And I'm using GNOME (2.6.1) right here on my desktop machine.
So you use GNOME frequently, but not a new enough version for any of these arguments to be really relevant. 2.6.1 is OLD - old enough to make a big difference.
without the annoying security warning popping up
For the record, I haven't seen this warning.
I gave up after about two days of reading news postings and fiddling with GNOME.
Perhaps you should use the latest stable code first?
"music stores require something on the order of a 4 to 5 dollar markup to turn enough of a profit to be a viable business"
That is debatable, IMO. Music stores may WANT this much, but what they need is a different ball of wax.
"Then you factor in production costs of the physical cd and bundled artwork"
Other comments more accurately show how little money is actually required to accomplish this task, so I won't bother with that.
"but the problem is that to sell more copies, you need to get inside people's heads, and to do that, you have to do marketing"
No. No, no, no, no, and gosh darnit, NO.
This is the line that the Recording Industry (by trade, marketers) would have you believe, maybe, but its nowhere near a reality - at the very least, not in the world I happen to live in. In that world - the one I see every day when I go outside and live - there exist on the order of 30-100 people I communicate with regularly. All of them music fans, all of them actively buying/trading/listening to music.
Exactly none of them buy/trade/listen to new stuff because there is a poster on a wall, or billboard on the highway, or a commercial on TV, or a world premiere video, or a song on the radio (or any other excuses for "marketing" one can dream up).
If the music is enjoyable to many, it will be purchased by many and recommended by fans, to prospective fans. If it is not, it won't be. "Marketing," and all that this has traditionally come to mean, seems to bear little if any effect on the music business, as far as I can tell. I've seen artists with enough backing and monetary clout to sink the titanic fail miserably on their latest release (Michael Jackson comes to mind, at least in the USA), and I've seen self-produced artists with no real marketing whatsoever become "underground" sensations with enough of a cult-like draw to generate a crowd in a grocery store (Ani DeFranco, just to pick one out of a hat).
I'll let everyone here draw their own conclusions as to whether or not labels are necessary or not - I'm not here to argue that. I am here to say that, from where I'm sitting, "marketing" music is a largely ineffectual game, promoted by and believed in only by the people who would want you to pay them to market on your behalf. Sort of an "every lawyer says you should have a lawyer" type of thing.
(Warning: this post will break the long-lived social belief that opinions should be entirely devoid of human emotion lest those opinions lose their credibility. If you happen to be someone who believes this adage to be true, then you shouldn't read this post; and instead should please yourself watching the bevy of security camera footage tapes that I'm sure exist. The rest of us human beings can read on.)
That's right, angry... and for a whole lot of reasons, too.
See, when I want a new shirt, I can go to the store, look at it, try it on, ogle at how it looks on me in a mirror, and decide whether or not I want to purchase.
When I want a new car, I can go to a dealership, drive the car around town, inspect every part of it, and make up my mind as to whether or not I really like it.
When I want an apple, I can pick the one I think looks, feels, and even smells the best out of a huge stack of apples at the grocer or at one of many farmer's markets around town. (At the markets, in fact, I'm encouraged by the mom-and-pop vendors to taste the product. But I wouldn't really recommend putting produce up to your nose and smelling it in public.)
If I want to know what a particular band sounds like, I'm told (by the artists, on more then one occasion) that I should "buy the CD and find out." (A CD costs anywhere from $15-$20 brand new; that much money routinely feeds me nutritiously for a week. I refuse to spend a week's worth of food money only to find out that a certain group's latest offering sounds like crap.
When I want to know whether or not Word XP will fill my word processing needs, I have to not only buy the CD's, but also call Microsoft to get permission to USE the farking things. And that permission only lasts a year or two! (Just when you thought that only shareware was time limited...)
If a department store hired bouncers and enforced a cover charge at every door - so you'd have to pay ten bucks before even being allowed to go in and see if there are any clothes you might want - how long do you think they would stay in business?
If you bought a book, but were told that several armed police officers would come to your door after a year or two and arrest you if you hadn't paid for that book again by that time... how many bookstores would stay in business?
If your only choice of produce were limited to several small, online pictures and word-of-mouth reputation vouchers, how long do you think it would be before your online-only grocery store went out of business? (Oh, wait... we know the answer to that one already.)
As a people, we're angry. Angry that someone went out there went and changed the established, customer-is-always-right, service-with-a-smile rules around. Angry that the new system of commercialism is based on blind purchases, leaps of faith, zero-privacy, and other, similar systems designed from the ground-up to screw the customer at every turn. Angry that a group of well-funded, shiny-toothed suits have decided to try and turn what was designed to be a free system of communication into yet another way to make money. And angry that anyone who thinks this is a total crock and peacefully subverts this mockery of a system (even for perfectly legitamate reasons) is branded a criminal and consequently sent to jail and/or robbed of their (legally purchased) equipment.
At this point, it's a wonder people aren't routinely sacking and pillaging the nearest Virgin Records Megastore. I know for me, on a personal note, if Anger were People, I'd be China.
"Is anybody actually going to run out and buy a new G4, with MacOS X included... and then put Linux on it?"
Actually, now that you mention it, yes.
Let's face it: The G4 hardware is actually pretty darned spiffy, but I've never actually considered buying one thanks to the overall status of Mac OS's... 9 is buggy, unstable crap, and while X is pretty - possibly even stable - it is functionally crippled (the lack of support for DVD is especially ironic, given Mac's roots and the whole push for the DVD-watching crowd a la iMac-DV.)
I personally have been lusting after the *hardware* in one of those pretty cubes since they were released, but I wouldn't dare plonk the money down on it thanks to the fact that there's really no good Mac operating system that can fully and/or reliably *utilize* that hardware. OS X was my hope - the one thing that would possibly convince me to get one - but that didn't exactly go as expected.
Now there's YDL 2, and all I have to say about this release is that those titanium laptops are suddenly looking like a really good idea to me right about now.
I used to work for UGO about 3 years ago (or so) as the "Affiliate Manager". (This was back in the day before Joe Robinson and his cronies in New York acquired UGO). In fact, I left that job *because* of the acquisition - after moving to San Francisco (one of the first places on earth I would want to live) only six months prior for the express reason of working for UGO, there was no way in hell I was going to haul my butt over to New York (probably the last place on *earth* I will ever want to live) to work with that pack of wolves.
