Theoretically, that could work, since it would be a big deal if some movie flopped in theaters but made billions in rentals. The problems are: films would make much less money since instead of 5 people paying for their tickets, one guy rents to movie and they all see it, and that the media tracks success of a film by its box office success, and ultimately, the media is the driving force of the industry.
The only problem here is that the message a theater full of empty seats sends is that the movie is a flop. This leads to these sort of movies not being picked up by hollywood because they are "failures" and the people who protested the movie in the first place win.
In general, I tend to agree with most of Katz' writing. But in this article, he first advocates "hitting them in the pocketbook", by NOT going to the movies and finding other ways of seeing them, claiming that this is a good way to fight back, since the declining profits would force theaters to take notice. Then he goes on to say "Take a Geek Kid to a Movie", essentially, "Give the Theaters More Business than they Legally Deserve". These points really conflict. You can't fight a war on conflicting fronts. If you are going to take a position and make a stand, that's fine, but this article falls apart in its attempt to show diverse methods of attack.
The other problem here is Quality of Life crimes. It's a big issue that at least the NYC government has been working to combat. It has been shown that turnstile hoppers, and guys who run red lights often have other criminal records. In other words, if someone breaks the law, they have a tendency to really BREAK THE LAW. Katz is advocating kids sneaking into theaters, taking stubs for other showings (not paying), and adults showing them that lying to break the law is a Good Thing. Since his recent theme is that parents need to show their kids the Right Way to act, and teach them to be Good People, this is completely against everything he seems to stand for. I advocate complaining, writing to congressmen, and making a scene, but blatant disregard for rules and the law is no way to teach kids the Right Way to live.
I urge Jon Katz to put a little more thought in before he writes his articles to make sure he isn't just writing popular ideas and reactionary statements, but really making a quality point.
I think the strongest point touched on in this article is the misplacement of "hero" status. The other day on the news, I saw a story of a kid who got in a terrible accident, but survived and is recovering nicely. He was deemed a "hero". Now, it seems to me that surviving an accident, no matter how tragic, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with being a hero. It has to do with the most basic of instincts, that of survival. Overcoming personal tragedy is a triumph, helping someone else, or the world at large to overcome tragedy with little or no sense of self begins to approach heroism. And death at a young age of an unrelated accident in no way gives someone hero status in my book.
As far as generational icons go, this is a label generally misplaced, as it is often imposed by the previous generation. However, there are situations where it is completely appropriate. One must first remember that not all members of a generation are the same before accepting this point. Perhaps a more appropriate term is "subculture icons". Look at it this way: Many of the readers on this site look up to and iconify Linus Torvalds for his contributions to the Linux/Open source community, and for his ideals on software copyrights. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, if the media was to refer to him as a "generational icon", half the world would say "What the hell does some geek have to do with my generation? This is ridiculous". The same goes for many of the individuals that we refer to as "irrelevant" to our lives. I'm not saying that JFK Jr. is a prime example, but perhaps a large subculture of our society feels that he was a person to look up to. I can't argue that, from what I know of him, he was a well-spoken, affable man. Personally, I think a reasonable icon for my subculture would be Mr. Bill Gates. I realize I'm inviting flames here, but the point is, a ton of us look at him and say "Look at that, I could do that." Thus the start-up craze. I'm not saying we necessarily agree with all of the business practices of Microsoft Corp, or even Mr Gates himself, but I know there are an awful lot of people who would like to realize that kind of success coming from what began as a relatively small operation, and having that kind of societal influence.
I'm not really sure of what my point is here, except maybe that we should all choose our own heros and icons, and accept other people's choices as well. Maybe that kid who got in the accident is a hero for some, and if that helps make their lives better, I suppose, so be it. (yeah, yeah, so I contradict myself...that's what happens when rational thinking overtakes a rant....doesn't make any of it wrong...)
Seems to me that if battery life is that important, and you are looking for a way to recharge it, the keyboard won't quite cut it. How about building a fold-out crank onto the side that attaches to a generator? Then you market it as a laptop/exercise machine. Face it, your average geek could use a little exercise anyway (I know I could) and I'm sure running the crank a few timers would generate a ton more power than the keyboard would. Not to mention how fun it would be to watch someone working that crank when they realized that their power was running out just when they were trying to save that presentation...
On a similar note, I am surprised that the little app they use for the show "Wild Wild Web" hasn't caught on more among the TV crowd, news shows and such should love it. Basically the TV makes a short string of tones, not unlike radio station identification, and the app catches the noise and desciphers it and points your browser to the URL represented by the tones. It allows you to "read along with" or "find out more about" whatever is going on on the show. I'm not saying it's something users would love, but I would think the suits would find it "neat" and "cutting edge"...
