Many people have discussed that song. In my conversations with friends, we have decided that most of the examples of irony given in the song are not ironic, although some are mildly ironic. Our conclusion, though, was that a song about irony with lyrics giving wrong examples of irony *is* ironic, *because* the lyrical examples *aren't* ironic. So, it's ironic because it's not ironic. Alanis is either a grammatic genius or... well, or not.
There are services like the one you request. One I am familiar with is IndieFeed Podcast. They have one podcast per genre, and one episode per song. That means you can listen to a certain genre (I have Alternative, Blues, and Hip Hop, but there are also others) and you can also skip a song when you don't like it. The DJs introduce the songs, tell you about the artists, and where to find more by them. I've discovered a handful of new artists that way, and have heard lots of okay songs along the way. (The DJs' talking is not valuable to me, but it sounds like what you're looking for.)
That's just one I know of, I'm sure there are others. In fact I have heard of one called Just Good Music... uh... and I guess I can't think of any others. I don't know of any that are localized by geography, but that is a good idea, and there might be something like that for wherever you live (not where I live though).
You obviously do not listen to Tool or Radiohead. They are two frontrunning examples of modern bands who put out cohesive albums.
Frankly, I like the album format, so I'm confused when people complain about it. Even albums which aren't quite concept albums all tied together, the songs are compiled and arranged into a single set. To each his own I guess.
I proffer that the reason you haven't heard any good modern music is that you haven't been exposed to good modern music. Trust me, there is plenty of great music being made today, and a lot of it is published by the big music shops (and a lot of it isn't).
The reason you don't remember all the crappy music made "back in your day" is that you've forgotten it. You only remember the good music, thank God.
PS The Eagles? You are going to use the Eagles as an example of great music? Bro...
Who the hell listens to radio? Anybody? Come on, speak up. I haven't listened to radio for a decade, and before that I only listened because I didn't know any better, because I was a child.
iPods have delivered us from the slavery to radio. For a very small price you can listen to what you want, when you want, skip what you want, and all without commercials. Only a fool would continue wasting his time listening to radio.
And you are correct, ClearChannel is absolutely to blame for that. Radio sucks because ClearChannel *is* radio and ClearChannel sucks. Don't buy inferior products; don't listen to radio.
I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but in my democracy the police do what they're told to do. If the Canadian parliament told the RCMP to enforce a new copyright law as the law was written, are you saying they would refuse? What kind of rogue police force do you have down* there?
(*Canada is mostly 'down' south from where I'm sitting.)
Well, no, not quite. Politicians eventually cave to votes, not public opinion. So, only people who vote, and (this is the important part) who vote their conscience get listened to. In almost all democracies, that is an exceedingly small number of people. In my democracy, fewer than half of people vote (and I'm not at all upset about that -- I am glad disinterested people don't vote), and I bet less than one in twenty actually translates their political opinions into a vote for an individual who has the same opinions. Instead, most people vote for one of the two or three major candidates, which almost always don't represent the voter's actual preferences.
It's the primary weakness of the theory of democracy -- voters making dumb choices.
The Skeptoid podcast addressed this issue and presented a theory. Most theories have the wind pushing the rocks, but that doesn't make much sense since it's hard for wind to push a big rock a long way without rolling. Skeptoid says the lake is sometimes frozen (we're talking about very shallow water here) so there is a layer of ice thru which the rocks protrude. At this point the wind acts on the whole sheet of ice which has the power to slide the rocks without rolling them.
Yeah, that or it's space aliens with magic brainbeams using multidimentional quantum effects.
(PS the Skeptoid podcast is pretty good. Find it on iTunes.)
Yeah but the smugness has a perpendicular characteristic -- like magnetism to the electric force -- and that characteristic is "jealousy". Wherever you see the smugness, you get the jealousy; conversely, the jealousy also causes the smugness.
Don't even ask what happens if you put two Mac users in a big room facing back to back.
It took me a long time to pull that one out of my childhood memories. I knew it was in there. I accept all of your accolades for superlative example of an obscure reference for the word "astrosurfer".
A worker gets paid exactly the amount he is able and willing to demand. This goes for actors alike with janitors -- I think that's your point.
I think the poster's point is that the actors are not able to demand that pay from him; or by proxy the media producers are not able to demand that pay from him. He further makes the moral point that the reason the actors can't demand the pay from him is that he doesn't think they are worth it.