All I can say is that the "NY suits," - as we called them back then - were as ruthless and morally depraved back then as they seem to be now. They had a history of having the "Inverse Midas-Touch" curse: everything (and everyONE) they've touched, before and after the aquisition, has turned to crap. Their business plans for the future of UGO (which *used* to stand for "Unified Gamers Online", BTW) could easily be summarized as "throw money at it until it becomes profitable, and milk the affiliates for all they are worth before giving them the finger." Once UGO was purchased (at an unbelievable profit to the original owner), the people on Park Ave. managed to run what was once a dedicated online gaming resource for the People(TM) into the ground by A) Firing any and all people who were associated with the "Old Regime," B) spreading out to other, unrelated forms of entertainment, and C) hiring third-rate porn writers to be primary writers and editors.
They have a legal team seemingly funded from on high by the Prince of Darkness Himself, as is evidenced by exactly how badly and often they've screwed over employees, affiliates, and anyone else who's had the unfortunate foresight to get involved with them on any level. In fact, I've seen roughly 30 people that I personally know (or knew) get trampled by them monetarily speaking, and nothing has ever happened to them to balance the scales. Any ex-affiliate or ex-employee of UGO that doesn't speak badly about them was probably paid an unusually high bonus for their silence (and I speak from personal experience on that, but screw 'em: if they wanted my _continued_ silence, I'd still be getting checks.)
If I were you, I would take the last two months pay and jet. My experience with the (many) other situations of this kind dealing with UGO would strongly suggest that a legal battle with them will be nothing short of a waste of your time and a massive drain on your resources. The only way you'll actually get something out of it is to take whatever money they're offering and wash your hands of it. It may not be the most honorable way of handling the situation, but in this case, I'd bet a week's pay that taking the honorable road will earn you starvation (if this web site is your only source of income).
"Please note: Ximian GNOME is not currently available for Mandrake 7.2. Users of Mandrake 7.2 are cautioned not to try to install Ximian GNOME on their systems."
I find it odd and infuriating that they can branch out to FreeBSD - a platform that GNOME was not originally designed to serve - when they haven't even gotten this right in one of the most popular linux distro's (in the US, anyway) yet.
"These are the thoughts that kept me out of the really *good* schools." --George Carlin
It's not a question of what format is the best for a software release. This is a discussion about sekrit Programmer Code Language.
See, there's an unspoken language out there whose alphabet consists of the myriad combinations of source and/or binary releases for any given particular project. Providing one or the other, or both, is not (like many unsuspecting slashdotters think) simply a personal preference or a technical issue. Nay, it is truly a form of communication; ways for the Programmers to communicate certain points about the given project to each other while leaving the average end user uninformed, but otherwise none the worse for wear.
As I am versed in such a language, I shall provide - for your reading pleasure - some of the most common Programmer Sentiments translated into Common English. I may disappear after revealing this knowledge, so use it well:
Releasing Source-Only = "This is a GPL'd project that I'd like to keep to developers only. I'd much rather the average user not get his/her hands on it, 'cause I know it's buggy and I don't want emails from the clueless. Download and compile at your own risk, and if you actually get it working, then your system is configured similarly enough to mine for me to answer any questions you may have."
Releasing Binary-Only: "I am Microsoft. Give me your money."
Releasing both Binary and Source: "This is a GPL'd project that I am proud of, because I think it's useful and kool and l33t and stuff. I want everyone and their grandmother using this software, because it's so rad that it's amazing people have computed without it for so long. I have even taken the required 5 minutes or so to make this installation virtually painless to even the newest of users, and for any developers who may get blown away by seeing it run (i.e. all of them), I've included the source code for patching and viewing. I am a conciensous programmer who realizes that software is not released in a vacuum."
So now you know.
May the One shine in us all, even if we just want to run KDE - not compile it for 4 hours.
Haven't seen this said yet, so... without further ado...
Napster promotes piracy in the same way that Gun Manufacturer's promote Murder.
You wanna punish someone? Go after the pirates. Leave the invention - which is little more then FTP + ICQ all dressed up in fancy make-up - and the inventors alone.
Either that, or sue all the ISP's out there. What, they facilitate piracy by making electronic distribution possible, don't they?
May the One shine in us all, even if parallels exist.
I'll make this as quick as I can... the only reason I'm posting it is because I don't see it posted anywhere else, and I feel that the following point is very, VERY important to this issue. Although it deviates from the whole copying issue a bit, that point is simply this:
Metallica, once you release your music to the public - no matter HOW you do it - you NO LONGER HAVE FULL OWNERSHIP OF IT.
Flame away, gawk and gape all you want at that sentence, but it's undeniably true. Sure, Metallica owns the MASTER copy, and should have full say in what happens to that master, and how it gets printed or who those copies get sold to... but once the first copy gets sold, Metallica has *absolutely no ownership rights* of the sold copies.
Let me explain. I have, in front of me as I type, a stack of CD's. I paid for each and every one of them, legally, at a record store. They are MINE, and I can do with them as I wish, and I can play them as many times as I wish on whatever equipment I wish. I didn't pay to rent playtime, I paid to own a copy of the music. Neither the band, nor Lars, has any say in what I do with it. And all the existing laws support me in this. If anyone takes my Metallica CDs from me, it is called "stealing..." but Lars isn't able to press charges on the thief, only I can, because those copies didn't belong to him. If someone destroys them, I can sue for destruction of my property.., but Metallica can't, because those copies didn't belong to them. Ad infinitum.
But if we take Metallica/Lars's arguments to their logical end, then none of the above is true. According to how I understood what Lars has written above, he thinks that the music he's released on Vinyl/CD/Tape/MP3 is still HIS. If that's true, then the following scenarios are also true... and they demonstrate how ridiculous Lars's point of view is.
+ If I buy a Metallica CD, and I decide to destroy it, Lars has the right to come down on me because I did something with his intellectual property that he didn't approve of.
+ If I buy a Metallica CD at a bargin bin for two dollars, Lars could (probably) come down on either myself or the record store for selling his property at a price he doesn't approve of.
+ I could no longer give my disc (that I didn't really like) to a friend who may like it, because I'm giving away his property for free.
To be fair, I fully agree with the idea that an artist does have the right not to be forged, plagiarized, or stolen from. I do agree with the idea that an artist should be held responsible for the creation of his/her works, and no one should be able to take that accountability (and whatever profit comes of it) away from said artist. And the legal models set up to this end, as they are currently, may no longer be sufficient to protect said rights, because we're on a cusp between two worlds. Before, owning music meant you had to own a had-written copy of the musical ledgers. The material was tied to the physical matter, and there was really no way around this.
