It may SEEM simple, but it's NOT
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Though I'm fully aware the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment gives this duty to state militias, anyone who has studied history knows that this amendment exists because this country was founded out of rebellion againts a tyranical government. The current interpretation is just convenient politics. This is why we need guns.
It is unfortunate that these shootings occur, but banning the tools does not fix the tool user. How many festering crackpots will choose to go postal with another tool if we choose your SIMPLE solution? Guns do not cause shootings--people do.
I've not read the book but wanted to respond to your comments concerning the shooting.
The explanation that they targeted jocks because jocks have increased mating opportunities seems plausible, but may be oversimplifying and/or innacurate. There are multiple factors to consider:
- Kids at that age are incredibly cruel. The pointless insults that adults hold in check are often not held back during adolescence. Humor at the expense of others (because they wear a black trenchcoat, for instance) is easy to add to the "warchest" and is not a tool only for jocks.
- A society that glamourizes adult desires (sex, power) while simultaneously limiting their adult privileges (drugs, alcohol, driving, the ability to make money).
- A society of increasing complexity (technology, legislation) that must seem insurmountable to some at that age, with the full expectation that they will be thrown into it after graduation.
Anyway, just some random thoughts. BTW, this is one of the best threads I've ever seen on/.
Any search engine created/maintained by commercial entities will eventually succomb to this.
DOT COM = COMMERCIAL = PROFIT MOTIVE
You can't provide a service like this for long without skewwing the search results towards the people giving you money. We should learn to accept this.
The answer? A non-profit search engine. Govt. subsidies? Maybe. Does such an animal exist???
At some point, say 50 years in the future, this issue will seem so much clearer than it is today. Right now we struggle to make sense of it all.
Alsop is correct in that trying to protect copyrights is futile, but so is the War on Drugs. And that hasn't stopped the U.S. govt. from trying to stop that.
There is too much $$, too many Wall Street slicksters, too many folks with 401Ks tied up into the companies profiting from the status quo, for such a radical change to happen anytime soon--especially since politicians worship at the alter of those who can supply the $$ that pay for the advertising campaigns that get them elected. Don't count on them to do anything revolutionary.
On the flip side, how would any meaningful large-scale software development project get off the ground if the end results could not be profitable? How would user interface studies, testing labs, or other software-related research ever be funded?
Somewhere between the current situation of copyright/patent-happy, litigation-prone, monopolistic oppresion and the free-for-all of an Open-Source world, there exists a happy medium that will foster innovation without stifling the industry.
There's a part of me that laughs at things like this...media frenzy over a relatively harmless virus that exploits MS codebloat. OK, I know it wreaks havoc for sysadmins out there, but still, this isn't much different than those phony virus warnings that go around every week.
Madison Ave. has pumped Americans full of the idea that they need to be on the internet, but they've left off the part concerning the underlying complexity. People should really be more informed about what goes on under the hood.
The Melissa virus is a good reality check for all computer users. Just like the unwritten law that you should never rely on a MS *.0 release product, you should never open any unsolicited email attachments. These are just a couple of the basic computing guidelines that everyone should know.
I think Lycos and any other defendants against the RIAA should counter-threaten with a class-action lawsuit. Price-gouging and Censorship (of the millions of unsigned artists) come to mind off the top of my head...
Is it beneficial for society when we encode intelligence and then regulate the use of that intelligence?
If I can patent an algorithm, why can't I patent one such as, 'Remove keys from pocket, use key to open car door, get in car, fasten seatbelt, etc...' ??? Is the validity of a patent only governed by how clueless the patent office is about the industry the patent applies to?
If you consider that computer code is simply encoded intelligence, at what point are we limiting the technological innovation of the human race in the name of Intellectual Capital?
>>>Whatever legislation is applied to 'spammers' can and will be applied to YOU Wrong. The messages that we are posting here are not blindly aimed...spam is. You are here by choice. You ask to read these messages. Spam is unwanted and unsolicited.
You see it everywhere you go...it clutters your (snail) mailbox, your email box, the roadsides, the countrysides, your favorite stock-car driver, it is everywhere: ADVERTISING. It is an insideous plague that attempts to blind us with unwanted messages. It is like someone following you around all day long speaking nonsense into your ear. It has corrupted politics (Clinton took money from whom to do what?) and even basic economics (Why make the best product? We'll just have the best advertising!)
