I didn't understand it either. Perhaps the Pearl Jam Effect is having 5 albums on the top 200 list at the same time: Double live cd sets from their 2000 tour, Poland, Milan, Verona, London, and Hamburg. I believe the only other band to do that was the Beatles.
You forget, advertising is more often trying to sell stuff to you that you don't need. Sure, if I'm looking for a TV, I want to know what stores are having sales. But how does that help Coke or Pepsi? The fact is that advertising is about controlling people. Controling YOU. You might believe ads don't affect you, but they do...in the most subtle ways. The more information you give ad companies, the more control they will have over you.
do the evolution
For anyone in the NYC area and looking to do some good, New York Cares is a non-profit organization that is always looking for people with IT experience to help wire public schools, teach kids, and offer whatever help they can. Click here to read about some of their technology projects. I havn't actually done any technology work for NY Cares, but I've volunteered for several other projects (they have many!) and it's always been a great experience. Have fun!
Bands don't make money from albums, they make their money from playing music. When a band's music gets heard, be it vinyl, cd, minidisc, or mp3, their concert revenues go up and they make money. That's why bands sign with the recording labels. They know they're not going to make much (if any) money through the sale of their CD, but if their music is out there, some people will become fans, and then pay money to see their shows. Or the band can use the sales numbers to help get them gigs at bars, get sponsors for tours, etc. In other words, how the music gets heard makes little difference to the artist, as long as it gets heard.
If anyone from the RIAA is reading this, take note:
I am a lawful person. I do not make copies of my music so other people can get for free what musicians sell. But when I buy a cd, mp3, or whatever, it becomes mine. I will listen to it when I want, where I want, and in what format I want. Because when I buy the music, I own the rights to listen to that music. I believe a majority of the people in this world are like this too. Any attempt to stop me from being able to listen to my purchased music in whatever form I choose, I will defeat. It is not my problem if others can copy it. I will not give up my rights because some people break laws. I will not allow you to take away my rights, and we will do what we have to to make sure you're not abusing us to put more money in your pocket. Come up with a way for me to listen to what I buy whenever, whereever, and in whatever format I want, then this issue will be moot. Thank you.
Dr. Dre and Metallica are losing touch. They don't seem to understand the concept of an open source band. Let's take a look at 3 great bands: Pearl Jam, The Greatful Dead, and Phish. There are many many many PJ/Dead/Phish-heads out there online trading live shows and bsides. They allow taping at ALL of their shows, and encourage people to trade them, as long as they don't make money from it. And you know what? Every person that is a fan of these bands owns just about every single piece of recorded music distributed by the labels. I became a huge PJ fan after listening to a live concert, and I now own every cd that has a song by PJ or Eddie Vedder on it. I also own ~30 discs of live concerts that I got by trading with other fans. But I didn't own but 1 PJ disc when I started....so free music boosts sales! Now granted, live Dr. Dre is probably worse than recording studio Dr. Dre, but Metallica has no excuse! I used to be a minor fan of Metallica, but after this stupidity, I can guarantee I will never buy another of their albums.
I'm not sure of the exact amount of THC, but it's so low that there's no way you can get high from smoking it or ingesting it. It's reported to give you a very bad headache, and that's it.
I would also like to read paper over computer screen but when you think of all the paper that could be saved by putting bookd online i will put up with a little eye strain.
Ok, this is offtopic, but worrying about conserving paper is absurd. It's the wrong argument. You want to save trees? Simple. HEMP. Hemp fields replentish soil, make tons of useful things like rope, paper, fabric, you name it. It's ANTI marijuana. The pollen from hemp plants actually decreases the amount of THC in marijuana when planted in proximity. The only problem with hemp is that politicians are either ignorant, bought by companies like DuPont who don't want hemp to be commercialy viable, or both. When rotated with other crops like wheat and corn, hemp has been shown to improve the yield by 20%. And hemp paper is naturally white, so you don't have to bleach it like with wood pulp paper. So we don't need to conserve paper, we just need to get smart about hemp. Sorry for the off topic rant.
Who is liable? by tcd004 You said that this: "allows information to be published and read without fear of censorship because individual documents cannot be traced to their source..." I'm all for an open forum for free speech, but this seems almost reckless. In most venues of speech, accountability for someone's words is fundamental. The Internet has opened up the possiblity of free speech without accountability to a small degree, and look at what has happened.
From a historical perspective, anonymity has played a vital roll in the creation of this country! All of the talk about porn and warez seems to be very US/UK biased. Think for a moment that maybe the benefits of FreeNet aren't for the democratic 1st world countries, but for every other country on this planet. Yes, kidde porn will be on it. Yes, warez will be distributed on it. But the social and political exchanges that would become possible far outweigh the porn/warez factor. Think outside the US circle. A while ago Slashdot posted a great article by Jonathan D Wallace, Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet. It's a great piece on the historical importance of anonymity. Here's the intro:
Proposals to limit anonymous communications on the Internet would violate free speech rights long recognized by the Supreme Court. Anonymous and pseudonymous speech played a vital role in the founding of this country. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was first released signed, "An Englishman." Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Samuel Adams, and others carried out the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists using pseudonyms. Today, human rights workers in China and many other countries have reforged the link between anonymity and free speech.
