... you don't need their shit, you don't need it. Why does anyone need a CD or to listen to the music produced by the people funding this? We don't.
It's not like software that we might need for work to get paid. It's not like clothing where you tend to get in trouble if you go around without it(damn conservative society). It's not like food where you starve to death without it. This is entertainment. It's just not neccessary. If they get this passed, I predict a major collapse of the recording industry as it is today. Big names will begin striking out on their own to distance themselves from the companies associated with these moves.
Sorry Metallica, U2, and whoever else, life was good before you and life will be good after you. May this legislation pass so they can have the rude awakening they so desperately deserve.
You know how I know there's no God. Because if there was, a lightning bolt would come from the sky and blast this guy to smithereens.
I've agreed with many of your posts, but I can't agree here. I'm not saying there is a God, but I could see a God with a sense of humor keeping this guy around to make him laugh. I laughed myself to tears when I read this. With just a few tweaks, this could have been a good onion article.
Whenever someone mentions classic gaming, the first device that is always mentioned is the NES... The venerable 2600 is nearly forgotten, yet it was the most prolific and the hardiest of the gaming systems. Never forget!
;)
I see that problem too. People joke about it, and don't stop to really think of its impact. It really was a kick ass system that primed a generation to be console consumers.
I'll never forget the first time I won Adventure on level 3, or flipped asteroids, or space invaders... Let's never forget the Atari logo in Blade Runner.
Okay, enough nerding out for me, back to work.
In other words, you are buying into to all the anti-science propaganda.
No, in other words he's being a rational open minded person who isn't treating science like a holy can't-do-no-wrong religion. The second you stop questioning the possible ramifications of any given advance, is the second you become an unthinking true believer.
Wouldn't it have been nice if someone way back would have stopped and asked "what could possibly go wrong" when they began exploiting crude oil? Or we could go down the list of medications that have been pulled off the market by the FDA because "what could possibly go wrong" wasn't a question seriously considered early on.
Few people here who tag it are even being serious in the first place, but in humor there is terrible truth and the terrible truth is, we have to be very careful how we proceed with new developments and technologies and it needs to be done with the recognition that they can and often have had unintended consequences. That's not anti-science or irrational, that's being a realist.
I have to agree. Centralized vote counting? Forget people trying to correct their mistakes for a moment(I do think that's important though), how in the hell can people independently validate the vote tallies? In my state, the vote tallies for each precinct at the end of the day are posted outside of the voting stations. There are numerous individuals representing numerous interests who go around and count those tallies. I'm not saying my state's system is perfect or anything, but there is a degree of transparency in our system that I just can't see a central counting system ever having. Is it as "efficient"? No, but this isn't mass production in a free market for christ's sake, this is the vote of the people of our republic deciding the future of our government.
Getting back to the error getting corrected at the polling place... I saw this on several occasions having grown up in a neighborhood with a lot of seniors. When you have trembling hands, mistakes can be made. I don't see why having trembling hands should mean their vote gets disqualified as if that means they're stupid or something. There's a lot of valid physical ailments people can have that might lead to a mistake, and I personally have seen optical scanners onsite at polling stations catch them and allow the person to correct them.
Voting is indeed a serious activity, serious enough to warrant a system that concerns itself with making sure that everyone's vote gets counted accurately whether they make a mistake or not.
You body may die, but because of your selfless act your soul will rise to heaven where it will find a dedicated T1, and 74 well stocked BT peers.
You had me at "T1". *sniff*
Um, I hate to break it to you, but politicians don't usually lie outright,
Really, so I can't take a typical politician in general and compare his campaign promises to his actions in office and find blatant inconsistencies that most reasonable people would believe indicate lies? Last time I looked it into, I was able to do just that. Maybe there's a new breed of politician out there I'm not aware of that has suddenly infiltrated the mainstream. I understand there are exceptions to this, but the last time I sincerely looked into it, it seemed to be the rule.
If you deliberately fail to mention that you didn't vote for them, you basically are at their level.
Not at all, if I were asked by them whether I voted for them or not, and dodged it, then I would be at their level. I might also fail to mention the relevant fact that I think most of them are lying sacks of shit who should be selling used cars instead of legislating the laws of our republic, but I don't see how failing to mention that puts me on their level either.
