The thing I like about this is that it only takes one year. It seems with a computer science degree, half of anything you learned more than a year ago is obsolete.
The fact that the degree only takes a year doesn't matter. The time it takes for your knowledge to become obselete is the same, only with this degree, everything you know becomes obselete all at once.
If you want to graduate from college with all the knowledge you need to work the rest of your life, this isn't the industry for you. More important than the actual knowledge is the ability to quickly digest it and apply it to learning new concepts. This is no secret to those of us with a CS degree.
It's hard to take seriously someone who doesn't even have the balls to be identified.
You're missing the point entirely. This isn't about Metallica. This is about musicians in general being stolen from. Enough of the shit about hypocrisy and evil money.
I will waste no more of my time on someone with tunnelvision.
Holy crap. Little hint: either use tags to quote, or post in plain text. Trying to pick out what you said gave me a headache.
A little math/economic for you: If any individual can get a hold of 2 million dollars[after taxes], they can live comfortably and 'feed their families' for the rest of their lives withut ever lifting a finger again.
Thanks for the financial analysis. I now know how I can best handle my money. Here's a little math for you: A strict minority of professional musicians make that kind of money. This issue goes much further than highly-successful acts such as Metallica. There are infinitely many more musicians that struggle to "feed their families" on what they are able to earn.
Maybe Metallica is being greedy. You could also say that they're standing up for other artists who don't have the power, forum, or capital to do so themselves. If they're so greedy, do you think they'd be filing suit, a process which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? I'm sure they'd much rather be in the studio.
Yes, it can after one or two big albums, and any good band will produce that many at least [...]
Any good band? Correction: any band who has whatever it takes to impress executives enough to get a record deal and airplay. For some executives, that's talent. For others, it's whatever the BackDoor Boys (tm) have.
And, I don't know about you, but I don't buy albums to support a idiot's drug habbit or other stupid spending.
You couldn't possibly, because you don't buy albums at all. You probably use Napster to steal artists' work and deprive them of their livelihood.
Look, people. If you want to do something that's both illegal and immoral, be my guest. But don't try to rationalize it by stating some noble cause of music "freedom". Just shut up and steal.
You make a good point, but your blame is misplaced.
This suit is not an effort to stop new means of distributing music. It's an effort to stop a means of easily distributing illegally-copied music. They're going after the "illegal" part, not the "means" part. People with CD burners are probably a significant threat, too. It's just that they can't go after those people nearly as easily.
However, you are correct in that Metallica does have the chance to do something significant here -- "embrace Internet distribution", as you put it. Being able to download a couple songs for a few dollars rather than buying an entire album would rock, and I'm sure many people who buy CDs would use this as an alternative.
But let's face it: the majority of people who download using Napster aren't even remotely interested in a more convenient form of distributing music or just getting the songs they want for a fair price. They're interested in saving money and ripping artists off in the process. Period.
I bought every Metallica cd, the box set ($90!), the DVD's, etc.
Sounds kind of like me. I don't have the box set, though, or the DVDs. You must be a big fan.
I will *NEVER* buy another Metallica item ever again. This is my protest against a band that are a bunch of sell outs:~(
Sorry to hear that. I'm sure the band wouldn't be, though, because a "fan" who isn't interested in the band's rights really isn't interested in the band at all.
We must all join together in this if we are to get the benefits.
And what exactly are these great "benefits" you speak of? Free music? Okay...
It seems really hard for people to understand this. Musicians make music as their career. It's how they are able to feed their families. It's also how they are able to make more great music. It's how they are able go out and tour and let their fans hear how great the music is live.
I know everyone thinks that music should be just like Linux, but it doesn't, and can't, work this way. Unlike writing software, making music and having it heard takes money. Lots and lots of it. You take away the money, you take away the music. It's that simple.
Metallica suing over (illegal) distribution of their music via the internet is...somewhat ironic. After all, Metallica first became known on the heavy metal scene due to the passing around and duplication of their tapes at concerts, clubs, etc.
This is in no way, shape, or form "ironic". A no-name band passing around copies of their own work to try to get some publicity is not the same as other people passing around a band's music without their permission. Give me a break.
One interesting note to point out: the reason Metallica is the first act to file suit against Napster is because they can. They are the owners of the music publishing company, Creeping Death Music. They are also one of the few bands that actually owns their coveted master recordings.
If all the Napster freaks that cry, "but... but... I only use Napster for music from artists that allow this" actually so what they say, I'd expect to see a positive response to Metallica's suit.
Look everybody, finally it's not "the man" going after music pirates. At last, a group with the power -- and the balls -- to do stand up and something about this. Kudos to Metallica.
Really? My bonehead co-worker has been making "Anonymous" troll postings (a couple from my machine) for the last few days. I get blocked from posting because several of these postings got moderated down and happen to come from the same IP address: our proxy server.