And we all know that this model no longer applies to the present day... but the model that Lars is proposing - that the music is his, even after he's released it to the public (by whatever means) - is even more flawed. It's simply not true, healthy, fair, or even possible. (And it's virtually impossible to police, to boot). Until this fact is realized, Metallica will continue to make enemies of their own fans and fools of themselves in the public eye, even though their reasons for the actions they've taken may be completely justified.
May the One shine in us all, even if the Industry really needs to sit down, sharpen it's pencils, and re-think the way it works.
"Obviously you've either never actually looked for them, or you're a total smeghead. (Ok, ok, it's possible your ISP doesn't carry them. If they don't, sorry.) Check out the comp.sys.mac tree."
Just FYI, I did, and Airnews (Usenet provider I have) is one of the best. Still, I stand by my assertion that if the problem isn't so minor as to be a mild annoyance which can possibly be completely ingorned, nothing of relevance is spoken of.
"I can't recommend anything better than booting from the CD and reinstalling the OS"
I took your advice and resorted to this last night. I said "screw it," and applied the M$ Windows fix (i.e., reinstall the OS). This finally did the trick. I also spent 1/2 hour getting all the patches for it, and upgrading those, too. Thanks for the help, and just to brighten your day, I only did a "dirty" install... all of the software didn't have to be reinstalled.
May the One shine in us all, even if OS 9 is better then 8.6 --Worlord
They are just deciding to no longer be in the ranks of the legit.
Garett is their president now, and under his expert tutilage, they will be silently swiping valuable Mings and golden chalaces in a city near you (as opposed to dealing with stiff-shirt Suts and bonds and investors and such.) With the type of funding they can get under this new management, it is likely that we'll see Thief 3 in no time.
*sigh*
Hey, I can still dream... that's a good sign.
May the One shine in us all, even if we wish our mechanical eye could shed a tear. --WorLord
Now I see why you disliked my opinion. You *expect* errors.
"and spend 40 minutes manually fscking all my partitions, potentially losing some"
I've only been running Linux for two years now, on all the time.
I have never once lost a file, despite many power outages. I suspect your troubles arise more from poor surge protection then a faulty OS or fsck.
"Are you dumb or just lazy? As a couple people pointed out below, there are plenty of newsgroups and websites for Macs. Apple has the Tech Info Library containing info all the way back to 80's hardware and software (see you do that for a 1.1 Linux kernel), the product spec page and the tech exchange board if you want to ask questions."
See my other post about such resources. Basically, if your problem isn't so minor that it can't be ignored completely, then it isn't even discussed in the TIL or forums available.
"Just because it can do the same job doens't mean it can do it as well."
Either you're MSOffice compatable, or you're not. Either you can work with graphic formats, or you can't. This isn't a sliding scale here, it's a binary, yes-or-no situation.
"he Gimp may be a neat open source graphic app, but Photoshop it is not."
I can do everything with it that I can with PS5.5 . Maybe you don't like to work without all the pretty, soothing pictures to guide you, but I can do without that bloat.
"and internet apps like Netscape and ICQ were free for the Mac just like they are for Windows"
Actually, I see how you read that, and I apologize for being unclear.
This was more geared towards MSOffice apps then anything else. You have to buy office for the Mac (or steal it) to work with office files. Period, end of story. I do this for free in *nix, and in the same amount of time (or even faster, usually).
May the One shine in us all, even if we are misdiagnosed as causing FUD. --WorLord
"this reflects on your inability to conduct a coherent web search, as opposed to the lack of documentation."
That's funny, I used the same search engines I always do. I typed in "mac tech support," and the closest thing I got was macfixit.com and lowendmac... neither of which had anything of real relevance or great detail. At least, not enough to tell me what's wrong with the damn thing.
And forget the TIL and Apple forums. If your problem isn't basic enough to ignore, neither of these formus/archives help.
"There's also that little Help menu (did you miss it?)"
Ah, sarcasm. Tell you what, I'll read that help menu as soon as you give me a coherent, relevant, and competant description of how to turn on the iBook in question without it bombing due to a rotating cast of type 11, bus, and address errors at startup, before the extention loading phase.
Deal?
May the One shine in us all, even if MacZealots strike. --WorLord
Oh, come ON... no one actually took this one seriously, did they?
Here are six reasons why you shouldn't have - or, rather, six rounds that would make this "shootout" somewhat more believeable:
- Where was the "stability" round? (no elaboration required)
- Where was the "system recovery" round? (I'm dealing with this right now, and let me tell you: at the best, diagnosing an ill Mac is a hair-rending, tooth-gnashing occation - and fixing it is worse, often involving three or four third-party apps).
- Where was the official bugfix round? It takes Apple weeks/months to release patches for buggy software, as opposed to a couple hours...
- Where was the free support round? (Visit alt.linux, your problem is usually solved right there before you even have to post a question.)
- Where was the free documentation round? I can find out anything about linux for free, and usually right after I do a Google search. When I had questions about Mac, I had to BUY a book.
- Most importantly, where was the FREE SOFTWARE round? By far, this was the *most* disappointing bit. Both sides were so fixated on shrink-wrapped software support from big names that no-one mentioned the somewhat important notion that, as far as software goes, LINUX CAN DO *EVERYTHING* A MAC CAN DO FOR exactly $0.00. Office compatability? Free. Graphic work? Free. View PC files? Free. Internet? Free. All of these cost money on the Mac, and will *only* cost a Linux user if you're paying modem costs per minute. It may still be cheaper, 'cause linux apps are generally much smaller then Mac apps (the most bloated of all).
Until these, and other simple and important rounds get addressed, this "OS Death Match" should be taken in with the same amount of seriousness as Monty Python's "Holy Grail". (Note: the fact that the article briefly mentioned that Apple HW is more expensive does not dismiss the money issues listed above).
May the One shine in us all, even if OS X might be worth it in the future. --WorLord
I'd like everyone to know, in preface, that I responded and may be in the book.
Having said that, where's the problem, people? I meant what I said, and I have no shame whatsoever about it. No one is exploiting you, or making money off of you (unless you mislike charity).
We all came together to speak out about the tragedy. We all (or, a lot of us, anyway) come together to defend Napster, swap source code, and belittle a certain company for locking down information. Why the sudden about-face?
Oh, wait... I know... Katz's name is in there somewhere, and that will never do.
May the One shine in us all, even if we need to practice what we preach.
Some of you know the ones; where Gopher/Archie/Veronica ruled the day, and modems were clumsly phone-holsters.