I'd vote for the N64 too - solid 3D graphics, inventing 3D genres, the triumphant return of the analog stick and 4 controller ports builtin, and load-time free carts... maybe the BEST social couch system ever, and solid for single player as well.
Everything you said. Couldn't agree more.
The 2600... you know, the very early catalog isn't that impressive, it really is a transition from the TV Pong and Tank games that proceeded it.
I would say it's true of every system in general that it's full potential is not exploited by its initial catalog of games. I'm assuming you're talking about the first 9 games for it. Sure, you could see it as a transition, but the system itself represented a substantial leap in capabilities over those dedicated pong games. Consider this... what was a greater jump... from those dedicated pong paddle games to the atari 2600, or from say, NES to SNES? Sure there's a good jump, but it didn't fundamentally alter the home video game marketplace like the 2600 jump did. It wasn't just a graphics capability and better audio jump, it was a whole new paradigm jump.
If you do call your senators for this or any reason, remember to be polite, courteous, yet let your convictions come through and without directly threatening to vote them out of office, be very firm(while being polite and courteous) that their position on this matter will weigh heavily on the choice you make in the next election. Also, NEVER EVER EVER STATE THAT YOU DID NOT VOTE FOR THEM. If you didn't, then don't lie unless you want to be lowered to their level, just don't bring up who you did vote for. Saying you didn't vote for them makes them even less likely to give a damn what you have to say.
Nah easy answer here. Atari 2600 wins hands down.
based on this from the summary:
"However, the NES and PlayStation could both easily be called the best, based on the standards they set and the advances they presented to gaming."
I would say that argument could be reasonably made within the context of advancing gaming. Obviously NES and Playstation were more advanced in and of themselves, but did they really advance console gaming as much as the 2600 did in its day by comparison? NES maybe, but definetly not playstation. Play station was largely a console offered as an upgrade to a pre-existing marketplace. Atari 2600 was a console that pioneered that marketplace. The same could be said about the NES later, but even then it still started its journey down the path the 2600 first blazed before it.
I'm not saying I would vote the 2600 as the best, so far in my opinion I vote the N64(loved that console). It's just really hard to top the 2600s feat of not just being a successful console, but being a successful console when there was no real established market for it before hand.
The world isn't black and white, realty is nuanced. Unless you're a retard.
Hell yeah. The real world is in full color.
we have different laws surrounding these phenomenon because they are fundamentally different. Stealing a car takes it away from the original owner. copying his car does not. It MAY take money away from ford/GM/whoever, but there's nothing to say that had you been prevented from copying that you would have bought on anyway.
There used to be a time when bands/artists were happy and grateful to get exposure to people at all. Now a lot of them are acting like they're owed a living. They don't even produce anything neccesary to society. If all the pop shit music made today stopped being made tomorrow, society might actually improve, it certainly wouldn't get worse.
Point is they don't produce anything critical to society and yet they act like they're owed something to the point where they think our society should slow down progress in the name of safeguarding their fat profits off of what is in essence, luxury items. I wish these idiots would stop and listen to how ridiculous they sound.
Actually, making a phone call is more "immediate" and intrusive than a text message.
That's true, but, I'll just type an email when I get home if something's not important. I don't see the value of paying to communicate trivial things.
Try sitting in a group and just let the phone ring. Everyone will get antsy until the phone stops ringing. The same tension doesn't happen with a text message.
Typically when I'm in a group, I turn off all audible notifications if not the phone itself. If I forget, and it rings, I can press a button that will stop the audible ringing. My phones have been able to do this for at least the last 7 years.
And, looking at a text message is much less convenient than a voice mail. If someone sends me a text, I can just look at my phone and read it. To get my voice mail, I have to call and wait through all the prompts to finally hear the message.
Well, a couple things... when I typed that about convenience, I was thinking about driving. I drive a helluva lot for work. While I don't drive and talk, I do check my voice mails while I drive. The way my phone works for voice mails, is I press a button for voicemail and then my voice mails start playing. it's a pretty straightforward process I can do without taking my eyes off the road. So that's where I'm coming from.