I don't really understand why people think they will profit from this. The only time a domain name comes in handy is when it is the name of a corporation that someone is trying to find, or when it is so blatantly simple (read: everything on CNET: news.com, download.com, etc) that it makes sense to type it in. Otherwise, web content is found through links and search engines, in which case the domain isn't important, certainly not worth thousands. Consider, if you will, how many people would randomly enter http://slashdot.org when looking for tech news, if they didn't already know of the existence of the site!?!? (That is not to say that slashdot is a poor name, I actually find it both witty AND catchy...)
The point is, most of these names just won't do anyone that much good, certainly not thousands. And yes, the cybersquatting thing is being shut down, so you can't even speculate on a company becoming a web presence and grab their name before they do.
And I really doubt that a new company (maybe fencers?) will spring up and call themselves SuckMyPole, so even the best of the names I saw there probably won't be a moneymaker;-)
I personally think that if it was hashed out intelligently, the SPP could be a great success. Reading some of the replies here, I noticed that many of you are missing some of the main points that the author makes.
1) Let's say Tom Clancy is going to come out with his next novel. The price set for the novel is, say 2 million dollars. Now at first glance, you would think, nobody is going to put any money into that at all, because they figure "my contribution is nothing compared to that!" But then a few weeks go by, and nobody has put up any significant money, lets say that a total of $3,000 had come in. Now here is where one of the big ideas come in. Wealthy speculators start to say, "Hmm...this is never going to make it. The publisher is offering a 15% interest if the book doesn't get published, I could use that kind of money", and they start throwing thousands of dollars at it, saying "What's my 10k to 2 million?". But enough of them do this and now the book is near publication...maybe the public donates the money. Maybe the publisher undertakes the cost to SAVE the money he would have to pay back on interest. But whatever the case, when all is said and done, the public gets their Tom Clancy novel, and Mr Clancy builds that 30 car garage he's been wanting. I think the concept of speculation really makes this an interesting idea, since people LOVE speculating (look at the day trading phenomenon that is sweeping idiots everywhere), and no matter what, you will get SOMETHING out of it.
2) This does NOT have to be something done simply for a work-in-progress. Sure, the possibility exists for the money to be collected while the writer writes the novel (always with the novel analogy, I know...) but the author could just as easily have the book finished, and cleaned up by the publisher before the offering hits the market. This would allow for several savings. Nowadays, publishers reject tons of manuscripts, because they don't think that the public will like them enough to justify the significant cost of printing millions of novels for worldwide distribution, or even nationwide for that matter. With the SPP, many more novels could be offered, with a chapter or two, or maybe even a treatment of the whole novel available for the public to decide whether it was worthy of a few bucks, instead of a publisher. This serves everyone:
a)Authors who might never get published otherwise get the chance to find out that that epic novel rejected by Pendant Publishing is actually a bestseller, but the editor who read it was in a bad mood on that day...so contrary to many of the recent posts, this could HELP unknowns more than it could hurt them. And the same would go for musicians. They could release a single for public review at any time. That way, bands on small labels, or small bands on big labels that don't promote them would have the ability to reach the public at large.
b)Publishers would never actually release novels that would flop, because the public wouldn't demand them. From a profit perspective, the publishers couldn't MAKE a bad decision.
c)Readers would get the ability to read tons of ideas that would previously never have been available to them, and have the ability to decide what would survive and what wouldn't.
d)Investors could speculate on the success of a novel. Risky though it would be for investors, if the interest was high enough, it would at any rate be a lot safer than a roulette wheel. Maybe I should call them gamblers instead of investors...
At any rate, this is starting to get long, and I think I have gotten my point across. This could be a tremendous idea, properly implemented...
I always thought the way to get yer caffiene going was to brew a pot of coffee with Water Joe (or Krank20, or whatever they call caffienated water where you come from). That's where you really get your BANG...
That's a strong point. Wouldn't it seem that if legal action was coming in, destroying the evidence beforehand could be viewed as admitting guilt? Wasn't there some fairly famous precedent... what was it called... water-something...Meanwhile, I hardly see the logic in bringing down a HUGE site, just because there were complaints about some of the content. At any rate, it seems like the complaints were about the/jp directory, so why didn't they just remove that? Seems like a fishy deal...gotta feel bad for the guy, the email especially brings a tear.
Great...so if someone, ANYONE wants to research anything controversial, they better find somewhere besides the library, because the last thing we want is for anyone ever to get offended by anything...