See, back then, you had to be a whiz to get "online." One had to know - at least, to a reasonable degree - what was going on to be able to do anything. The net effect of this fact was that - generally - the smarter, more computer savvy were the only ones that were even *able* to get online.
It was like an electronic prerequisite screening. Almost.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that it's no coincidence that, with the rise of AOL and WebTV, there has also been a rise in Spam and Trolling. I do not view this as mere coincidence.
AOL's whole premise is to molly-coddle the end user; to make sure that you can get online without really knowing how. This is akin to giving power-tools to the ignorant, or firearms to the untrained - without making the slightest bit of effort to train (or make sure one is trained) in the proper use of said tool/firearm.
I do not condone such "services" or behaviors. We have drivers ed for cars; licenses for guns. I miss the days when we had a quilifying line for the internet, as well.
May the One shine in us all, even if we hear the flamethrowers now.
Actually, the other day I was wondering why I had yet to see any articles like this one.
Linux advocacy has reached a high pinnacle of almost religious zealotry. I make it a point, these days, to point out that I am a Linux *user*, not a Linux *advocate*, because I don't want to get lumped into the same category as those who will defend to the death an OS that they probably just learned about last month.
Additionally, I find it odd that these advocates - the angry, mail-bombing knee-jerk reactionary skr1pt k1dd13 types - seem to forget, in the heat of the moment, what Linux is really all about. Hint: it ain't about world domination and Micro$oft bashing (ask Linus whether or not he wrote Linux with world domination in mind, and see what he says.) It's about doing what you want in a stable environment, and it's about the grass-roots Bazaar attitude that got us to that point.
--WorLord "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
This'll be short. (I'm a man of few words, but that's not really a compliment, considering I'm also a man of few thoughts).
I'm amazed this topic has yet to appear on what I read of the threads, but I have a question:
Isn't the definition of "crime" all about motive? Intent? You know, all that good stuff? Isn't that what separates Murder 1 from Manslaughter, or Manslaughter from Reckless driving (or whatever?)
The point is, the code was not invented with Piracy in mind ("motive"). It was invented with a perfectly legal use of the DVD in question in mind. He paid money for his player, his computer, his DVD... I don't understand how, having acutally followed all the rules and jumped through all the hoops, that any court could even entertain the idea of this guy being a criminal. (And this is all not even bringing up the oft-mentioned idea that DeCSS really doesn't make piracy any easier then it was before.)
So, I conclude by the fact that the courts are taking the MPAA seriously that my previous understanding of "crime" was flawed, and that I'm really missing something here. And I just would like a clue as to what.
--WorLord (include.beer in [responce])
Only two outcomes; which side is Katz on?
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
*Sigh*
You know, I like Katz's writing... I really do. But sometimes I really feel that he fails to take his train of thought all the way unto its logical destination - if he DID, I'm sure he wouldn't even bother to write half of the time.
This article is a perfect example: he complains about the "ignore" feature, and about filtering in general, without even stopping to understand the basic concepts that form these circumstances, or the alternative he may be advocating.
To put it simply, everyone always has something they don't like. That's really what this boils down to; preference. I don't like what someone will say, and someone will not like something I say. This applies to music, TV shows, books, you name it.
Now, as humans, we tend to make changes based on our preferences; i.e., get rid of that which we dislike, and harbor that which we do. And there are two (that I can see) ways to do this: either we do it ourselves, or we have our ruling government do it for us. There are the types of people who change the radio station when they hear a song they don't like, and there are those who complain to the station about never playing said song again - its that simple.
And we've come a long way towards empowering the individual - as well we should. This has pretty much been the message of the 80s and 90s: help yourself. Change the channel, if the station offends you. Don't read this book if you are opposed to the content. Stop talking with someone who gets on your nerves. These are all underlying themes that I've seen emphasized in my personal relationships, in courtrooms, and in the media over the last decade or two: the right to choose for yourself.
And now Katz is telling us that we're making the wrong choice in being our own censors. I'm not sure that he's advocating censorship on a higher level or not; personally, I think that it seems more like he's telling us to just grin and bear the crap we don't like. Which of course, will never happen: its in our nature to better ourselves.
So Katz, if you're reading, listen up: either WE censor ourselves, or someone censors FOR us. There's no two ways around that. I really think you should have thought about this before you wrote that article... by damning one, you may very well be advocating the other.
--WorLord (if more government is the answer, than the question is really stupid)
"Next time you watch the CNN, or BBC, open your mind a little wider."
I beg to differ, sir.
When - nay, IF - I'm ever dumb enough to watch televised opinions with such an obvious spin on them, such as the quality entertainment on CNN or BBC, than I take CAREful precautions to make sure my mind is locked up TIGHT.
Otherwise, the crap would filter in, and I'd be just as starstruck as the rest of the nation who believe we're really doing a five star job with this.
--WorLord (Believe me... not ALL of us even ENJOY TV, much less believe a word of it.)
Of COURSE nothing like WWII. If we did that, with the weaponry we have now, all that would be left of this world's inhabitants would be a huge, lifeless, smouldering boulder rotating around the sun. THAT'S why a WWII-like incident has not occured since... not because of our supposed peace-keeping. Basically, all we do as a "peace keeper" is step in and bomb civilizations who don't agree with our sense of moral values. And the pathetic part is, it doesn't even work. How do I know this? Well, to put it bluntly, we've been goofing off in the Middle East since I was in high-school; the only thing we've successfully accomplished is to postpone strained racial/ethnic relations to a later date, at which point we fly in, kill more people, and postpone it again. We don't solve anything, we don't stop hatred, and all we really do is bug a nation or group of people who should have the right to work through their own situations. All this, coming from a nation who's offspring still find it pretty way-cool to strap a queer to a fence and pummel him until he's dead. Or really neat-o drag a black down the road until his limbs fall off. Bottom line: not only are we showing a lack of general respect for other cultures and their problems (which probably aren't at ALL what's really going on... I trust CNN and Clinton about as far as I can throw them), but we, of ALL people, have absolutely NO right to arrange disciplinary action against anyone else. We're being hypocritical. And families of Serbs are paying for it. Just like Desert Storm. Just like Vietnam. If you call this relative peace, than I fear we have an impasse as far as term definition is concerned. --WorLord (WE might have *relative* peace... its the rest of the world we're off bombing that would disagree with you.)
Slashdot Mirror
"music stores require something on the order of a 4 to 5 dollar markup to turn enough of a profit to be a viable business"
That is debatable, IMO. Music stores may WANT this much, but what they need is a different ball of wax.