I will usually send a text when I want to send a message that I'm not worried when the person gets it or what I'm writing about is of low importance.
I get that, it's a common use, but what I don't get is why anyone would pay to send a message of low importance regularly? You bring up your friend in a law library, I get that totally. That makes perfect sense and if I were in that situation, I would use it, but, something tells me the bulk of the profits from SMS aren't being gotten from law students and their friends.
Some of us like to live dangerously. On the rare occasions when I get text messages, I read them standing up.
Your insurance rates must be through the roof.
In noisy environments, or when someone is hard of hearing, SMS is far superior to a voice call.
That's a good point. For myself, hasn't been an issue for me.
Many mobile packages charge you for receiving voicemail, whereas (outside the US at least) receiving an SMS is free, so it's a little impolite to leave a voice message as opposed to an SMS
Okay, if I was in that environment, I would definetly be using SMS. However, I've never had a plan or heard of one that had charges for receiving voicemails. In that scenario SMS makes a lot of sense.
The same reason a lot of people prefer to send an email instead of picking up the phone.
Really? So people are attaching documents, lengthy outlines, engaged in discussion for which an in depth history would be useful in SMS? It must have come along way since the last time I played with it. Those are the reasons I prefer email. I'll also send emails if I'm at my desk and email is already open, only because in that case it is more convenient.
That's nice. Next time you should try making that point to someone who actually has argued otherwise.
I've always refused to reply to text messages on my phone. Not only because of the cost, but because I think it's asinine to send me a text message on my phone. If I wanted to read text, I'd check my email. And other than having an automated system send you a message, I see no practical use for it. It's even more dangerous to be reading text messages while driving(or anything other than sitting down), and it's not as convenient as simply leaving a voice message.
I'm sure if I was in environments where I needed more covert communication I would feel differently, but as it is, I just don't get why people are willing to pay so much for it.
I thought America was the "land of the free"
That's a common mondegreen... it's actually "Land of the FEE". Don't sweat it, I used to believe it was "free" myself.
Obviously we should all just start wearing helmets and safety gear at all times. I mean, it's just not fair to stop at warning labels, what about those poor souls who can't read?
I wish it was only warning labels. After reading TFA and watching that video, all I could think was "I better order before it's banned". Nanny nation indeed.
It makes perfect sense to me that something that could cause a public scare and cost hundreds of lives for no good reason should be regulated a little bit.
First off, you like several other posters missed my point entirely. Read my replies above, I'm not reposting it here. Second, what you just said here is a slippery slope. Should computers be regulated because the possibility exists that people using computers could hack in to xyz government/news/military/whatever website and cause a panic? That's a real possibility. Should we have to apply for a permit from the police department to own a computer? I don't see much difference between this and the "issue" the article is talking about.
Honestly, people who think like you should just admit up front you're scared of the inherent risks that living in a free society entails and that you prefer to not be free anymore. Just admit it to the rest of us plainly so at least we'll be having honest public discourse about these issues.
...you want robots to make love and not war.
My point had nothing to do with whether or not free speech allows someone to incite panic. Nothing at all. Why don't people get that?
Look, when it came to criminalizing inciting panics, did they require free speech permits? No, they did not. They did not criminalize innocent behavior in the name of combating a potential problem. In this case, however, that is *exactly* what they are doing.
Who is hurt by having a Geiger counter? nobody at all. Having and operating a Geiger counter is not a public menace. Speaking your mind freely is not a public menace. Inciting panic with your words is a public menace, and that was what was criminalized... so, what does it stand to reason should be criminalized here?
Except that that's not quite right. It is already illegal to cause a panic by any means,
I didn't say it wasn't illegal, but we're talking hypothetical here, how can they be sure to keep it from happening if you have all those people free to speak? We must take action before it happens to avert it, isn't that what's going on in TFA?
What should be done is regulate them these devices like smoke detectors. You are encouraged to have them, but you pay a fine if the authorities are summoned on a false alarm.
Don't try to cloud this urgent and serious public issue with your logic and reason. The threat is too great to let intellectual types like you muddy the waters.