I don't disagree: I think about 95% of all home computer owners need a Playskool operating system, with the software equivalent of rounded-point plastic scissors and the huge, half-inch-around pencils, and a good set of crayons, but speaking for myself, an OS that holds my hand "for my own good" to "keep me out of trouble" just makes me rage.
>Reinstalls XP "every year"
>WinXP "just works"
Paving over your computer on a regular basis should be the last-ditch, "nuclear" option for dealing with OS problems of any kind. I've been running the same install of XP for at least 5 years now, and if any problems crop up, I fix them, not give up and reinstall everything. I had Win2K before that, same install for at least 7 years, and Win98SE before that, same install for at least 5 years, and so on, and so on. Granted, most people aren't computer literate enough to do much more than pave over a system that isn't working correctly anymore, but nobody should be advertising this as the "right way" to deal with problems.
In it's current incarnation, yes, it needs to go away. It's had NBC/Universal's fingers meddling with it way too much, which I believe has diluted it down to the lowest-common-denominator channel it has become. The re-branding as "SyFy" was just the final nail in the coffin. However I disagree with the OP; making it a "premium" channel would be lobbing the asteroid at it that precipitates it's extinction-level event. It no longer has shows that are anywhere near strong enough for it to stand on it's own that way. I admit that I will miss Sanctuary somewhat, if only for Amanda Tapping, but beyond that, with the demise of SG:U, I, like many, I suspect, have no other compelling reason to continue watching it.
How is it bad? Because, if it became law, would be used as an excuse to track everyone everywhere they went via a government-mandated GPS device installed on the vehicle, which would report the tracking data back wirelessly on demand, that's why. Do you really want to live in what amounts to a police state, being tracked and watched everywhere you go? I do not. In practical terms it's stupid idea anyway, that, as already stated, is what the fuel tax is for.
Gee, I wish I was living in the rose-colored-glasses world you're living in, pal, where everything is hearts and flowers, eating sweets never makes you fat, everybody loves everybody, and no ne'er-do-wells would ever ever ever even think about using my open WiFi connection to download child porn or commit any other crime, leaving me holding the bag. It must be nice to believe that you'd never never ever be falsely accused of said crimes, to go blindly through life, carefree, never worrying that your entire life might be turned upside down because someone was so rude as to do something actionable with the internet connection you're paying for. Yeah, sure, you let me know how that's working for you, pal. The world is full of naive people like you, full of ideals that have no basis in reality, that make life easy for the even the casual criminal to do whatever they want and leave you gleefully holding the bag. Do you leave your house unlocked, with the windows wide open, everyday when you go to work? Do you leave your keys in the ignition of your car and the door unlocked when you park it somewhere? Do you let your underage children wander around unattended in crowded public places, never believing for a moment that someone might take them or do something to them? You must also completely trust your elected officials, because they would never lie to you, now would they? You must think that 9/11 was just all a big misunderstanding, and that all we need to do is just sit down and talk it all out, is that right? The world is full of people like you, who just can't believe that anything bad could ever happen to them, and that if they believe they're right, that they will prevail. Well, buddy, you might just do that: but it may cost you your job, your marriage and relationships, your friends, and every dime you have and everything you own. We'll be sure to erect a monument to you, you martyr you. While you're off making your bold social statement "for freedom", I'll be over here, exercising some common sense -- and waiting for a real cause worth turning my life upside down for, because letting my neighbors leech on my internet connection, right or wrong (and I must point out here that I have already stated that I agree with doing this in principle, damnit!) , just isn't important enough for me to open myself up to that kind of headache. ..oh, and if you want to know why it is I'm lighting you up like this: it's because you made this personal when you started calling me names, you son of a bitch.
How is allowing total strangers to use something that I am paying for qualify as "fighting for freedom"? Sounds more like "fighting for freeloading" to me.
Even as much as I agree with the sentiment of everyone having wide-open WiFi, there are two problems with that: One, I am the one paying for the bandwidth, and like most people, it's not truly unlimited. Two, all it takes is one asshole pedophile using my open WiFi to get me arrested for child porn, my house ransacked by the FBI, every scrap of technology I own confiscated, arrested, thrown in jail, and prosecuted for something I didn't do, and unlike some things, even proving my innocence will still leave me branded 'suspected pedophile' for the rest of my life. Fuck that noise, I say; I have a life, and I'd prefer to continue living it.
Good luck convincing the average citizen (of any country) of that. I know it's true, you know it's true, the rank-and-file Slashdotter know it's true, and pretty much every science-fiction fan knows it's true, but the average citizen doesn't understand it, doesn't appear to be capable of thinking that far ahead, and can't be convinced that "throwing money away into space" is a good idea "when there's so much that needs to be done here, on earth, first". Most people are more concerned about tomorrow, or maybe next month, not 50-100 years (or more) from now, and politicians are only really concerned with as far ahead as the next election. The only way I see that we're going to start making moves to get the hell off this planet is through the private sector.
