I think it would be cooler to see two robots race each other anyway. They could be a lot more extreme than human drivers without danger to the drivers.
Journalistic integrity is a newspaper's bread and butter. How much do you suppose those shares would be worth if the newspaper started selling out its sources? Pretty soon, you'd have no product. A policy of protecting sources is in the best interests of the shareholders.
What a bunch of monkeys... What's the lost laptop count now, like 1000? And can anyone explain to me why they even tell the media? Why don't they keep this secret for Chrissakes?
The problem with war is that it is essentially not a moral exercise. Killing people is immoral, but sometimes it has to be done.
It isn't a bad thing that the gov't now has to make sure our wars are palatable to the American people. It isn't a bad thing that less of our soldiers are dying.
The point that we see our enemies as one-sided ogres is valid, but nothing at all new. Every culture has done that to its enemies since the begining of time, so don't try to tell us that that's a result of "virtual war."
I'm not in a position to comment on what really happened in Kosovo, but I don't think it's immoral to fight for people who are being systematically removed from their homes.
If there is a danger to virtual war, it is that the people sanctioning the war will not be exposed to the horrific damage that can be inflicted by modern weapons, because they are so far from the battlefield. But, then again, the people sanctioning the wars have usually not been close enough to actually see the horror of war.
You make a lot of good points here. I would like to clear a few thing up about your perception of my assumptions however.
First, I don't disagree with IP. I support it. But I don't support it because of the purely economic reasons that you seem to. I support it because I believe people should have the legal ability to control their work.
This is from my previous post: I think the predominant idea is that if it isn't open and free, it's philosophically sub-par and deserves to be ignored.Alright, I guess I don't really believe this. If something is worth paying for, it's probably not sub-par. You have to remember the spirit of the post I was responding to. Remember, the original post essentially said that open source advocates are "subhuman zealots."
Laws change. Economic laws don't. If you can come up with a good way of promoting free copying while preserving remuneration to the artist, become an entrepreneur, not an activist...
Okay, okay... The free market is good, I appreciate that. However, I think that there definately is a place for open source. Linux is good and keeps being supported because people like it and like to contribute to it, and it flourishes because of that. That benefits a lot of people in a lot of ways. That includes communitarian ways that some people will laugh at, but they do exist. I don't support anarchy or anything like it, I do support the free market. And, btw, I do think that Metallica and the RIAA are greedy. Check out the latest record sales. I think mp3 actually promotes the buying of more records. I bet you however, that those records are being bought from a wider distribution of bands than it used to be, b/c people are getting to hear music they wouldn't have before. And guess who that hurts? Established mainstream bands like Metallica. But of course, Napster users generally flaunt IP laws, which is a bad thing. Ultimately, I hope that new, promising bands will release a few albums to the public before signing up with the Recording Industry. Then we'd still get to experiment with music listening. But, that's way outside the scope of our original posts here.
Oh, just before I sign off, what I was really talking about in that first response was the extremely close-minded kneejerk post that I was responding to in the first place, so, keep that in mind.
First, anyone see that movie "Network?" It's a great flick, centered around Katz' point that we're all sort of changing into this gray, homogenous, muck. And the movie blames it on the media.
Second, maybe someone out there who is a history buff can confirm this, but wasn't the American Revolution spurred by economics?
Third, the Zaibatsu in Japan have been doing this for decades, haven't they?
Fourth, Is it really true that "individualism" leads people to stick their noses in other people's business? That seems like a pretty pro-active individualism. There is another individualism that leads people to become hermits. But, maybe that's not the "good" kind of individualism? For more on this check out that AC post about the American Dream further down, it's a good one. He says the American Dream leads people to try and one-up everyone else, and I agree. Not that I'm not trying too.
Fifth, Katz seems to equate Napster, everyone sharing intellectual property, with the open source movement. I think that's a false analog. The open source movement seeks to share ip that was intended to be shared in the first place, not to be sold (as a first intention).
