Although I don't particularly like how this post was stated, I'll admit that he has a decent point. I'm mormon, but it turns out that 'Utah Mormons' and 'the Rest of Us' are often completely different communities. The idea that this passed unanimously through the utah senate is somewhat scary, but to be expected, I'm afraid...you can bet that if anyone had opposed it, they would have immediately been trashed by a small but extremely vocal group of zealots. So my point is simply that although this law is certainly a Bad Thing, it doesn't necessarily spell doom for the rest of united states. And that post, while a bit trollish, is also correct in what it points out.
If they're that frightened that a one-page article can contain enough of the book's content to make buying it redundant, it's certainly not something I'm going to bother reading. If someone tells you a bit about the plotline of a good book, do you decide not to read it because you now know something about it? Of course not... if a book could be compressed to a page or two, then it never would [should] have been written.
If this is how/. is going to do their advertising, they might as well just make a splash page with a pretty Flash animation, or some other such airheaded marketing. A review, no matter who commisioned it, should have some content.
Is it just me, or did he just tell us, "Here's this book... I won't tell you what's in it, but you can go buy it and find out." Even if you didn't want to ruin the book's 'surprise', you could at least tell us whether it's worth reading. What we ended up getting here was a question suited for 'ask slashdot', along with an attached advertisement.
Free Information has nothing to do with the media
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
In more than one of his comments, he claims that the media is driven by, or is related to, the cries for 'free information' on the Internet. Please, Katz. Not everything has its beginnings and ends on the internet. The media has acted in exactly the same way for the last century -- long before the idea of the freedom of information was as widespread as it is now. (And it's not very widespread as it is.)
The problem most people have with media is that it's just the opposite; the media want to control the flow of information, not make it available. And that's why the success of media has nothing to do with the success of dispersing information. Like any other powerful group of corporations, their object is to completely control their product. It's just our sense of information being more of a basic right than material goods that makes them seem to be different (and more evil, to most/.'ers).
Businesses don't have predators so much -- they have competitors, and have to fight for public interest. The media is no exception. They don't deserve any different treatment or regard than we give any other company.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I don't particularly like how this post was stated, I'll admit that he has a decent point. I'm mormon, but it turns out that 'Utah Mormons' and 'the Rest of Us' are often completely different communities. The idea that this passed unanimously through the utah senate is somewhat scary, but to be expected, I'm afraid...you can bet that if anyone had opposed it, they would have immediately been trashed by a small but extremely vocal group of zealots. So my point is simply that although this law is certainly a Bad Thing, it doesn't necessarily spell doom for the rest of united states. And that post, while a bit trollish, is also correct in what it points out.
If this is how /. is going to do their advertising, they might as well just make a splash page with a pretty Flash animation, or some other such airheaded marketing. A review, no matter who commisioned it, should have some content.
Is it just me, or did he just tell us, "Here's this book ... I won't tell you what's in it, but you can go buy it and find out." Even if you didn't want to ruin the book's 'surprise', you could at least tell us whether it's worth reading. What we ended up getting here was a question suited for 'ask slashdot', along with an attached advertisement.
The problem most people have with media is that it's just the opposite; the media want to control the flow of information, not make it available. And that's why the success of media has nothing to do with the success of dispersing information. Like any other powerful group of corporations, their object is to completely control their product. It's just our sense of information being more of a basic right than material goods that makes them seem to be different (and more evil, to most /.'ers).
Businesses don't have predators so much -- they have competitors, and have to fight for public interest. The media is no exception. They don't deserve any different treatment or regard than we give any other company.