What we should be doing is moving away from internal-combustion engines entirely. This just amounts to some expensive "sustaining engineering" for a nigh-unto obsolete technology. How about they put all that ingenuity, effort, and money into hydrogen fuel-cell technology and room-temperature superconductors? Think about how efficient an electric motor would be if it were built with superconductors! And while one might argue that a hydrogen fuel-cell is just another form of combustion requiring fossil fuels (which is a bit of a stretch), if we have highly developed and incredibly efficient electric motor techonology, we can always replace the power source with something else later on, like fusion, for instance, or battery technology with such an amazingly high energy density that you only have to recharge it once a month (or better).
It takes all of a couple minutes to open an account on Slashdot, and Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot are usually trolls. I don't think you read this entire thread or you'd find the answer to your "question" in there. That being said you're sounding a bit like a troll to me.
It's not working. It's pissing people off, and they're either not buying anything at all (who can blame them, so much of what is being promoted right now is utter crap) or they're downloading, or they're ripping borrowed CDs.
See, that's my point: The music industry is going to collapse under it's own deadweight. Some may say it's changing, but I say it's not changing fast enough, and while they procrastinate and keep trying to make the Old Ways work for them yet again, more and more artists are learning that they don't need the music industry, they can do it all themselves, from production all the way through distribution channels. The thing is that this may not be the most efficient way for artists to get new material to all the people who might want it. I have no problem with centralized distribution channels, but they keep trying to squeeze every single penny they can out of every little thing and it's clearly not working. There needs to be massive reform within the music industry (and the film industry; different subject); people can think what they want of my opinions on the subject, but I think everyone agrees that it needs to change in fundamental ways.
I don't disagree with you. I'm sure if they could find some way to make broadcast radio 100% subscription only without some government agency or other stepping in and saying "Hell, no!", they'd do it, but free broadcast radio is literally as old as the hills, and I think satellite radio has proven that the average person isn't interested in paying even a paltry amount of money for it as a subscription service -- and why should they, when they can have as much music as the average radio station has in their library right there on their iPod?
I don't feed the RIAA. I buy used CD's instead of new, resorting to new only when I can't find it used, and I'd buy new direct from the artists if more of them would offer their work that way. I'm sure if the RIAA had their way, they'd change the rules so that you only buy a "license" to listen to the CD, not the CD itself, and make it illegal to sell or even give the CD to someone else.
I resent the music industry monetizing every single thing they can, yet still fighting against fair use. If I buy a CD, I should be able to rip it, put it on my phone, put it on a PMP, put it on my computer, make a copy to keep in the car if I have a CD player in the car, etc etc etc, but they want everyone to pay for the same music over and over and over again. I don't use and have never even used this "Spotify", and I really don't care about it, either. My whole point is that the music industry won't change it's ways, yet insists on us paying over and over again.
Yet another scumbag Anonymous Coward who doesn't have the guts to show his face and say what he means. By the way: I have a job, I have money. I buy used CD's, resorting to new only when I can't find them used because the music industry is BULLSHIT. So you can bite me.
At least I have the balls to say what I really mean out in public, not posting as an Anonymous Coward; because of that, nothing you say has any meaning to me.
Is what they're getting at here, is that the more "energy efficient" a computer is, the more energy required to manufacture it, therefore it doesn't matter in the overall picture whether or not your computer is the most energy efficient model on the planet, it still effectively uses the same amount of energy (or more) as a less energy-efficient model? Wouldn't this apply to pretty much everything, then? Are we just kidding ourselves, then?
Memo to the music industry:
on
Who Killed Spotify?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Give us a product we're willing to pay for, and package it in forms that we want, and we'll probably pay for it. Otherwise: Fuck you. You can't stop the signal, no matter how hard you try. We'll all go back to sharing mix tapes if that's what it takes, or recording off the radio. You will NEVER be able to close the analog gap. You will NEVER be able to create any form of DRM that can't be cracked in a matter of hours or days. You will NEVER be able to stop the sale of used media. You will NEVER be able to prevent people from loaning and borrowing CDs from friends. Give it up. Change, or die.
I don't think it's just speed of travel that's declining. I think that's just a symptom of the human race in general heading into a decline. All around me I see ignorance and superstition on the rise while logic, reason and knowledge are falling away.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree: I think about 95% of all home computer owners need a Playskool operating system, with the software equivalent of rounded-point plastic scissors and the huge, half-inch-around pencils, and a good set of crayons, but speaking for myself, an OS that holds my hand "for my own good" to "keep me out of trouble" just makes me rage.