Your points are not mutually exclusive. You conflated his word "need" for something like "should be".
I don't accuse most creationists of evil, or of being bastards, but they are certainly ignorant and out to wreck the public teaching of science.
I also agree that creationists are just trying to find the world view that makes the best sense of their experiences, but I disagree that they are leveraging reasoning or various bits of historical evidence.
Look, it's not possible to say whose world view is "correct", if that's even theoretically possible, but it is definitely possible to say whose world views are incorrect. Traditionally understood creation myths are clearly incorrect and can be discarded by anyone approaching the question with critical thought. With those myths gone, we can discuss and debate theories which have potential to be true.
Mod parent up. Also moderate up the sibling which says the poster should have posted non-AC. Saying $230 is double $200 is... uh... what's the word... transparently stupid and misleading.
Well, the universe might care about conscious observers. Consider that we are little tuffs of universe, fluffed up into a conscious state. So what I mean is, we are the universe, the universe is us, in a literal sense. As conscious bits of universe, we're not really sure what that means exactly, but it's remarkable to ponder that we certainly live in a self-aware universe. With that in mind, there may be a physical distinction between the universe observing itself -- or not. We don't know nearly enough to posit one way or another.
Thanks for the information; I stand corrected, though my basic point stands, I think.
My username is literal, not figurative; I am literally shortsighted, not figuratively shortsighted (I hope). I may be ignorant, though, in which case I rely on people like you to kindly point it out.
The CIA has been spying on its fellow Americans for fifty years, during which America has experienced significant domestic tranquility. Using those techniques they broke up both the KKK and Black Panthers.
I've been boycotting Amazon since the patent was first awarded. Haven't we all been doing that? The boycott was a big deal for nerds back then. What, did the rest of you get out-waited by Jeff Bezos?
(My money isn't where my mouth is, though: it's in my pocket; my mouth is on my face.)
Not really. Playback Prevention technology doesn't manage authors' digital rights, though it may approximate them. The obvious example is when the technology is used to prevent legal playback or copying of the materials. Considering that use case, it isn't managing digital rights, theirs or mine; it is preventing playback.
Besides, what is a digital right? Or is it digital management?
Once again I insist that our community stop calling it copy protection. Does it protect my copies? No. We also need to stop calling it DRM. Does it manage my digital rights? No. (In fact it does the opposite of that, it cripples my digital rights -- DRC.)
We should call it what it is, which is Playback Prevention. That's what the technology does, it prevents playback. Both the consumers and the producers can agree that's what it does, although we will disagree about whether or not that's a good thing for technology to do.
Tag this story !copyprotection !drm playbackprevention.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people have discussed that song. In my conversations with friends, we have decided that most of the examples of irony given in the song are not ironic, although some are mildly ironic. Our conclusion, though, was that a song about irony with lyrics giving wrong examples of irony *is* ironic, *because* the lyrical examples *aren't* ironic. So, it's ironic because it's not ironic. Alanis is either a grammatic genius or... well, or not.
Is it true that's commercial free? I mean, like REALLY commercial free?
There are services like the one you request. One I am familiar with is IndieFeed Podcast. They have one podcast per genre, and one episode per song. That means you can listen to a certain genre (I have Alternative, Blues, and Hip Hop, but there are also others) and you can also skip a song when you don't like it. The DJs introduce the songs, tell you about the artists, and where to find more by them. I've discovered a handful of new artists that way, and have heard lots of okay songs along the way. (The DJs' talking is not valuable to me, but it sounds like what you're looking for.)
That's just one I know of, I'm sure there are others. In fact I have heard of one called Just Good Music... uh... and I guess I can't think of any others. I don't know of any that are localized by geography, but that is a good idea, and there might be something like that for wherever you live (not where I live though).
You obviously do not listen to Tool or Radiohead. They are two frontrunning examples of modern bands who put out cohesive albums.
Frankly, I like the album format, so I'm confused when people complain about it. Even albums which aren't quite concept albums all tied together, the songs are compiled and arranged into a single set. To each his own I guess.
I proffer that the reason you haven't heard any good modern music is that you haven't been exposed to good modern music. Trust me, there is plenty of great music being made today, and a lot of it is published by the big music shops (and a lot of it isn't).
The reason you don't remember all the crappy music made "back in your day" is that you've forgotten it. You only remember the good music, thank God.