Over all, this is a good article, but maybe just a tad bit paranoid. Although I agree that these mega mergers are a serious problem, and that we desperately need Campaign Finance Reform. But seriously, does anyone think our souls are in more jeapordy now than they have been for the last half century? For more on CFR, get in touch with Common Cause. www.commoncause.org
Gee, if I just spout venom, can I get modded up too?
Look, you are quite right that everyone ought to sit down and think about this... but you say that Napster has technically broken the law. How is that? As people have said, over and over and over, the analogy ought to be an ISP. If Napster refuses to ban those 300 thousand plus users, than maybe they have technically broken the law...
Anyway, you are right that people ought to have the right to control their IP. I think that people here just think that the right thing to do is to contribute one's own IP so th other "hard-working artists" can benefit.
Anyway, I don't see how you can think that Metallica is being generous... They are protecting their profits in the best way that they can. Could you imagine the kind of backlash if they sued 300 thousand fans?
Napster users who broke the law and now have to pay for it.
Don't get your hopes up buddy. You think that Metallica and their controllers believe in law and order? Seriously now, everyone complains about Katz, but "corporatism" is real. They don't care about law and order, they care about profit. Do you honestly think they're going to put 300,000 music fans on trial? Unlikely. They may put that guy offering every Metallica album on trial, but even there its close. They have a profit agenda, and they aren't going to risk it for "law and order."
some of us are actually in favor of law and order
An unthinking "law and order," without establishing the values you wish to enforce is dangerous and potentially evil. I don't think that the people of Slashdot oppose Law and Order. They promote Democracy, and they promote a well-reasoned law and order.
I have no sympathy for the subhuman zealots who think that they have a right to everything for free because they once installed a copy of Red Hat.
Where do you get the impression that open source advocates think that they "have a right" to everything for free? They don't want everything for free, they just see the potential in creating a system where people contribute and create a system that's better for everyone. Personally, I think the predominant idea is that if it isn't open and free, it's philosophically sub-par and deserves to be ignored.
That the Open Source Movement seemingly supports these hardened criminals is ludicrous.
:) Valium time man... Okay, let's just point out the couple of really poor thoughts in this statement. 1.) Where do you get the idea that open-sourcers support Napster? From the fact that some people on Slashdot think that Metallica and the Recording Industry are greedy? Come off it, they are greedy. I haven't seen anyone say that we have a "right" as you said, to get Metallica songs for free. People are angry because Metallica is showing their true, greedy, colors. As RMS said yesterday, Napster isn't free software, and it's not open source. You are confused. 2.) Napster users are hardened criminals? Are you insane? Napster users listen to music. Most of them don't even keep the music afterwards. Many of them go out and buy the albums afterwards. What they are doing may be illegal, but they are not hardened criminals.
No wonder no one takes you seriously
I wonder who the "no one" is that you are referring to. I mean, Douglas Adams is doing an interview with Slashdot, and practically every important online Journal refers to Slashdot as a mouthpiece for the technically literate.
Most Open Source Advocates have never produced any art or IP contributions
That's probably true. I myself am not a programmer, though maybe I'll start to learn a thing or two... But there are tons of people, over on mp3.com for example, who are producing work that everyone can listen to for free. The fact that a majority of open source advocates aren't producers doesn't mean that the movement isn't valid. And hey, a larger audience of users can only help those who do produce. And the more active that audience is to promote open-source, the better of the producers will be.
so how can you be expected to understand the issues?
Do you have to be a Senator to understand how government works?
You commonly accuse the media of being biased, but consider yourselves free from prejudice.
Where are you getting this from? Seriously, have you EVER seen an open-source advocate who claim to be unbiased against greedy corporations and unfair use restrictions?
Free Software does not mean Free Music.
never produced any art or IP
Well, your second statement there shows you can't be so ignorant as to believe that open source only has software implications, so your first statement there is essentially meaningless.