If you're always worried about kiddy porn and warez, you're missing the bigger picture.
Maybe it's time we alter the way we think about online security. Instead placing the power and responsibility of protection in the hands of the government (which seems to be the way things are going), maybe we should *gasp* hold the companies responsible for their own security! Tight security = fewer crimes
I mean, come on! If you own a real world business, you don't depend on the police for the general protection of your business. You lock your doors, you pull down the metal shield in front of your windows (in NY at least). You DON'T expect to have police every 10 feet making sure robbers don't break into your store. If some regular CD store down the block took all the money they made and left it in an unlocked drawer with a simple lock on the front door, you wouldn't be hearing about it when the dumb asses got robbed. And if you did, you'd laugh at them. If CDUniverse was hacked it's their own fault. I congradulate the hacker on exposing the weakness of the business. Attempting to extort the money is BAD, but the cracking of the system is GOOD. You take active measures to ensure your own property's safety. At home, if someone breaks into your home, you greet them with a shotgun. Will this philosophy ever catch on for Internet businesses? Will we see a shift towards Gibson-esque corporate defense systems that track down the hacker and fry their machine (or worse)?
I personally don't want to see another crackdown on harmless hackers like in 1990. I highly recommend The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling for a good read on hacker history and to a degree, philosophy. And it's open source.
do the evolution
Re:Anti-trust suit waiting to happen?
on
Live or Memorex?
·
· Score: 1
If you're Tower Records, I assume it's illegal to go cover the Virgin Megastore sign in Times Square with your own sign. So doesn't it make sense to reason that digitally covering up the sign is equally illegal? Is there a legal difference between seeing something in person and on TV? Seems to me whoever owns the sign has the right to put what they want on it, and if you change what it says, either in reality or thru digital means for TV, it would be illegal.
"Mrs. Hoover, my worm fell in my mouth and I ate it. Can I have another?" "No Ralph, just put your head down and go to sleep." "Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Slashdot Mirror
Hm, that pretty much sums up the NY Post!
You mean there are still some people on /. who haven't read all of William Gibson's work?
Good story on America's Army in the Wall Street Journal today.
Check it out
...and your PS2, and your GameCube...
Check It
I didn't understand it either. Perhaps the Pearl Jam Effect is having 5 albums on the top 200 list at the same time: Double live cd sets from their 2000 tour, Poland, Milan, Verona, London, and Hamburg. I believe the only other band to do that was the Beatles.
So Moby wouldn't know anything about that.....
I get handed communist leaflets all the time down by the Astor Place subway stop in NYC....
You forget, advertising is more often trying to sell stuff to you that you don't need. Sure, if I'm looking for a TV, I want to know what stores are having sales. But how does that help Coke or Pepsi? The fact is that advertising is about controlling people. Controling YOU. You might believe ads don't affect you, but they do...in the most subtle ways. The more information you give ad companies, the more control they will have over you. do the evolution
For anyone in the NYC area and looking to do some good, New York Cares is a non-profit organization that is always looking for people with IT experience to help wire public schools, teach kids, and offer whatever help they can. Click here to read about some of their technology projects. I havn't actually done any technology work for NY Cares, but I've volunteered for several other projects (they have many!) and it's always been a great experience. Have fun!
Bands don't make money from albums, they make their money from playing music. When a band's music gets heard, be it vinyl, cd, minidisc, or mp3, their concert revenues go up and they make money. That's why bands sign with the recording labels. They know they're not going to make much (if any) money through the sale of their CD, but if their music is out there, some people will become fans, and then pay money to see their shows. Or the band can use the sales numbers to help get them gigs at bars, get sponsors for tours, etc. In other words, how the music gets heard makes little difference to the artist, as long as it gets heard.
Do the Evolution
If anyone from the RIAA is reading this, take note:
I am a lawful person. I do not make copies of my music so other people can get for free what musicians sell. But when I buy a cd, mp3, or whatever, it becomes mine. I will listen to it when I want, where I want, and in what format I want. Because when I buy the music, I own the rights to listen to that music. I believe a majority of the people in this world are like this too. Any attempt to stop me from being able to listen to my purchased music in whatever form I choose, I will defeat. It is not my problem if others can copy it. I will not give up my rights because some people break laws. I will not allow you to take away my rights, and we will do what we have to to make sure you're not abusing us to put more money in your pocket. Come up with a way for me to listen to what I buy whenever, whereever, and in whatever format I want, then this issue will be moot. Thank you.