It matters not that women are not a minority. Women, like blacks and disabled persons, have a history of oppression and are therefore considered a protected class and subject to different treatment. That's how the government and the media see it, anyhow.
I'm not about to go out and start advocating we pour millions of dollars for a project like that - if they're not interested, they are not interested.
Thank you. I said in a post above: Men and women are different, period. There are chemicls in our brains that make us inclined to do certain things, and in this case, have in interest in certain things. Jamming it down peoples' throats accomplishes nothing.
This reminded me of an article in my local newspaper today.
This whole "Look! Women can do it, too, and we are!" bit is so tiring. Women have been given enough of a start to reach "equality". Enough with the comparisons -- men and women are different, period. That's why we act different, on the internet or otherwise. Use the opportunities you've been given and quit making a big deal of it when you do.
[...] Butthead (hey, you started the name calling).
I'm glad at least you (unlike one poster who responded to you) got the joke.:)
Windows remains and has been the primary market for StarOffice, albeit in Europe.
I stand corrected on that note, then. Perhaps I misstated my point, which was that they're mimicing Windows for some reason. I sincerely doubt it's because they think *nix users like the Windows desktop and want to have a pseudo-implementation of it. If you have a better suggestion (other than your thin client one) as to what that reason is, I'd be interested to hear.
If you want MS users to feel at home in Linux and you hope StarOffice will help in that aim, you should help Sun rewrite the interface to be less onerous, clumsy and confusing...
Why? Are you saying that Windows isn't onerous, clumsy, and confusing? I think that learning yet another bastardized interface is just a day in the life of the average Windows user. I think that anything that helps "them" feel comfortable with an alternative OS is a good thing.
[...] (or realize you're out of your depth && shut the fuck up, heh)
I would, in fact, be out of my depth. I also wasn't the one complaining about it in the first place, therefore don't have to shut the fuck up.
That's 500,000,000 dollars, Butthead. Don't you think that kind of investment warrants the protection of an interface recode--at least making available an optional version that MS Office users and home Linux users say they want?
It depends on what their goal is. Remember, Beavis, $500M is a lot to you and I -- but not nearly as much to Sun. But, yes, you're right -- an alternative interface would be nice. Personally, I'd like to see some competition for MSOffice, and SO is at least a start.
This reminds me of something my operating systems professor, an publicly-avid XEmacsian, once said.
There were a lot of *nix newbies in the class and he made the comment that, unlike Windows, in Unix, every program was a tool that did only one thing and did it very well.
I was sitting in the front of the class and laughed aloud when he said that, and when he asked me why, I told him that was particularly ironic coming from an Emacs user.
StarOffice is obviously an attempt (a decent one, IMO) to make Linux more "cozy" to Windows users. This is a good thing.
If you like it, use it. If you don't, use something else, write something yourself, or shut the fuck up. Otherwise you're no more than a Windows user bitching about how unstable it is.
You actually don't get the point do you? [in-depth technical explanation of how a DoS attack affects an entire network snipped]
Oh, now I get it. You mean that a denial of service attack actually denied 1500 students access to certain services? WTF was I thinking? Thanks for setting me straight.
Everybody here is complaining 'oh no what should I do, no IRC, no contacts, ah my social life'.
Are you reading a different discussion than I am? Most of the comments I've seen have been along the lines of "I don't give a rat's ass."
[...] we had a DoS attack lastnight, which resulted in the fact that we were not able to check our mail, telnet into remote servers, even not being able to access educational materials.
Um... yeah... that's what a DoS attack does. I don't think it's necessary to spell that out for anyone here. And you probably couldn't use Napster, either, right?
And all you can think of is that this is a a pre-emptive action. It is not.
Then what is it? It's a way for the folks who run the servers to say, "Cut it out dipshits, or we'll shut the servers down again." This is, by definition, a pre-emptive action.
The only thing guns are used for is violent crime, where people are robbed, raped, mugged and killed by criminals who have easy access to the vast amount of guns in America.
Uh huh. They're also used by people who would have otherwise been robbed, raped, mugged, and killed by said criminals.
If we didn't allow the ownership of guns these wouldn't have happened, would they?
Whether or not something is allowed has no bearing on whether it happens. We don't allow children to shoot each other in school. Does it still happen?
Personally I think that there is a definite link between America's gun laws and the face that it has the highest murder rate in the Western world.
Perhaps. However, the laws also allow those of us who do follow the law to protect ourselves legally. You can outlaw them all day and criminals still have them.
Show me a law that both outlaws guns and takes them away from criminals, then I'll give up mine. Until then, I'll sleep soundly knowing that someone who breaks into my house isn't going to make it very far.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the degree only takes a year doesn't matter. The time it takes for your knowledge to become obselete is the same, only with this degree, everything you know becomes obselete all at once.