Why is OOP popular? Because it hides the implementation details. It makes things simpler. What does advertising do? It makes things harder. What kind of deoderant should I buy? Well, I'm only familiar with 50 different brands, too bad I can't remember which one was voted best by Consumer Reports!!!
Every message we process is a tax on our brains. If advertisers had their way, we would spend all day immersed in cutesy copyrighted slogans and names, sucking the teat of Brand Recognition, till we spend so little time on the things that matter (life, love, pursuit of happiness) that we hose down our neighbors with AK-47s. Unnecessary processing of advertising messages should be OUTLAWED!!!
So let's say they're successful with this. What does it mean? Will the RIAA strongarm the hardware producers into making only "watermark-compliant" car stereos, walkmans, and home stereo components?
Stamping a file with a digital signature retains information, such as artist or producer contact, copyright data, and a number to track ownership.
So if I want to play a watermarked MP3 on my watermarked MP3-enabled listening device, is it supposed to connect to their server and verify that I've paid for the download? Or is this thing just supposed to make it easier for them to shut down high-volume piraters? Something sounds fishy here.
Yes, I think Aerosmith deserves to make their millions of $$$s for the mere fact that people are willing to pay them.
You mean like how Standard Oil deserved all those millions they made?
You can choose to buy this stuff or not.
Actually, I don't know about that. As far as I'm concerned, music is preventative medicine for the sole. If I choose not to buy, I am forced to record songs off the radio or borrow music from other people. Not practical for most people. If I buy blank tapes, isn't there already some kickback built into that price too?
No one forced your favorite artists to sign a contract...
Bull. The only choice they have (when getting started anyway) is to sign the contract or not have the music published.
...and I tend to have the cash to buy every disc that I've wanted...
Which brings us back to efficiency. Less $$$ spent on tunes means you have more freedom with your $$$.
Efficiency. Isn't that what technology and computing are all about? We HAVE been taking it up the whazoo for far too long, and along comes a new technology that threatens to deflate the profit margins of greedy corporations. MP3 is a way for me to get my music more efficiently. And don't give me that crap about the poor artists. As a musician myself, I'll tell you that no one picks up a guitar for money (it's for babes actually). Does Aerosmith really DESERVE all those millions? Do they contribute that much to society? In the end, doesn't all that cash usually just corrupt most musicians?
Slashdot Mirror
Though I'm fully aware the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment gives this duty to state militias, anyone who has studied history knows that this amendment exists because this country was founded out of rebellion againts a tyranical government. The current interpretation is just convenient politics. This is why we need guns.
It is unfortunate that these shootings occur, but banning the tools does not fix the tool user. How many festering crackpots will choose to go postal with another tool if we choose your SIMPLE solution? Guns do not cause shootings--people do.
I've not read the book but wanted to respond to your comments concerning the shooting.
/.
The explanation that they targeted jocks because jocks have increased mating opportunities seems plausible, but may be oversimplifying and/or innacurate. There are multiple factors to consider:
- Kids at that age are incredibly cruel. The pointless insults that adults hold in check are often not held back during adolescence. Humor at the expense of others (because they wear a black trenchcoat, for instance) is easy to add to the "warchest" and is not a tool only for jocks.
- A society that glamourizes adult desires (sex, power) while simultaneously limiting their adult privileges (drugs, alcohol, driving, the ability to make money).
- A society of increasing complexity (technology, legislation) that must seem insurmountable to some at that age, with the full expectation that they will be thrown into it after graduation.
Anyway, just some random thoughts. BTW, this is one of the best threads I've ever seen on
Any search engine created/maintained by commercial entities will eventually succomb to this.
DOT COM = COMMERCIAL = PROFIT MOTIVE
You can't provide a service like this for long without skewwing the search results towards the people giving you money. We should learn to accept this.
The answer? A non-profit search engine. Govt. subsidies? Maybe. Does such an animal exist???
At some point, say 50 years in the future, this issue will seem so much clearer than it is today. Right now we struggle to make sense of it all.
Alsop is correct in that trying to protect copyrights is futile, but so is the War on Drugs. And that hasn't stopped the U.S. govt. from trying to stop that.