Do the Evolution
Dr. Dre and Metallica are losing touch. They don't seem to understand the concept of an open source band. Let's take a look at 3 great bands: Pearl Jam, The Greatful Dead, and Phish. There are many many many PJ/Dead/Phish-heads out there online trading live shows and bsides. They allow taping at ALL of their shows, and encourage people to trade them, as long as they don't make money from it. And you know what? Every person that is a fan of these bands owns just about every single piece of recorded music distributed by the labels. I became a huge PJ fan after listening to a live concert, and I now own every cd that has a song by PJ or Eddie Vedder on it. I also own ~30 discs of live concerts that I got by trading with other fans. But I didn't own but 1 PJ disc when I started....so free music boosts sales! Now granted, live Dr. Dre is probably worse than recording studio Dr. Dre, but Metallica has no excuse! I used to be a minor fan of Metallica, but after this stupidity, I can guarantee I will never buy another of their albums.
Do the Evolution
I'm not sure of the exact amount of THC, but it's so low that there's no way you can get high from smoking it or ingesting it. It's reported to give you a very bad headache, and that's it.
I would also like to read paper over computer screen but when you think of all the paper that could be saved by putting bookd online i will put up with a little eye strain.
Ok, this is offtopic, but worrying about conserving paper is absurd. It's the wrong argument. You want to save trees? Simple. HEMP. Hemp fields replentish soil, make tons of useful things like rope, paper, fabric, you name it. It's ANTI marijuana. The pollen from hemp plants actually decreases the amount of THC in marijuana when planted in proximity. The only problem with hemp is that politicians are either ignorant, bought by companies like DuPont who don't want hemp to be commercialy viable, or both. When rotated with other crops like wheat and corn, hemp has been shown to improve the yield by 20%. And hemp paper is naturally white, so you don't have to bleach it like with wood pulp paper. So we don't need to conserve paper, we just need to get smart about hemp. Sorry for the off topic rant.
Who is liable?
by tcd004
You said that this: "allows information to be published and read without fear of censorship because individual documents cannot be traced to their source..."
I'm all for an open forum for free speech, but this seems almost reckless. In most venues of speech, accountability for someone's words is fundamental. The Internet has opened up the possiblity of free speech without accountability to a small degree, and look at what has happened.
From a historical perspective, anonymity has played a vital roll in the creation of this country! All of the talk about porn and warez seems to be very US/UK biased. Think for a moment that maybe the benefits of FreeNet aren't for the democratic 1st world countries, but for every other country on this planet. Yes, kidde porn will be on it. Yes, warez will be distributed on it. But the social and political exchanges that would become possible far outweigh the porn/warez factor. Think outside the US circle. A while ago Slashdot posted a great article by Jonathan D Wallace, Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet. It's a great piece on the historical importance of anonymity. Here's the intro:
Proposals to limit anonymous communications on the Internet would violate free speech rights long recognized by the Supreme Court. Anonymous and pseudonymous speech played a vital role in the founding of this country. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was first released signed, "An Englishman." Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Samuel Adams, and others carried out the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists using pseudonyms. Today, human rights workers in China and many other countries have reforged the link between anonymity and free speech.
If you're always worried about kiddy porn and warez, you're missing the bigger picture.
Maybe it's time we alter the way we think about online security. Instead placing the power and responsibility of protection in the hands of the government (which seems to be the way things are going), maybe we should *gasp* hold the companies responsible for their own security! Tight security = fewer crimes
I mean, come on! If you own a real world business, you don't depend on the police for the general protection of your business. You lock your doors, you pull down the metal shield in front of your windows (in NY at least). You DON'T expect to have police every 10 feet making sure robbers don't break into your store. If some regular CD store down the block took all the money they made and left it in an unlocked drawer with a simple lock on the front door, you wouldn't be hearing about it when the dumb asses got robbed. And if you did, you'd laugh at them. If CDUniverse was hacked it's their own fault. I congradulate the hacker on exposing the weakness of the business. Attempting to extort the money is BAD, but the cracking of the system is GOOD. You take active measures to ensure your own property's safety. At home, if someone breaks into your home, you greet them with a shotgun. Will this philosophy ever catch on for Internet businesses? Will we see a shift towards Gibson-esque corporate defense systems that track down the hacker and fry their machine (or worse)?
I personally don't want to see another crackdown on harmless hackers like in 1990. I highly recommend The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling for a good read on hacker history and to a degree, philosophy. And it's open source.
do the evolution
If you're Tower Records, I assume it's illegal to go cover the Virgin Megastore sign in Times Square with your own sign. So doesn't it make sense to reason that digitally covering up the sign is equally illegal? Is there a legal difference between seeing something in person and on TV? Seems to me whoever owns the sign has the right to put what they want on it, and if you change what it says, either in reality or thru digital means for TV, it would be illegal.
"Mrs. Hoover, my worm fell in my mouth and I ate it. Can I have another?"
"No Ralph, just put your head down and go to sleep."
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Did you know Diet Coke actually has quite a few calories, they just print 0 on the can and pay the false advertising fine every year.