"Then you factor in production costs of the physical cd and bundled artwork"
Other comments more accurately show how little money is actually required to accomplish this task, so I won't bother with that.
"but the problem is that to sell more copies, you need to get inside people's heads, and to do that, you have to do marketing"
No. No, no, no, no, and gosh darnit, NO.
This is the line that the Recording Industry (by trade, marketers) would have you believe, maybe, but its nowhere near a reality - at the very least, not in the world I happen to live in. In that world - the one I see every day when I go outside and live - there exist on the order of 30-100 people I communicate with regularly. All of them music fans, all of them actively buying/trading/listening to music.
Exactly none of them buy/trade/listen to new stuff because there is a poster on a wall, or billboard on the highway, or a commercial on TV, or a world premiere video, or a song on the radio (or any other excuses for "marketing" one can dream up).
If the music is enjoyable to many, it will be purchased by many and recommended by fans, to prospective fans. If it is not, it won't be. "Marketing," and all that this has traditionally come to mean, seems to bear little if any effect on the music business, as far as I can tell. I've seen artists with enough backing and monetary clout to sink the titanic fail miserably on their latest release (Michael Jackson comes to mind, at least in the USA), and I've seen self-produced artists with no real marketing whatsoever become "underground" sensations with enough of a cult-like draw to generate a crowd in a grocery store (Ani DeFranco, just to pick one out of a hat).
I'll let everyone here draw their own conclusions as to whether or not labels are necessary or not - I'm not here to argue that. I am here to say that, from where I'm sitting, "marketing" music is a largely ineffectual game, promoted by and believed in only by the people who would want you to pay them to market on your behalf. Sort of an "every lawyer says you should have a lawyer" type of thing.
People won't pay because they're angry.
(Warning: this post will break the long-lived social belief that opinions should be entirely devoid of human emotion lest those opinions lose their credibility. If you happen to be someone who believes this adage to be true, then you shouldn't read this post; and instead should please yourself watching the bevy of security camera footage tapes that I'm sure exist. The rest of us human beings can read on.)
That's right, angry... and for a whole lot of reasons, too.
See, when I want a new shirt, I can go to the store, look at it, try it on, ogle at how it looks on me in a mirror, and decide whether or not I want to purchase.
When I want a new car, I can go to a dealership, drive the car around town, inspect every part of it, and make up my mind as to whether or not I really like it.
When I want an apple, I can pick the one I think looks, feels, and even smells the best out of a huge stack of apples at the grocer or at one of many farmer's markets around town. (At the markets, in fact, I'm encouraged by the mom-and-pop vendors to taste the product. But I wouldn't really recommend putting produce up to your nose and smelling it in public.)
However, suddenly, when the product I'm interested in happens to fall into the "information" category, I'm now expected to pay to even find out if a bit of information I want is even available, much less find out what the quality of that data is.
If I want to know what a particular band sounds like, I'm told (by the artists, on more then one occasion) that I should "buy the CD and find out." (A CD costs anywhere from $15-$20 brand new; that much money routinely feeds me nutritiously for a week. I refuse to spend a week's worth of food money only to find out that a certain group's latest offering sounds like crap.
When I want to know whether or not Word XP will fill my word processing needs, I have to not only buy the CD's, but also call Microsoft to get permission to USE the farking things. And that permission only lasts a year or two! (Just when you thought that only shareware was time limited...)
And yes, there are ways around all these problems - but you utilize these methods at risk of being branded a criminal (and possibly persecuted as one) by greedy people with too much free time©.
If a department store hired bouncers and enforced a cover charge at every door - so you'd have to pay ten bucks before even being allowed to go in and see if there are any clothes you might want - how long do you think they would stay in business?
If you bought a book, but were told that several armed police officers would come to your door after a year or two and arrest you if you hadn't paid for that book again by that time... how many bookstores would stay in business?
If your only choice of produce were limited to several small, online pictures and word-of-mouth reputation vouchers, how long do you think it would be before your online-only grocery store went out of business? (Oh, wait... we know the answer to that one already.)
As a people, we're angry. Angry that someone went out there went and changed the established, customer-is-always-right, service-with-a-smile rules around. Angry that the new system of commercialism is based on blind purchases, leaps of faith, zero-privacy, and other, similar systems designed from the ground-up to screw the customer at every turn. Angry that a group of well-funded, shiny-toothed suits have decided to try and turn what was designed to be a free system of communication into yet another way to make money. And angry that anyone who thinks this is a total crock and peacefully subverts this mockery of a system (even for perfectly legitamate reasons) is branded a criminal and consequently sent to jail and/or robbed of their (legally purchased) equipment.
At this point, it's a wonder people aren't routinely sacking and pillaging the nearest Virgin Records Megastore. I know for me, on a personal note, if Anger were People, I'd be China.
--WorLord
"Is anybody actually going to run out and buy a new G4, with MacOS X included... and then put Linux on it?"
Actually, now that you mention it, yes.
Let's face it: The G4 hardware is actually pretty darned spiffy, but I've never actually considered buying one thanks to the overall status of Mac OS's... 9 is buggy, unstable crap, and while X is pretty - possibly even stable - it is functionally crippled (the lack of support for DVD is especially ironic, given Mac's roots and the whole push for the DVD-watching crowd a la iMac-DV.)
I personally have been lusting after the *hardware* in one of those pretty cubes since they were released, but I wouldn't dare plonk the money down on it thanks to the fact that there's really no good Mac operating system that can fully and/or reliably *utilize* that hardware. OS X was my hope - the one thing that would possibly convince me to get one - but that didn't exactly go as expected.
Now there's YDL 2, and all I have to say about this release is that those titanium laptops are suddenly looking like a really good idea to me right about now.
Kudos to the canary-colored canines, I say.
--WorLord
If I were a moderator I'd have to give this one a +1. Thanks for the giggle. :-)
--WorLord
I used to work for UGO about 3 years ago (or so) as the "Affiliate Manager". (This was back in the day before Joe Robinson and his cronies in New York acquired UGO). In fact, I left that job *because* of the acquisition - after moving to San Francisco (one of the first places on earth I would want to live) only six months prior for the express reason of working for UGO, there was no way in hell I was going to haul my butt over to New York (probably the last place on *earth* I will ever want to live) to work with that pack of wolves.