>Reinstalls XP "every year"
>WinXP "just works"
Paving over your computer on a regular basis should be the last-ditch, "nuclear" option for dealing with OS problems of any kind. I've been running the same install of XP for at least 5 years now, and if any problems crop up, I fix them, not give up and reinstall everything. I had Win2K before that, same install for at least 7 years, and Win98SE before that, same install for at least 5 years, and so on, and so on. Granted, most people aren't computer literate enough to do much more than pave over a system that isn't working correctly anymore, but nobody should be advertising this as the "right way" to deal with problems.
In it's current incarnation, yes, it needs to go away. It's had NBC/Universal's fingers meddling with it way too much, which I believe has diluted it down to the lowest-common-denominator channel it has become. The re-branding as "SyFy" was just the final nail in the coffin. However I disagree with the OP; making it a "premium" channel would be lobbing the asteroid at it that precipitates it's extinction-level event. It no longer has shows that are anywhere near strong enough for it to stand on it's own that way. I admit that I will miss Sanctuary somewhat, if only for Amanda Tapping, but beyond that, with the demise of SG:U, I, like many, I suspect, have no other compelling reason to continue watching it.
How is it bad? Because, if it became law, would be used as an excuse to track everyone everywhere they went via a government-mandated GPS device installed on the vehicle, which would report the tracking data back wirelessly on demand, that's why. Do you really want to live in what amounts to a police state, being tracked and watched everywhere you go? I do not. In practical terms it's stupid idea anyway, that, as already stated, is what the fuel tax is for.
I think this is a good long-term idea, so long as we always remember that the moon is a harsh mistress.
who needs fresh water when you can use pee ?!!!
This comment sponsored by Bear Gryllis
Gee, I wish I was living in the rose-colored-glasses world you're living in, pal, where everything is hearts and flowers, eating sweets never makes you fat, everybody loves everybody, and no ne'er-do-wells would ever ever ever even think about using my open WiFi connection to download child porn or commit any other crime, leaving me holding the bag. It must be nice to believe that you'd never never ever be falsely accused of said crimes, to go blindly through life, carefree, never worrying that your entire life might be turned upside down because someone was so rude as to do something actionable with the internet connection you're paying for. Yeah, sure, you let me know how that's working for you, pal. The world is full of naive people like you, full of ideals that have no basis in reality, that make life easy for the even the casual criminal to do whatever they want and leave you gleefully holding the bag. Do you leave your house unlocked, with the windows wide open, everyday when you go to work? Do you leave your keys in the ignition of your car and the door unlocked when you park it somewhere? Do you let your underage children wander around unattended in crowded public places, never believing for a moment that someone might take them or do something to them? You must also completely trust your elected officials, because they would never lie to you, now would they? You must think that 9/11 was just all a big misunderstanding, and that all we need to do is just sit down and talk it all out, is that right? The world is full of people like you, who just can't believe that anything bad could ever happen to them, and that if they believe they're right, that they will prevail. Well, buddy, you might just do that: but it may cost you your job, your marriage and relationships, your friends, and every dime you have and everything you own. We'll be sure to erect a monument to you, you martyr you.
While you're off making your bold social statement "for freedom", I'll be over here, exercising some common sense -- and waiting for a real cause worth turning my life upside down for, because letting my neighbors leech on my internet connection, right or wrong (and I must point out here that I have already stated that I agree with doing this in principle, damnit!) , just isn't important enough for me to open myself up to that kind of headache.
..oh, and if you want to know why it is I'm lighting you up like this: it's because you made this personal when you started calling me names, you son of a bitch.
You don't need to apologize to anyone or justify yourself to anyone.
You don't know jack shit about me and you are completely and utterly out of line judging me. Fuck the fuck off.
How is allowing total strangers to use something that I am paying for qualify as "fighting for freedom"? Sounds more like "fighting for freeloading" to me.
Even as much as I agree with the sentiment of everyone having wide-open WiFi, there are two problems with that: One, I am the one paying for the bandwidth, and like most people, it's not truly unlimited. Two, all it takes is one asshole pedophile using my open WiFi to get me arrested for child porn, my house ransacked by the FBI, every scrap of technology I own confiscated, arrested, thrown in jail, and prosecuted for something I didn't do, and unlike some things, even proving my innocence will still leave me branded 'suspected pedophile' for the rest of my life. Fuck that noise, I say; I have a life, and I'd prefer to continue living it.