Look, its people like you who really endanger the system. You imply that people who support open source are zealots, yet you unthinkingly support a system that favors the rich and the greedy. You claim to be taking a position for "law and order," by opposing Napster. But by opposing the open discussion of the system Napster exists in, you are actually criticizing the very core value of our system, the democratic process. Law and order without democratic thought and the opportunity for reform is nothing short of fascism.
I bet most of those articles are filler. Have you read any of them? Another article on Wired today was about the Bill Gates story. Hey, that's original!
Personally, I like these experimental/hackerish type articles even when they focus on social and not mechanical science...
I can get SDMI articles till my eyes bleed over at MP3.com.
Okay, my experience w/ the program was this: It gave me the link to a site for a band called Deep Elm, music for workers or some such thing, I gave it www.communism.org, but when I went there, I found it was communism.com how's that for irony? But anyhow, when I looked at the links list it had created, the link I had been presented with, and the one I submitted were nowhere close to each other on the list, so I wonder how he's going to analyze the history.
- the summary judgement in so complex a case was not valid, and was probably made by a judge either intimidated by the RIAA or unfarmiliar with the fundamental issues of the case
From the initial complaint:
The defendant made unauthorized copies of those 45,000 audio CDs, loaded the unauthorized copies onto file servers, and is permitting users of its Internet service to listen to and download those unauthorized copies.
Under Section 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (the "Copyright Act"), plaintiffs have the exclusive right, among other things, to make reproductions of their copyrighted sound recordings in all forms. This is one of the most sacrosanct rights afforded copyright owners.
It's quite possible that the judge was well versed w/ the issues, and made a good decision according to the copyright as it actually stands. Whether its philosophically consistent with our beliefs is another issue.
That's a good idea if thousands of people actually do it. Ummm, okay, you first.
Kind of reminds me of that guy standing in front of the tank at Tianenmen (sp?), okay, not quite as dire, but still, one small, brave step for democracy...
OoO
Re:Ask yourself this: Where did the MP3 come from?
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
It's not a case over whether or not you have a right to listen to MP3's of your own CD's. You *do* have a right to do that.
Well, you certainly should have the right to. Whether you can do it legally is another matter.
The RIAA is a lobbying group, protecting a huge, monied, entrenched interest. It would be totally unfair and completely irrational to argue that someone shouldn't be able to make digital copies of music that they bought to listen to by themselves, but that is what they claim.
If you don't believe me, read their claim: Second, again for your personal use, you can make some digital copies of music, depending on the type of digital recorder used. For example, digitally copying music is generally allowed with mini-disc recorders, digital audio tape (DAT) recorders, digital cassette tape recorders and some (but not all) compact disc recorders (or CD-R recorders). As a general rule for CD-Rs, if the CD-R recorder is a stand-alone machine designed to copy primarily audio, rather than data or video, then the copying is allowed. If the CD-R recorder is a computer component, or a computer peripheral device designed to be a multi-purpose recorder (in other words, if it will record data and video as well as audio), then copying is not allowed.
You are of course correct that much of the activity on Napster violates copyright. But you can't honestly believe that Napster has a moral imperative to police all of the activity that goes on through the use of its program? I mean, do you hold FTP programs responsible for trade in "warez"? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater man... You mention the GPL... It's not entirely impossible that some very good, non-greedy bands will release their music using some similar device. Wouldn't it be cool if we hadn't eliminated napster when they show up?
I would gladly spend $600 for a voice controlled mp3 player for my car. But then again, I've been waiting almost a year for a cd-mp3 player (discman style) to emerge from the vapor, and there still isn't a product you can actually order and get ahold of. Aiwa is supposed to be releasing one that looks pretty cool, but of course, it's "real soon now." That one is being talked about a price of $350, and includes an on wheel remote.