All I can say is that the "NY suits," - as we called them back then - were as ruthless and morally depraved back then as they seem to be now. They had a history of having the "Inverse Midas-Touch" curse: everything (and everyONE) they've touched, before and after the aquisition, has turned to crap. Their business plans for the future of UGO (which *used* to stand for "Unified Gamers Online", BTW) could easily be summarized as "throw money at it until it becomes profitable, and milk the affiliates for all they are worth before giving them the finger." Once UGO was purchased (at an unbelievable profit to the original owner), the people on Park Ave. managed to run what was once a dedicated online gaming resource for the People(TM) into the ground by A) Firing any and all people who were associated with the "Old Regime," B) spreading out to other, unrelated forms of entertainment, and C) hiring third-rate porn writers to be primary writers and editors.
They have a legal team seemingly funded from on high by the Prince of Darkness Himself, as is evidenced by exactly how badly and often they've screwed over employees, affiliates, and anyone else who's had the unfortunate foresight to get involved with them on any level. In fact, I've seen roughly 30 people that I personally know (or knew) get trampled by them monetarily speaking, and nothing has ever happened to them to balance the scales. Any ex-affiliate or ex-employee of UGO that doesn't speak badly about them was probably paid an unusually high bonus for their silence (and I speak from personal experience on that, but screw 'em: if they wanted my _continued_ silence, I'd still be getting checks.)
If I were you, I would take the last two months pay and jet. My experience with the (many) other situations of this kind dealing with UGO would strongly suggest that a legal battle with them will be nothing short of a waste of your time and a massive drain on your resources. The only way you'll actually get something out of it is to take whatever money they're offering and wash your hands of it. It may not be the most honorable way of handling the situation, but in this case, I'd bet a week's pay that taking the honorable road will earn you starvation (if this web site is your only source of income).
--WorLord
From the Gnome (Ximian) Download Page:
"Please note: Ximian GNOME is not currently available for Mandrake 7.2. Users of Mandrake 7.2 are cautioned not to try to install Ximian GNOME on their systems."
I find it odd and infuriating that they can branch out to FreeBSD - a platform that GNOME was not originally designed to serve - when they haven't even gotten this right in one of the most popular linux distro's (in the US, anyway) yet.
"These are the thoughts that kept me out of the really *good* schools." --George Carlin
It's not a question of what format is the best for a software release. This is a discussion about sekrit Programmer Code Language.
See, there's an unspoken language out there whose alphabet consists of the myriad combinations of source and/or binary releases for any given particular project. Providing one or the other, or both, is not (like many unsuspecting slashdotters think) simply a personal preference or a technical issue. Nay, it is truly a form of communication; ways for the Programmers to communicate certain points about the given project to each other while leaving the average end user uninformed, but otherwise none the worse for wear.
As I am versed in such a language, I shall provide - for your reading pleasure - some of the most common Programmer Sentiments translated into Common English. I may disappear after revealing this knowledge, so use it well:
Releasing Source-Only = "This is a GPL'd project that I'd like to keep to developers only. I'd much rather the average user not get his/her hands on it, 'cause I know it's buggy and I don't want emails from the clueless. Download and compile at your own risk, and if you actually get it working, then your system is configured similarly enough to mine for me to answer any questions you may have."
Releasing Binary-Only: "I am Microsoft. Give me your money."
Releasing both Binary and Source: "This is a GPL'd project that I am proud of, because I think it's useful and kool and l33t and stuff. I want everyone and their grandmother using this software, because it's so rad that it's amazing people have computed without it for so long. I have even taken the required 5 minutes or so to make this installation virtually painless to even the newest of users, and for any developers who may get blown away by seeing it run (i.e. all of them), I've included the source code for patching and viewing. I am a conciensous programmer who realizes that software is not released in a vacuum."
So now you know.
May the One shine in us all, even if we just want to run KDE - not compile it for 4 hours.
--WorLord
Haven't seen this said yet,
so... without further ado...
Napster promotes piracy in the same way
that Gun Manufacturer's promote Murder.
You wanna punish someone? Go after the pirates.
Leave the invention -
which is little more then FTP + ICQ
all dressed up in fancy make-up -
and the inventors alone.
Either that, or sue all the ISP's out there.
What, they facilitate piracy
by making electronic distribution possible,
don't they?
May the One shine in us all, even if parallels exist.
--WorLord
I'll make this as quick as I can... the only reason I'm posting it is because I don't see it posted anywhere else, and I feel that the following point is very, VERY important to this issue. Although it deviates from the whole copying issue a bit, that point is simply this:
Metallica, once you release your music to the public - no matter HOW you do it - you NO LONGER HAVE FULL OWNERSHIP OF IT.
Flame away, gawk and gape all you want at that sentence, but it's undeniably true. Sure, Metallica owns the MASTER copy, and should have full say in what happens to that master, and how it gets printed or who those copies get sold to... but once the first copy gets sold, Metallica has *absolutely no ownership rights* of the sold copies.
Let me explain. I have, in front of me as I type, a stack of CD's. I paid for each and every one of them, legally, at a record store. They are MINE, and I can do with them as I wish, and I can play them as many times as I wish on whatever equipment I wish. I didn't pay to rent playtime, I paid to own a copy of the music. Neither the band, nor Lars, has any say in what I do with it. And all the existing laws support me in this. If anyone takes my Metallica CDs from me, it is called "stealing..." but Lars isn't able to press charges on the thief, only I can, because those copies didn't belong to him. If someone destroys them, I can sue for destruction of my property.., but Metallica can't, because those copies didn't belong to them. Ad infinitum.
But if we take Metallica/Lars's arguments to their logical end, then none of the above is true. According to how I understood what Lars has written above, he thinks that the music he's released on Vinyl/CD/Tape/MP3 is still HIS. If that's true, then the following scenarios are also true... and they demonstrate how ridiculous Lars's point of view is.
+ If I buy a Metallica CD, and I decide to destroy it, Lars has the right to come down on me because I did something with his intellectual property that he didn't approve of.
+ If I buy a Metallica CD at a bargin bin for two dollars, Lars could (probably) come down on either myself or the record store for selling his property at a price he doesn't approve of.
+ I could no longer give my disc (that I didn't really like) to a friend who may like it, because I'm giving away his property for free.
To be fair, I fully agree with the idea that an artist does have the right not to be forged, plagiarized, or stolen from. I do agree with the idea that an artist should be held responsible for the creation of his/her works, and no one should be able to take that accountability (and whatever profit comes of it) away from said artist. And the legal models set up to this end, as they are currently, may no longer be sufficient to protect said rights, because we're on a cusp between two worlds. Before, owning music meant you had to own a had-written copy of the musical ledgers. The material was tied to the physical matter, and there was really no way around this.