Good luck convincing the average citizen (of any country) of that. I know it's true, you know it's true, the rank-and-file Slashdotter know it's true, and pretty much every science-fiction fan knows it's true, but the average citizen doesn't understand it, doesn't appear to be capable of thinking that far ahead, and can't be convinced that "throwing money away into space" is a good idea "when there's so much that needs to be done here, on earth, first". Most people are more concerned about tomorrow, or maybe next month, not 50-100 years (or more) from now, and politicians are only really concerned with as far ahead as the next election. The only way I see that we're going to start making moves to get the hell off this planet is through the private sector.
What we should be doing is moving away from internal-combustion engines entirely. This just amounts to some expensive "sustaining engineering" for a nigh-unto obsolete technology. How about they put all that ingenuity, effort, and money into hydrogen fuel-cell technology and room-temperature superconductors? Think about how efficient an electric motor would be if it were built with superconductors! And while one might argue that a hydrogen fuel-cell is just another form of combustion requiring fossil fuels (which is a bit of a stretch), if we have highly developed and incredibly efficient electric motor techonology, we can always replace the power source with something else later on, like fusion, for instance, or battery technology with such an amazingly high energy density that you only have to recharge it once a month (or better).
It takes all of a couple minutes to open an account on Slashdot, and Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot are usually trolls.
I don't think you read this entire thread or you'd find the answer to your "question" in there. That being said you're sounding a bit like a troll to me.
It's not working. It's pissing people off, and they're either not buying anything at all (who can blame them, so much of what is being promoted right now is utter crap) or they're downloading, or they're ripping borrowed CDs.
See, that's my point: The music industry is going to collapse under it's own deadweight. Some may say it's changing, but I say it's not changing fast enough, and while they procrastinate and keep trying to make the Old Ways work for them yet again, more and more artists are learning that they don't need the music industry, they can do it all themselves, from production all the way through distribution channels. The thing is that this may not be the most efficient way for artists to get new material to all the people who might want it. I have no problem with centralized distribution channels, but they keep trying to squeeze every single penny they can out of every little thing and it's clearly not working. There needs to be massive reform within the music industry (and the film industry; different subject); people can think what they want of my opinions on the subject, but I think everyone agrees that it needs to change in fundamental ways.
I'm not going to repeat myself; go read some of my replies to other people's comments instead.
I don't disagree with you. I'm sure if they could find some way to make broadcast radio 100% subscription only without some government agency or other stepping in and saying "Hell, no!", they'd do it, but free broadcast radio is literally as old as the hills, and I think satellite radio has proven that the average person isn't interested in paying even a paltry amount of money for it as a subscription service -- and why should they, when they can have as much music as the average radio station has in their library right there on their iPod?
I don't feed the RIAA. I buy used CD's instead of new, resorting to new only when I can't find it used, and I'd buy new direct from the artists if more of them would offer their work that way. I'm sure if the RIAA had their way, they'd change the rules so that you only buy a "license" to listen to the CD, not the CD itself, and make it illegal to sell or even give the CD to someone else.
Only AC's troll, so who's trolling who here?
I resent the music industry monetizing every single thing they can, yet still fighting against fair use. If I buy a CD, I should be able to rip it, put it on my phone, put it on a PMP, put it on my computer, make a copy to keep in the car if I have a CD player in the car, etc etc etc, but they want everyone to pay for the same music over and over and over again. I don't use and have never even used this "Spotify", and I really don't care about it, either. My whole point is that the music industry won't change it's ways, yet insists on us paying over and over again.
Yet another scumbag Anonymous Coward who doesn't have the guts to show his face and say what he means.
By the way: I have a job, I have money. I buy used CD's, resorting to new only when I can't find them used because the music industry is BULLSHIT. So you can bite me.
At least I have the balls to say what I really mean out in public, not posting as an Anonymous Coward; because of that, nothing you say has any meaning to me.
Is what they're getting at here, is that the more "energy efficient" a computer is, the more energy required to manufacture it, therefore it doesn't matter in the overall picture whether or not your computer is the most energy efficient model on the planet, it still effectively uses the same amount of energy (or more) as a less energy-efficient model? Wouldn't this apply to pretty much everything, then? Are we just kidding ourselves, then?
Give us a product we're willing to pay for, and package it in forms that we want, and we'll probably pay for it.
Otherwise: Fuck you. You can't stop the signal, no matter how hard you try. We'll all go back to sharing mix tapes if that's what it takes, or recording off the radio. You will NEVER be able to close the analog gap. You will NEVER be able to create any form of DRM that can't be cracked in a matter of hours or days. You will NEVER be able to stop the sale of used media. You will NEVER be able to prevent people from loaning and borrowing CDs from friends. Give it up. Change, or die.
I don't think it's just speed of travel that's declining. I think that's just a symptom of the human race in general heading into a decline. All around me I see ignorance and superstition on the rise while logic, reason and knowledge are falling away.