Not that this doesn't sound cool, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Oh, btw, to all of you people talking about the illegality of mp3, just a reminder that there are tons of great legal mp3's out there... Check out http://www.mp3.com/bentframe They're the funniest band I've ever heard. Make sure to check out F&*k Dave, a chipmunks parody...
And people like YOU are the reason why more people don't feel comfortable opening up... A community of non-anonymous people that respected each others desires would be a lot more useful than a bunch of cowards anonymously sniping at each other.
your contention that this is currently some sort of"cozy gathering of the elite" probably indicates that you smoke too much crack.
What a gem!
What profundity!
Very good point. Except that you're not responding to something that was ever actually said.
I'm not saying that this is "some sort of 'cozy gathering of the elite.'" I think you've proven the elite point for us, and the cozy point as well. I am saying however, that most people don't expect their comments on the evening news.
There is no such thing as privacy on/.. There is anonimity, but don't confuse that with privacy.
There is anonymity here, that's true. But there's also a certain amount of de facto privacy... Or, maybe there used to be... Because this isn't the general public's preferred website. Do your parents read Slashdot? The mere fact that they could read it doesn't mean you're not expecting a certain amount of privacy. When you're chatting with your friends out in the backyard, you're probably not expecting that they're listening in. But suddenly you're faced with your comments in a totally different medium. The point is that most people feel free to express themselves here because they don't think everybody they run into on an average day is going to read it. Now we're all faced with the possibility of one of our posts ending up quoted on CNN because of a press release promoting the newest Columbine book.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it would be cooler to see two robots race each other anyway. They could be a lot more extreme than human drivers without danger to the drivers.
OoO
Journalistic integrity is a newspaper's bread and butter. How much do you suppose those shares would be worth if the newspaper started selling out its sources? Pretty soon, you'd have no product. A policy of protecting sources is in the best interests of the shareholders.
OoO
Seriously...
What a bunch of monkeys... What's the lost laptop count now, like 1000? And can anyone explain to me why they even tell the media? Why don't they keep this secret for Chrissakes?
OoO
Get some respect for yourself and then you won't give a rats ass if someone is saying something about you.
Here, here!!
OoO
It's a sad day when Slashdot starts to sound like a conservative thinktank.
OoO
The problem with war is that it is essentially not a moral exercise. Killing people is immoral, but sometimes it has to be done.
It isn't a bad thing that the gov't now has to make sure our wars are palatable to the American people. It isn't a bad thing that less of our soldiers are dying.
The point that we see our enemies as one-sided ogres is valid, but nothing at all new. Every culture has done that to its enemies since the begining of time, so don't try to tell us that that's a result of "virtual war."
I'm not in a position to comment on what really happened in Kosovo, but I don't think it's immoral to fight for people who are being systematically removed from their homes.
If there is a danger to virtual war, it is that the people sanctioning the war will not be exposed to the horrific damage that can be inflicted by modern weapons, because they are so far from the battlefield. But, then again, the people sanctioning the wars have usually not been close enough to actually see the horror of war.
OoO
Okay...
You make a lot of good points here. I would like to clear a few thing up about your perception of my assumptions however.
First, I don't disagree with IP. I support it. But I don't support it because of the purely economic reasons that you seem to. I support it because I believe people should have the legal ability to control their work.
This is from my previous post: I think the predominant idea is that if it isn't open and free, it's philosophically sub-par and deserves to be ignored.Alright, I guess I don't really believe this. If something is worth paying for, it's probably not sub-par. You have to remember the spirit of the post I was responding to. Remember, the original post essentially said that open source advocates are "subhuman zealots."
Laws change. Economic laws don't. If you can come up with a good way of promoting free copying while preserving remuneration to the artist, become an entrepreneur, not an activist...