Slashdot Mirror
Theoretically, that could work, since it would be a big deal if some movie flopped in theaters but made billions in rentals. The problems are: films would make much less money since instead of 5 people paying for their tickets, one guy rents to movie and they all see it, and that the media tracks success of a film by its box office success, and ultimately, the media is the driving force of the industry.
The only problem here is that the message a theater full of empty seats sends is that the movie is a flop. This leads to these sort of movies not being picked up by hollywood because they are "failures" and the people who protested the movie in the first place win.
In general, I tend to agree with most of Katz' writing. But in this article, he first advocates "hitting them in the pocketbook", by NOT going to the movies and finding other ways of seeing them, claiming that this is a good way to fight back, since the declining profits would force theaters to take notice. Then he goes on to say "Take a Geek Kid to a Movie", essentially, "Give the Theaters More Business than they Legally Deserve". These points really conflict. You can't fight a war on conflicting fronts. If you are going to take a position and make a stand, that's fine, but this article falls apart in its attempt to show diverse methods of attack.
The other problem here is Quality of Life crimes. It's a big issue that at least the NYC government has been working to combat. It has been shown that turnstile hoppers, and guys who run red lights often have other criminal records. In other words, if someone breaks the law, they have a tendency to really BREAK THE LAW. Katz is advocating kids sneaking into theaters, taking stubs for other showings (not paying), and adults showing them that lying to break the law is a Good Thing. Since his recent theme is that parents need to show their kids the Right Way to act, and teach them to be Good People, this is completely against everything he seems to stand for. I advocate complaining, writing to congressmen, and making a scene, but blatant disregard for rules and the law is no way to teach kids the Right Way to live.
I urge Jon Katz to put a little more thought in before he writes his articles to make sure he isn't just writing popular ideas and reactionary statements, but really making a quality point.
I think the strongest point touched on in this article is the misplacement of "hero" status. The other day on the news, I saw a story of a kid who got in a terrible accident, but survived and is recovering nicely. He was deemed a "hero". Now, it seems to me that surviving an accident, no matter how tragic, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with being a hero. It has to do with the most basic of instincts, that of survival. Overcoming personal tragedy is a triumph, helping someone else, or the world at large to overcome tragedy with little or no sense of self begins to approach heroism. And death at a young age of an unrelated accident in no way gives someone hero status in my book.
As far as generational icons go, this is a label generally misplaced, as it is often imposed by the previous generation. However, there are situations where it is completely appropriate. One must first remember that not all members of a generation are the same before accepting this point. Perhaps a more appropriate term is "subculture icons". Look at it this way: Many of the readers on this site look up to and iconify Linus Torvalds for his contributions to the Linux/Open source community, and for his ideals on software copyrights. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, if the media was to refer to him as a "generational icon", half the world would say "What the hell does some geek have to do with my generation? This is ridiculous". The same goes for many of the individuals that we refer to as "irrelevant" to our lives. I'm not saying that JFK Jr. is a prime example, but perhaps a large subculture of our society feels that he was a person to look up to. I can't argue that, from what I know of him, he was a well-spoken, affable man. Personally, I think a reasonable icon for my subculture would be Mr. Bill Gates. I realize I'm inviting flames here, but the point is, a ton of us look at him and say "Look at that, I could do that." Thus the start-up craze. I'm not saying we necessarily agree with all of the business practices of Microsoft Corp, or even Mr Gates himself, but I know there are an awful lot of people who would like to realize that kind of success coming from what began as a relatively small operation, and having that kind of societal influence.
I'm not really sure of what my point is here, except maybe that we should all choose our own heros and icons, and accept other people's choices as well. Maybe that kid who got in the accident is a hero for some, and if that helps make their lives better, I suppose, so be it. (yeah, yeah, so I contradict myself...that's what happens when rational thinking overtakes a rant....doesn't make any of it wrong...)
Seems to me that if battery life is that important, and you are looking for a way to recharge it, the keyboard won't quite cut it. How about building a fold-out crank onto the side that attaches to a generator? Then you market it as a laptop/exercise machine. Face it, your average geek could use a little exercise anyway (I know I could) and I'm sure running the crank a few timers would generate a ton more power than the keyboard would. Not to mention how fun it would be to watch someone working that crank when they realized that their power was running out just when they were trying to save that presentation...
On a similar note, I am surprised that the little app they use for the show "Wild Wild Web" hasn't caught on more among the TV crowd, news shows and such should love it. Basically the TV makes a short string of tones, not unlike radio station identification, and the app catches the noise and desciphers it and points your browser to the URL represented by the tones. It allows you to "read along with" or "find out more about" whatever is going on on the show. I'm not saying it's something users would love, but I would think the suits would find it "neat" and "cutting edge"...
What is all of that nonsense in the subject line?