And we all know that this model no longer applies to the present day... but the model that Lars is proposing - that the music is his, even after he's released it to the public (by whatever means) - is even more flawed. It's simply not true, healthy, fair, or even possible. (And it's virtually impossible to police, to boot). Until this fact is realized, Metallica will continue to make enemies of their own fans and fools of themselves in the public eye, even though their reasons for the actions they've taken may be completely justified.
May the One shine in us all, even if the Industry really needs to sit down, sharpen it's pencils, and re-think the way it works.
--WorLord
"Obviously you've either never actually looked for them, or you're a total smeghead. (Ok, ok, it's possible your ISP doesn't carry them. If they don't, sorry.) Check out the comp.sys.mac tree."
Just FYI, I did, and Airnews (Usenet provider I have) is one of the best. Still, I stand by my assertion that if the problem isn't so minor as to be a mild annoyance which can possibly be completely ingorned, nothing of relevance is spoken of.
"I can't recommend anything better than booting from the CD and reinstalling the OS"
I took your advice and resorted to this last night. I said "screw it," and applied the M$ Windows fix (i.e., reinstall the OS). This finally did the trick. I also spent 1/2 hour getting all the patches for it, and upgrading those, too. Thanks for the help, and just to brighten your day, I only did a "dirty" install... all of the software didn't have to be reinstalled.
May the One shine in us all, even if OS 9 is better then 8.6
--Worlord
They are just deciding to no longer be in the ranks of the legit.
Garett is their president now, and under his expert tutilage, they will be silently swiping valuable Mings and golden chalaces in a city near you (as opposed to dealing with stiff-shirt Suts and bonds and investors and such.) With the type of funding they can get under this new management, it is likely that we'll see Thief 3 in no time.
*sigh*
Hey, I can still dream... that's a good sign.
May the One shine in us all, even if we wish our mechanical eye could shed a tear.
--WorLord
"Hmmm, have a Mac crash on me every three days"
And this isn't a problem?!
Now I see why you disliked my opinion. You *expect* errors.
"and spend 40 minutes manually fscking all my partitions, potentially losing some"
I've only been running Linux for two years now, on all the time.
I have never once lost a file, despite many power outages. I suspect your troubles arise more from poor surge protection then a faulty OS or fsck.
"Are you dumb or just lazy? As a couple people pointed out below, there are plenty of newsgroups and websites for Macs. Apple has the Tech Info Library containing info all the way back to 80's hardware and software (see you do that for a 1.1 Linux kernel), the product spec page and the tech exchange board if you want to ask questions."
See my other post about such resources. Basically, if your problem isn't so minor that it can't be ignored completely, then it isn't even discussed in the TIL or forums available.
"Just because it can do the same job doens't mean it can do it as well."
Either you're MSOffice compatable, or you're not. Either you can work with graphic formats, or you can't. This isn't a sliding scale here, it's a binary, yes-or-no situation.
"he Gimp may be a neat open source graphic app, but Photoshop it is not."
I can do everything with it that I can with PS5.5 . Maybe you don't like to work without all the pretty, soothing pictures to guide you, but I can do without that bloat.
"and internet apps like Netscape and ICQ were free for the Mac just like they are for Windows"
Actually, I see how you read that, and I apologize for being unclear.
This was more geared towards MSOffice apps then anything else. You have to buy office for the Mac (or steal it) to work with office files. Period, end of story. I do this for free in *nix, and in the same amount of time (or even faster, usually).
May the One shine in us all, even if we are misdiagnosed as causing FUD.
--WorLord
"You know, Macs have newsgroups too."
Yes, for Warez. Not interested.
"this reflects on your inability to conduct a coherent web search, as opposed to the lack of documentation."
That's funny, I used the same search engines I always do. I typed in "mac tech support," and the closest thing I got was macfixit.com and lowendmac... neither of which had anything of real relevance or great detail. At least, not enough to tell me what's wrong with the damn thing.
And forget the TIL and Apple forums. If your problem isn't basic enough to ignore, neither of these formus/archives help.
"There's also that little Help menu (did you miss it?)"
Ah, sarcasm. Tell you what, I'll read that help menu as soon as you give me a coherent, relevant, and competant description of how to turn on the iBook in question without it bombing due to a rotating cast of type 11, bus, and address errors at startup, before the extention loading phase.
Deal?
May the One shine in us all, even if MacZealots strike.
--WorLord
Oh, come ON... no one actually took this one seriously, did they?
Here are six reasons why you shouldn't have - or, rather, six rounds that would make this "shootout" somewhat more believeable:
- Where was the "stability" round? (no elaboration required)
- Where was the "system recovery" round? (I'm dealing with this right now, and let me tell you: at the best, diagnosing an ill Mac is a hair-rending, tooth-gnashing occation - and fixing it is worse, often involving three or four third-party apps).
- Where was the official bugfix round? It takes Apple weeks/months to release patches for buggy software, as opposed to a couple hours...
- Where was the free support round? (Visit alt.linux, your problem is usually solved right there before you even have to post a question.)
- Where was the free documentation round? I can find out anything about linux for free, and usually right after I do a Google search. When I had questions about Mac, I had to BUY a book.
- Most importantly, where was the FREE SOFTWARE round? By far, this was the *most* disappointing bit. Both sides were so fixated on shrink-wrapped software support from big names that no-one mentioned the somewhat important notion that, as far as software goes, LINUX CAN DO *EVERYTHING* A MAC CAN DO FOR exactly $0.00. Office compatability? Free. Graphic work? Free. View PC files? Free. Internet? Free. All of these cost money on the Mac, and will *only* cost a Linux user if you're paying modem costs per minute. It may still be cheaper, 'cause linux apps are generally much smaller then Mac apps (the most bloated of all).
Until these, and other simple and important rounds get addressed, this "OS Death Match" should be taken in with the same amount of seriousness as Monty Python's "Holy Grail". (Note: the fact that the article briefly mentioned that Apple HW is more expensive does not dismiss the money issues listed above).
May the One shine in us all, even if OS X might be worth it in the future.
--WorLord
I'd like everyone to know, in preface, that I responded and may be in the book.
Having said that, where's the problem, people? I meant what I said, and I have no shame whatsoever about it. No one is exploiting you, or making money off of you (unless you mislike charity).
We all came together to speak out about the tragedy. We all (or, a lot of us, anyway) come together to defend Napster, swap source code, and belittle a certain company for locking down information. Why the sudden about-face?
Oh, wait... I know... Katz's name is in there somewhere, and that will never do.
May the One shine in us all, even if we need to practice what we preach.
--WorLord
Sometimes I really miss the olden days.