Okay, okay... The free market is good, I appreciate that. However, I think that there definately is a place for open source. Linux is good and keeps being supported because people like it and like to contribute to it, and it flourishes because of that. That benefits a lot of people in a lot of ways. That includes communitarian ways that some people will laugh at, but they do exist. I don't support anarchy or anything like it, I do support the free market. And, btw, I do think that Metallica and the RIAA are greedy. Check out the latest record sales. I think mp3 actually promotes the buying of more records. I bet you however, that those records are being bought from a wider distribution of bands than it used to be, b/c people are getting to hear music they wouldn't have before. And guess who that hurts? Established mainstream bands like Metallica. But of course, Napster users generally flaunt IP laws, which is a bad thing. Ultimately, I hope that new, promising bands will release a few albums to the public before signing up with the Recording Industry. Then we'd still get to experiment with music listening. But, that's way outside the scope of our original posts here.
Oh, just before I sign off, what I was really talking about in that first response was the extremely close-minded kneejerk post that I was responding to in the first place, so, keep that in mind.
OoO
Your position seems awfully polished. Question about personal feelings: "How do you feel about taking legal action against your fans and admirers?"
OoO
Corporations invented the internet?
Everyone here should know that's not true. The internet started as arpanet, and everyone knows Al Gore invented that!
OoO
I've just got a few points.
First, anyone see that movie "Network?" It's a great flick, centered around Katz' point that we're all sort of changing into this gray, homogenous, muck. And the movie blames it on the media.
Second, maybe someone out there who is a history buff can confirm this, but wasn't the American Revolution spurred by economics?
Third, the Zaibatsu in Japan have been doing this for decades, haven't they?
Fourth, Is it really true that "individualism" leads people to stick their noses in other people's business? That seems like a pretty pro-active individualism. There is another individualism that leads people to become hermits. But, maybe that's not the "good" kind of individualism? For more on this check out that AC post about the American Dream further down, it's a good one. He says the American Dream leads people to try and one-up everyone else, and I agree. Not that I'm not trying too.
Fifth, Katz seems to equate Napster, everyone sharing intellectual property, with the open source movement. I think that's a false analog. The open source movement seeks to share ip that was intended to be shared in the first place, not to be sold (as a first intention).
Over all, this is a good article, but maybe just a tad bit paranoid. Although I agree that these mega mergers are a serious problem, and that we desperately need Campaign Finance Reform. But seriously, does anyone think our souls are in more jeapordy now than they have been for the last half century? For more on CFR, get in touch with Common Cause. www.commoncause.org
OoO
Gee, if I just spout venom, can I get modded up too?
Look, you are quite right that everyone ought to sit down and think about this... but you say that Napster has technically broken the law. How is that? As people have said, over and over and over, the analogy ought to be an ISP. If Napster refuses to ban those 300 thousand plus users, than maybe they have technically broken the law...
Anyway, you are right that people ought to have the right to control their IP. I think that people here just think that the right thing to do is to contribute one's own IP so th other "hard-working artists" can benefit.
Anyway, I don't see how you can think that Metallica is being generous... They are protecting their profits in the best way that they can. Could you imagine the kind of backlash if they sued 300 thousand fans?
OoO
Oh wow.
Napster users who broke the law and now have to pay for it.
Don't get your hopes up buddy. You think that Metallica and their controllers believe in law and order? Seriously now, everyone complains about Katz, but "corporatism" is real. They don't care about law and order, they care about profit. Do you honestly think they're going to put 300,000 music fans on trial? Unlikely. They may put that guy offering every Metallica album on trial, but even there its close. They have a profit agenda, and they aren't going to risk it for "law and order."
some of us are actually in favor of law and order
An unthinking "law and order," without establishing the values you wish to enforce is dangerous and potentially evil. I don't think that the people of Slashdot oppose Law and Order. They promote Democracy, and they promote a well-reasoned law and order.
I have no sympathy for the subhuman zealots who think that they have a right to everything for free because they once installed a copy of Red Hat.