There is too much $$, too many Wall Street slicksters, too many folks with 401Ks tied up into the companies profiting from the status quo, for such a radical change to happen anytime soon--especially since politicians worship at the alter of those who can supply the $$ that pay for the advertising campaigns that get them elected. Don't count on them to do anything revolutionary.
On the flip side, how would any meaningful large-scale software development project get off the ground if the end results could not be profitable? How would user interface studies, testing labs, or other software-related research ever be funded?
Somewhere between the current situation of copyright/patent-happy, litigation-prone, monopolistic oppresion and the free-for-all of an Open-Source world, there exists a happy medium that will foster innovation without stifling the industry.
We need a hero to help us find it.
There's a part of me that laughs at things like this...media frenzy over a relatively harmless virus that exploits MS codebloat. OK, I know it wreaks havoc for sysadmins out there, but still, this isn't much different than those phony virus warnings that go around every week.
Madison Ave. has pumped Americans full of the idea that they need to be on the internet, but they've left off the part concerning the underlying complexity. People should really be more informed about what goes on under the hood.
The Melissa virus is a good reality check for all computer users. Just like the unwritten law that you should never rely on a MS *.0 release product, you should never open any unsolicited email attachments. These are just a couple of the basic computing guidelines that everyone should know.
I think Lycos and any other defendants against the RIAA should counter-threaten with a class-action lawsuit. Price-gouging and Censorship (of the millions of unsigned artists) come to mind off the top of my head...
Is it beneficial for society when we encode intelligence and then regulate the use of that intelligence?
If I can patent an algorithm, why can't I patent one such as, 'Remove keys from pocket, use key to open car door, get in car, fasten seatbelt, etc...' ??? Is the validity of a patent only governed by how clueless the patent office is about the industry the patent applies to?
If you consider that computer code is simply encoded intelligence, at what point are we limiting the technological innovation of the human race in the name of Intellectual Capital?
See my other comments here
You see how insideous this advertising stuff is?!! I'm even doing it when I'm ranting against it!!!
You see it everywhere you go...it clutters your (snail) mailbox, your email box, the roadsides, the countrysides, your favorite stock-car driver, it is everywhere: ADVERTISING. It is an insideous plague that attempts to blind us with unwanted messages. It is like someone following you around all day long speaking nonsense into your ear. It has corrupted politics (Clinton took money from whom to do what?) and even basic economics (Why make the best product? We'll just have the best advertising!)
Why is OOP popular? Because it hides the implementation details. It makes things simpler. What does advertising do? It makes things harder. What kind of deoderant should I buy? Well, I'm only familiar with 50 different brands, too bad I can't remember which one was voted best by Consumer Reports!!!
Every message we process is a tax on our brains. If advertisers had their way, we would spend all day immersed in cutesy copyrighted slogans and names, sucking the teat of Brand Recognition, till we spend so little time on the things that matter (life, love, pursuit of happiness) that we hose down our neighbors with AK-47s. Unnecessary processing of advertising messages should be OUTLAWED!!!
Stamping a file with a digital signature retains information, such as artist or producer contact, copyright data, and a number to track ownership.
So if I want to play a watermarked MP3 on my watermarked MP3-enabled listening device, is it supposed to connect to their server and verify that I've paid for the download? Or is this thing just supposed to make it easier for them to shut down high-volume piraters? Something sounds fishy here.
"It's a good thing for consumers."
hahahaha!!!!!!!
You mean like how Standard Oil deserved all those millions they made?
You can choose to buy this stuff or not.
Actually, I don't know about that. As far as I'm concerned, music is preventative medicine for the sole. If I choose not to buy, I am forced to record songs off the radio or borrow music from other people. Not practical for most people. If I buy blank tapes, isn't there already some kickback built into that price too?
No one forced your favorite artists to sign a contract...
Bull. The only choice they have (when getting started anyway) is to sign the contract or not have the music published.
Which brings us back to efficiency. Less $$$ spent on tunes means you have more freedom with your $$$.
Efficiency. Isn't that what technology and computing are all about? We HAVE been taking it up the whazoo for far too long, and along comes a new technology that threatens to deflate the profit margins of greedy corporations. MP3 is a way for me to get my music more efficiently. And don't give me that crap about the poor artists. As a musician myself, I'll tell you that no one picks up a guitar for money (it's for babes actually). Does Aerosmith really DESERVE all those millions? Do they contribute that much to society? In the end, doesn't all that cash usually just corrupt most musicians?