Hey. You should register...I filter out the AC messages unless they get the mod's bump them up.
I don't really understand why people think they will profit from this. The only time a domain name comes in handy is when it is the name of a corporation that someone is trying to find, or when it is so blatantly simple (read: everything on CNET: news.com, download.com, etc) that it makes sense to type it in. Otherwise, web content is found through links and search engines, in which case the domain isn't important, certainly not worth thousands. Consider, if you will, how many people would randomly enter http://slashdot.org when looking for tech news, if they didn't already know of the existence of the site!?!? (That is not to say that slashdot is a poor name, I actually find it both witty AND catchy...)
;-)
The point is, most of these names just won't do anyone that much good, certainly not thousands. And yes, the cybersquatting thing is being shut down, so you can't even speculate on a company becoming a web presence and grab their name before they do.
And I really doubt that a new company (maybe fencers?) will spring up and call themselves SuckMyPole, so even the best of the names I saw there probably won't be a moneymaker
I personally think that if it was hashed out intelligently, the SPP could be a great success. Reading some of the replies here, I noticed that many of you are missing some of the main points that the author makes.
1) Let's say Tom Clancy is going to come out with his next novel. The price set for the novel is, say 2 million dollars. Now at first glance, you would think, nobody is going to put any money into that at all, because they figure "my contribution is nothing compared to that!" But then a few weeks go by, and nobody has put up any significant money, lets say that a total of $3,000 had come in. Now here is where one of the big ideas come in. Wealthy speculators start to say, "Hmm...this is never going to make it. The publisher is offering a 15% interest if the book doesn't get published, I could use that kind of money", and they start throwing thousands of dollars at it, saying "What's my 10k to 2 million?". But enough of them do this and now the book is near publication...maybe the public donates the money. Maybe the publisher undertakes the cost to SAVE the money he would have to pay back on interest. But whatever the case, when all is said and done, the public gets their Tom Clancy novel, and Mr Clancy builds that 30 car garage he's been wanting. I think the concept of speculation really makes this an interesting idea, since people LOVE speculating (look at the day trading phenomenon that is sweeping idiots everywhere), and no matter what, you will get SOMETHING out of it.
2) This does NOT have to be something done simply for a work-in-progress. Sure, the possibility exists for the money to be collected while the writer writes the novel (always with the novel analogy, I know...) but the author could just as easily have the book finished, and cleaned up by the publisher before the offering hits the market. This would allow for several savings. Nowadays, publishers reject tons of manuscripts, because they don't think that the public will like them enough to justify the significant cost of printing millions of novels for worldwide distribution, or even nationwide for that matter. With the SPP, many more novels could be offered, with a chapter or two, or maybe even a treatment of the whole novel available for the public to decide whether it was worthy of a few bucks, instead of a publisher. This serves everyone:
a)Authors who might never get published otherwise get the chance to find out that that epic novel rejected by Pendant Publishing is actually a bestseller, but the editor who read it was in a bad mood on that day...so contrary to many of the recent posts, this could HELP unknowns more than it could hurt them. And the same would go for musicians. They could release a single for public review at any time. That way, bands on small labels, or small bands on big labels that don't promote them would have the ability to reach the public at large.
b)Publishers would never actually release novels that would flop, because the public wouldn't demand them. From a profit perspective, the publishers couldn't MAKE a bad decision.
c)Readers would get the ability to read tons of ideas that would previously never have been available to them, and have the ability to decide what would survive and what wouldn't.
d)Investors could speculate on the success of a novel. Risky though it would be for investors, if the interest was high enough, it would at any rate be a lot safer than a roulette wheel. Maybe I should call them gamblers instead of investors...
At any rate, this is starting to get long, and I think I have gotten my point across. This could be a tremendous idea, properly implemented...
I always thought the way to get yer caffiene going was to brew a pot of coffee with Water Joe (or Krank20, or whatever they call caffienated water where you come from). That's where you really get your BANG...
That's a strong point. Wouldn't it seem that if legal action was coming in, destroying the evidence beforehand could be viewed as admitting guilt? Wasn't there some fairly famous precedent... what was it called... water-something...Meanwhile, I hardly see the logic in bringing down a HUGE site, just because there were complaints about some of the content. At any rate, it seems like the complaints were about the /jp directory, so why didn't they just remove that? Seems like a fishy deal...gotta feel bad for the guy, the email especially brings a tear.
OK, be honest...how many of you just looked to see where you could buy stock in Andover?
Great...so if someone, ANYONE wants to research anything controversial, they better find somewhere besides the library, because the last thing we want is for anyone ever to get offended by anything...
When are these people going to learn to shut up?