Where do you get the impression that open source advocates think that they "have a right" to everything for free? They don't want everything for free, they just see the potential in creating a system where people contribute and create a system that's better for everyone. Personally, I think the predominant idea is that if it isn't open and free, it's philosophically sub-par and deserves to be ignored.
That the Open Source Movement seemingly supports these hardened criminals is ludicrous.
:) Valium time man... Okay, let's just point out the couple of really poor thoughts in this statement. 1.) Where do you get the idea that open-sourcers support Napster? From the fact that some people on Slashdot think that Metallica and the Recording Industry are greedy? Come off it, they are greedy. I haven't seen anyone say that we have a "right" as you said, to get Metallica songs for free. People are angry because Metallica is showing their true, greedy, colors. As RMS said yesterday, Napster isn't free software, and it's not open source. You are confused. 2.) Napster users are hardened criminals? Are you insane? Napster users listen to music. Most of them don't even keep the music afterwards. Many of them go out and buy the albums afterwards. What they are doing may be illegal, but they are not hardened criminals.
No wonder no one takes you seriously
I wonder who the "no one" is that you are referring to. I mean, Douglas Adams is doing an interview with Slashdot, and practically every important online Journal refers to Slashdot as a mouthpiece for the technically literate.
Most Open Source Advocates have never produced any art or IP contributions
That's probably true. I myself am not a programmer, though maybe I'll start to learn a thing or two... But there are tons of people, over on mp3.com for example, who are producing work that everyone can listen to for free. The fact that a majority of open source advocates aren't producers doesn't mean that the movement isn't valid. And hey, a larger audience of users can only help those who do produce. And the more active that audience is to promote open-source, the better of the producers will be.
so how can you be expected to understand the issues?
Do you have to be a Senator to understand how government works?
You commonly accuse the media of being biased, but consider yourselves free from prejudice.
Where are you getting this from? Seriously, have you EVER seen an open-source advocate who claim to be unbiased against greedy corporations and unfair use restrictions?
Free Software does not mean Free Music.
never produced any art or IP
Well, your second statement there shows you can't be so ignorant as to believe that open source only has software implications, so your first statement there is essentially meaningless.
Look, its people like you who really endanger the system. You imply that people who support open source are zealots, yet you unthinkingly support a system that favors the rich and the greedy. You claim to be taking a position for "law and order," by opposing Napster. But by opposing the open discussion of the system Napster exists in, you are actually criticizing the very core value of our system, the democratic process. Law and order without democratic thought and the opportunity for reform is nothing short of fascism.
OoO
I did not have the address for your Record Label handy
You might want to delete that line...
OoO
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPIC ommand=GetResult&HT=1&SortProperty=MetaE ndSort&QUERY=websurfer
/. is in effect!
But be prepared, you're bidding against morons willing to pay hundreds of bucks for this thing...
OoO
I bet most of those articles are filler. Have you read any of them? Another article on Wired today was about the Bill Gates story. Hey, that's original!
Personally, I like these experimental/hackerish type articles even when they focus on social and not mechanical science...
I can get SDMI articles till my eyes bleed over at MP3.com.
Okay, my experience w/ the program was this: It gave me the link to a site for a band called Deep Elm, music for workers or some such thing, I gave it www.communism.org, but when I went there, I found it was communism.com how's that for irony? But anyhow, when I looked at the links list it had created, the link I had been presented with, and the one I submitted were nowhere close to each other on the list, so I wonder how he's going to analyze the history.
OoO
- the summary judgement in so complex a case was not valid, and was probably made by a judge either intimidated by the RIAA or unfarmiliar with the fundamental issues of the case
From the initial complaint:
The defendant made unauthorized copies of those 45,000 audio CDs, loaded the unauthorized copies onto file servers, and is permitting users of its Internet service to listen to and download those unauthorized copies.
Under Section 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (the "Copyright Act"), plaintiffs have the exclusive right, among other things, to make reproductions of their copyrighted sound recordings in all forms. This is one of the most sacrosanct rights afforded copyright owners.