If you want to graduate from college with all the knowledge you need to work the rest of your life, this isn't the industry for you. More important than the actual knowledge is the ability to quickly digest it and apply it to learning new concepts. This is no secret to those of us with a CS degree.
You're missing the point entirely. This isn't about Metallica. This is about musicians in general being stolen from. Enough of the shit about hypocrisy and evil money.
I will waste no more of my time on someone with tunnelvision.
A little math/economic for you: If any individual can get a hold of 2 million dollars[after taxes], they can live comfortably and 'feed their families' for the rest of their lives withut ever lifting a finger again.
Thanks for the financial analysis. I now know how I can best handle my money. Here's a little math for you: A strict minority of professional musicians make that kind of money. This issue goes much further than highly-successful acts such as Metallica. There are infinitely many more musicians that struggle to "feed their families" on what they are able to earn.
Maybe Metallica is being greedy. You could also say that they're standing up for other artists who don't have the power, forum, or capital to do so themselves. If they're so greedy, do you think they'd be filing suit, a process which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? I'm sure they'd much rather be in the studio.
Yes, it can after one or two big albums, and any good band will produce that many at least [...]
Any good band? Correction: any band who has whatever it takes to impress executives enough to get a record deal and airplay. For some executives, that's talent. For others, it's whatever the BackDoor Boys (tm) have.
And, I don't know about you, but I don't buy albums to support a idiot's drug habbit or other stupid spending.
You couldn't possibly, because you don't buy albums at all. You probably use Napster to steal artists' work and deprive them of their livelihood.
Look, people. If you want to do something that's both illegal and immoral, be my guest. But don't try to rationalize it by stating some noble cause of music "freedom". Just shut up and steal.
This suit is not an effort to stop new means of distributing music. It's an effort to stop a means of easily distributing illegally-copied music. They're going after the "illegal" part, not the "means" part. People with CD burners are probably a significant threat, too. It's just that they can't go after those people nearly as easily.
However, you are correct in that Metallica does have the chance to do something significant here -- "embrace Internet distribution", as you put it. Being able to download a couple songs for a few dollars rather than buying an entire album would rock, and I'm sure many people who buy CDs would use this as an alternative.
But let's face it: the majority of people who download using Napster aren't even remotely interested in a more convenient form of distributing music or just getting the songs they want for a fair price. They're interested in saving money and ripping artists off in the process. Period.
Sounds kind of like me. I don't have the box set, though, or the DVDs. You must be a big fan.
I will *NEVER* buy another Metallica item ever again. This is my protest against a band that are a bunch of sell outs :~(
Sorry to hear that. I'm sure the band wouldn't be, though, because a "fan" who isn't interested in the band's rights really isn't interested in the band at all.
We must all join together in this if we are to get the benefits.
And what exactly are these great "benefits" you speak of? Free music? Okay...
It seems really hard for people to understand this. Musicians make music as their career. It's how they are able to feed their families. It's also how they are able to make more great music. It's how they are able go out and tour and let their fans hear how great the music is live.
I know everyone thinks that music should be just like Linux, but it doesn't, and can't, work this way. Unlike writing software, making music and having it heard takes money. Lots and lots of it. You take away the money, you take away the music. It's that simple.
This is in no way, shape, or form "ironic". A no-name band passing around copies of their own work to try to get some publicity is not the same as other people passing around a band's music without their permission. Give me a break.
Metallica doesn't own the record label. Fingers move faster than brain. My bad.
If all the Napster freaks that cry, "but... but... I only use Napster for music from artists that allow this" actually so what they say, I'd expect to see a positive response to Metallica's suit.
Look everybody, finally it's not "the man" going after music pirates. At last, a group with the power -- and the balls -- to do stand up and something about this. Kudos to Metallica.
"If I don't kill these Jews, somebody else will. I have to make a living somehow, so why not this?"
"If I don't make Godwin's Law apply to this thread, someone else will."
Even /. allows for anonymous postings.
Really? My bonehead co-worker has been making "Anonymous" troll postings (a couple from my machine) for the last few days. I get blocked from posting because several of these postings got moderated down and happen to come from the same IP address: our proxy server.
I hardly call that anonymous.
Women ARE NOT a minority.
It matters not that women are not a minority. Women, like blacks and disabled persons, have a history of oppression and are therefore considered a protected class and subject to different treatment. That's how the government and the media see it, anyhow.
I'm not about to go out and start advocating we pour millions of dollars for a project like that - if they're not interested, they are not interested.
Thank you. I said in a post above: Men and women are different, period. There are chemicls in our brains that make us inclined to do certain things, and in this case, have in interest in certain things. Jamming it down peoples' throats accomplishes nothing.