Some of you know the ones; where Gopher/Archie/Veronica ruled the day, and modems were clumsly phone-holsters.
See, back then, you had to be a whiz to get "online." One had to know - at least, to a reasonable degree - what was going on to be able to do anything. The net effect of this fact was that - generally - the smarter, more computer savvy were the only ones that were even *able* to get online.
It was like an electronic prerequisite screening. Almost.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that it's no coincidence that, with the rise of AOL and WebTV, there has also been a rise in Spam and Trolling. I do not view this as mere coincidence.
AOL's whole premise is to molly-coddle the end user; to make sure that you can get online without really knowing how. This is akin to giving power-tools to the ignorant, or firearms to the untrained - without making the slightest bit of effort to train (or make sure one is trained) in the proper use of said tool/firearm.
I do not condone such "services" or behaviors. We have drivers ed for cars; licenses for guns. I miss the days when we had a quilifying line for the internet, as well.
May the One shine in us all, even if we hear the flamethrowers now.
--WorLord
Actually, the other day I was wondering why I had yet to see any articles like this one.
Linux advocacy has reached a high pinnacle of almost religious zealotry. I make it a point, these days, to point out that I am a Linux *user*, not a Linux *advocate*, because I don't want to get lumped into the same category as those who will defend to the death an OS that they probably just learned about last month.
Additionally, I find it odd that these advocates - the angry, mail-bombing knee-jerk reactionary skr1pt k1dd13 types - seem to forget, in the heat of the moment, what Linux is really all about. Hint: it ain't about world domination and Micro$oft bashing (ask Linus whether or not he wrote Linux with world domination in mind, and see what he says.) It's about doing what you want in a stable environment, and it's about the grass-roots Bazaar attitude that got us to that point.
--WorLord
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
This'll be short. (I'm a man of few words, but that's not really a compliment, considering I'm also a man of few thoughts).
I'm amazed this topic has yet to appear on what I read of the threads, but I have a question:
Isn't the definition of "crime" all about motive? Intent? You know, all that good stuff? Isn't that what separates Murder 1 from Manslaughter, or Manslaughter from Reckless driving (or whatever?)
The point is, the code was not invented with Piracy in mind ("motive"). It was invented with a perfectly legal use of the DVD in question in mind. He paid money for his player, his computer, his DVD... I don't understand how, having acutally followed all the rules and jumped through all the hoops, that any court could even entertain the idea of this guy being a criminal. (And this is all not even bringing up the oft-mentioned idea that DeCSS really doesn't make piracy any easier then it was before.)
So, I conclude by the fact that the courts are taking the MPAA seriously that my previous understanding of "crime" was flawed, and that I'm really missing something here. And I just would like a clue as to what.
--WorLord (include.beer in [responce])
*Sigh*
You know, I like Katz's writing... I really do. But sometimes I really feel that he fails to take his train of thought all the way unto its logical destination - if he DID, I'm sure he wouldn't even bother to write half of the time.
This article is a perfect example: he complains about the "ignore" feature, and about filtering in general, without even stopping to understand the basic concepts that form these circumstances, or the alternative he may be advocating.
To put it simply, everyone always has something they don't like. That's really what this boils down to; preference. I don't like what someone will say, and someone will not like something I say. This applies to music, TV shows, books, you name it.
Now, as humans, we tend to make changes based on our preferences; i.e., get rid of that which we dislike, and harbor that which we do. And there are two (that I can see) ways to do this: either we do it ourselves, or we have our ruling government do it for us. There are the types of people who change the radio station when they hear a song they don't like, and there are those who complain to the station about never playing said song again - its that simple.
And we've come a long way towards empowering the individual - as well we should. This has pretty much been the message of the 80s and 90s: help yourself. Change the channel, if the station offends you. Don't read this book if you are opposed to the content. Stop talking with someone who gets on your nerves. These are all underlying themes that I've seen emphasized in my personal relationships, in courtrooms, and in the media over the last decade or two: the right to choose for yourself.
And now Katz is telling us that we're making the wrong choice in being our own censors. I'm not sure that he's advocating censorship on a higher level or not; personally, I think that it seems more like he's telling us to just grin and bear the crap we don't like. Which of course, will never happen: its in our nature to better ourselves.
So Katz, if you're reading, listen up: either WE censor ourselves, or someone censors FOR us. There's no two ways around that. I really think you should have thought about this before you wrote that article... by damning one, you may very well be advocating the other.
--WorLord (if more government is the answer, than the question is really stupid)
"Next time you watch the CNN, or BBC, open your mind a little wider."
I beg to differ, sir.
When - nay, IF - I'm ever dumb enough to watch televised opinions with such an obvious spin on them, such as the quality entertainment on CNN or BBC, than I take CAREful precautions to make sure my mind is locked up TIGHT.
Otherwise, the crap would filter in, and I'd be just as starstruck as the rest of the nation who believe we're really doing a five star job with this.
--WorLord (Believe me... not ALL of us even ENJOY TV, much less believe a word of it.)
Of COURSE nothing like WWII. If we did that, with the weaponry we have now, all that would be left of this world's inhabitants would be a huge, lifeless, smouldering boulder rotating around the sun. THAT'S why a WWII-like incident has not occured since... not because of our supposed peace-keeping. Basically, all we do as a "peace keeper" is step in and bomb civilizations who don't agree with our sense of moral values. And the pathetic part is, it doesn't even work. How do I know this? Well, to put it bluntly, we've been goofing off in the Middle East since I was in high-school; the only thing we've successfully accomplished is to postpone strained racial/ethnic relations to a later date, at which point we fly in, kill more people, and postpone it again. We don't solve anything, we don't stop hatred, and all we really do is bug a nation or group of people who should have the right to work through their own situations. All this, coming from a nation who's offspring still find it pretty way-cool to strap a queer to a fence and pummel him until he's dead. Or really neat-o drag a black down the road until his limbs fall off. Bottom line: not only are we showing a lack of general respect for other cultures and their problems (which probably aren't at ALL what's really going on... I trust CNN and Clinton about as far as I can throw them), but we, of ALL people, have absolutely NO right to arrange disciplinary action against anyone else. We're being hypocritical. And families of Serbs are paying for it. Just like Desert Storm. Just like Vietnam. If you call this relative peace, than I fear we have an impasse as far as term definition is concerned. --WorLord (WE might have *relative* peace... its the rest of the world we're off bombing that would disagree with you.)
Thanx. I try. --WorLord (One day, we'll all get it right... provided we live that long.)