It's quite possible that the judge was well versed w/ the issues, and made a good decision according to the copyright as it actually stands. Whether its philosophically consistent with our beliefs is another issue.
OoO
That's a good idea if thousands of people actually do it. Ummm, okay, you first.
Kind of reminds me of that guy standing in front of the tank at Tianenmen (sp?), okay, not quite as dire, but still, one small, brave step for democracy...
OoO
It's not a case over whether or not you have a right to listen to MP3's of your own CD's. You *do* have a right to do that.
Well, you certainly should have the right to. Whether you can do it legally is another matter.
The RIAA is a lobbying group, protecting a huge, monied, entrenched interest. It would be totally unfair and completely irrational to argue that someone shouldn't be able to make digital copies of music that they bought to listen to by themselves, but that is what they claim.
If you don't believe me, read their claim:
Second, again for your personal use, you can make some digital copies of music, depending on the type of digital recorder used. For example, digitally copying music is generally allowed with mini-disc recorders, digital audio tape (DAT) recorders, digital cassette tape recorders and some (but not all) compact disc recorders (or CD-R recorders). As a general rule for CD-Rs, if the CD-R recorder is a stand-alone machine designed to copy primarily audio, rather than data or video, then the copying is allowed. If the CD-R recorder is a computer component, or a computer peripheral device designed to be a multi-purpose recorder (in other words, if it will record data and video as well as audio), then copying is not allowed.
And if you don't believe they actually said that, here's where you can find it.
OoO
You are of course correct that much of the activity on Napster violates copyright. But you can't honestly believe that Napster has a moral imperative to police all of the activity that goes on through the use of its program? I mean, do you hold FTP programs responsible for trade in "warez"? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater man... You mention the GPL... It's not entirely impossible that some very good, non-greedy bands will release their music using some similar device. Wouldn't it be cool if we hadn't eliminated napster when they show up?
OoO
I don't see anything morally wrong w/ listening to mp3s of your own cd's.
OoO
I would gladly spend $600 for a voice controlled mp3 player for my car. But then again, I've been waiting almost a year for a cd-mp3 player (discman style) to emerge from the vapor, and there still isn't a product you can actually order and get ahold of. Aiwa is supposed to be releasing one that looks pretty cool, but of course, it's "real soon now." That one is being talked about a price of $350, and includes an on wheel remote.
Not that this doesn't sound cool, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Oh, btw, to all of you people talking about the illegality of mp3, just a reminder that there are tons of great legal mp3's out there... Check out http://www.mp3.com/bentframe They're the funniest band I've ever heard. Make sure to check out F&*k Dave, a chipmunks parody...
OoO
Didn't that old game asteroids do this?
OoO
And people like YOU are the reason why more people don't feel comfortable opening up... A community of non-anonymous people that respected each others desires would be a lot more useful than a bunch of cowards anonymously sniping at each other.
OoO
What a gem!
What profundity!
Very good point. Except that you're not responding to something that was ever actually said.
I'm not saying that this is "some sort of 'cozy gathering of the elite.'" I think you've proven the elite point for us, and the cozy point as well. I am saying however, that most people don't expect their comments on the evening news.
OoO
There is no such thing as privacy on /.. There is anonimity, but don't confuse that with privacy.
There is anonymity here, that's true. But there's also a certain amount of de facto privacy... Or, maybe there used to be... Because this isn't the general public's preferred website. Do your parents read Slashdot?
The mere fact that they could read it doesn't mean you're not expecting a certain amount of privacy. When you're chatting with your friends out in the backyard, you're probably not expecting that they're listening in. But suddenly you're faced with your comments in a totally different medium.
The point is that most people feel free to express themselves here because they don't think everybody they run into on an average day is going to read it.
Now we're all faced with the possibility of one of our posts ending up quoted on CNN because of a press release promoting the newest Columbine book.
OoO