This whole "Look! Women can do it, too, and we are!" bit is so tiring. Women have been given enough of a start to reach "equality". Enough with the comparisons -- men and women are different, period. That's why we act different, on the internet or otherwise. Use the opportunities you've been given and quit making a big deal of it when you do.
[...] Butthead (hey, you started the name calling).
I'm glad at least you (unlike one poster who responded to you) got the joke. :)
Windows remains and has been the primary market for StarOffice, albeit in Europe.
I stand corrected on that note, then. Perhaps I misstated my point, which was that they're mimicing Windows for some reason. I sincerely doubt it's because they think *nix users like the Windows desktop and want to have a pseudo-implementation of it. If you have a better suggestion (other than your thin client one) as to what that reason is, I'd be interested to hear.
If you want MS users to feel at home in Linux and you hope StarOffice will help in that aim, you should help Sun rewrite the interface to be less onerous, clumsy and confusing...
Why? Are you saying that Windows isn't onerous, clumsy, and confusing? I think that learning yet another bastardized interface is just a day in the life of the average Windows user. I think that anything that helps "them" feel comfortable with an alternative OS is a good thing.
[...] (or realize you're out of your depth && shut the fuck up, heh)
I would, in fact, be out of my depth. I also wasn't the one complaining about it in the first place, therefore don't have to shut the fuck up.
That's 500,000,000 dollars, Butthead. Don't you think that kind of investment warrants the protection of an interface recode--at least making available an optional version that MS Office users and home Linux users say they want?
It depends on what their goal is. Remember, Beavis, $500M is a lot to you and I -- but not nearly as much to Sun. But, yes, you're right -- an alternative interface would be nice. Personally, I'd like to see some competition for MSOffice, and SO is at least a start.
Like the old Emacs joke: "Emacs is my shell."
This reminds me of something my operating systems professor, an publicly-avid XEmacsian, once said.
There were a lot of *nix newbies in the class and he made the comment that, unlike Windows, in Unix, every program was a tool that did only one thing and did it very well.
I was sitting in the front of the class and laughed aloud when he said that, and when he asked me why, I told him that was particularly ironic coming from an Emacs user.
He was not amused.
Settle down, Beavis.
StarOffice is obviously an attempt (a decent one, IMO) to make Linux more "cozy" to Windows users. This is a good thing.
If you like it, use it. If you don't, use something else, write something yourself, or shut the fuck up. Otherwise you're no more than a Windows user bitching about how unstable it is.
Personally I think this is some japense ploy to divert our attention while they bomb pearl harbor again :]
Actually, no, the creators of South Park thought of something like that first and you just ripped off the idea to try to sound funny. You failed.
12 noon GMT+200 == 5 am EST (GMT-0500) == 2 am PST (GMT-0800).
You actually don't get the point do you?
[in-depth technical explanation of how a DoS attack affects an entire network snipped]
Oh, now I get it. You mean that a denial of service attack actually denied 1500 students access to certain services? WTF was I thinking? Thanks for setting me straight.
Everybody here is complaining 'oh no what should I do, no IRC, no contacts, ah my social life'.
Are you reading a different discussion than I am? Most of the comments I've seen have been along the lines of "I don't give a rat's ass."
[...] we had a DoS attack lastnight, which resulted in the fact that we were not able to check our mail, telnet into remote servers, even not being able to access educational materials.
Um... yeah... that's what a DoS attack does. I don't think it's necessary to spell that out for anyone here. And you probably couldn't use Napster, either, right?
And all you can think of is that this is a a pre-emptive action. It is not.
Then what is it? It's a way for the folks who run the servers to say, "Cut it out dipshits, or we'll shut the servers down again." This is, by definition, a pre-emptive action.
Did your post even have a point?
how much is that worth?
Nothing. I'm sick of seeing you post the domain name and asking about it. Stop it.
i've always wondered how much i should sell it for
Whatever you can get for it. People who think it's cool to substitute 'z' for 's' in words don't typically have much money.
The only thing guns are used for is violent crime, where people are robbed, raped, mugged and killed by criminals who have easy access to the vast amount of guns in America.
Uh huh. They're also used by people who would have otherwise been robbed, raped, mugged, and killed by said criminals.
If we didn't allow the ownership of guns these wouldn't have happened, would they?
Whether or not something is allowed has no bearing on whether it happens. We don't allow children to shoot each other in school. Does it still happen?
Personally I think that there is a definite link between America's gun laws and the face that it has the highest murder rate in the Western world.
Perhaps. However, the laws also allow those of us who do follow the law to protect ourselves legally. You can outlaw them all day and criminals still have them.
Show me a law that both outlaws guns and takes them away from criminals, then I'll give up mine. Until then, I'll sleep soundly knowing that someone who breaks into my house isn't going to make it very far.
And here I was looking on usenet for illegal copies. What a waste of time. Thanks, Yahoo!