PS The Eagles? You are going to use the Eagles as an example of great music? Bro...
Who the hell listens to radio? Anybody? Come on, speak up. I haven't listened to radio for a decade, and before that I only listened because I didn't know any better, because I was a child.
iPods have delivered us from the slavery to radio. For a very small price you can listen to what you want, when you want, skip what you want, and all without commercials. Only a fool would continue wasting his time listening to radio.
And you are correct, ClearChannel is absolutely to blame for that. Radio sucks because ClearChannel *is* radio and ClearChannel sucks. Don't buy inferior products; don't listen to radio.
I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but in my democracy the police do what they're told to do. If the Canadian parliament told the RCMP to enforce a new copyright law as the law was written, are you saying they would refuse? What kind of rogue police force do you have down* there?
(*Canada is mostly 'down' south from where I'm sitting.)
Well, no, not quite. Politicians eventually cave to votes, not public opinion. So, only people who vote, and (this is the important part) who vote their conscience get listened to. In almost all democracies, that is an exceedingly small number of people. In my democracy, fewer than half of people vote (and I'm not at all upset about that -- I am glad disinterested people don't vote), and I bet less than one in twenty actually translates their political opinions into a vote for an individual who has the same opinions. Instead, most people vote for one of the two or three major candidates, which almost always don't represent the voter's actual preferences.
It's the primary weakness of the theory of democracy -- voters making dumb choices.
Slashdot is good for teaching me new (or old, but new to me) internet memes: kill it with fire.
The Skeptoid podcast addressed this issue and presented a theory. Most theories have the wind pushing the rocks, but that doesn't make much sense since it's hard for wind to push a big rock a long way without rolling. Skeptoid says the lake is sometimes frozen (we're talking about very shallow water here) so there is a layer of ice thru which the rocks protrude. At this point the wind acts on the whole sheet of ice which has the power to slide the rocks without rolling them.
Yeah, that or it's space aliens with magic brainbeams using multidimentional quantum effects.
(PS the Skeptoid podcast is pretty good. Find it on iTunes.)
Yeah but the smugness has a perpendicular characteristic -- like magnetism to the electric force -- and that characteristic is "jealousy". Wherever you see the smugness, you get the jealousy; conversely, the jealousy also causes the smugness.
Don't even ask what happens if you put two Mac users in a big room facing back to back.
It took me a long time to pull that one out of my childhood memories. I knew it was in there. I accept all of your accolades for superlative example of an obscure reference for the word "astrosurfer".
It's synecdoche, dude; look it up.
A worker gets paid exactly the amount he is able and willing to demand. This goes for actors alike with janitors -- I think that's your point.
I think the poster's point is that the actors are not able to demand that pay from him; or by proxy the media producers are not able to demand that pay from him. He further makes the moral point that the reason the actors can't demand the pay from him is that he doesn't think they are worth it.
Your points are not mutually exclusive. You conflated his word "need" for something like "should be".
I don't accuse most creationists of evil, or of being bastards, but they are certainly ignorant and out to wreck the public teaching of science.
I also agree that creationists are just trying to find the world view that makes the best sense of their experiences, but I disagree that they are leveraging reasoning or various bits of historical evidence.
Look, it's not possible to say whose world view is "correct", if that's even theoretically possible, but it is definitely possible to say whose world views are incorrect. Traditionally understood creation myths are clearly incorrect and can be discarded by anyone approaching the question with critical thought. With those myths gone, we can discuss and debate theories which have potential to be true.
Mod parent up. Also moderate up the sibling which says the poster should have posted non-AC. Saying $230 is double $200 is... uh... what's the word... transparently stupid and misleading.
You are correct. I mistook the CIA for the FBI. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. No comment on the rest of what you say.
Well, the universe might care about conscious observers. Consider that we are little tuffs of universe, fluffed up into a conscious state. So what I mean is, we are the universe, the universe is us, in a literal sense. As conscious bits of universe, we're not really sure what that means exactly, but it's remarkable to ponder that we certainly live in a self-aware universe. With that in mind, there may be a physical distinction between the universe observing itself -- or not. We don't know nearly enough to posit one way or another.
Thanks for the information; I stand corrected, though my basic point stands, I think.
My username is literal, not figurative; I am literally shortsighted, not figuratively shortsighted (I hope). I may be ignorant, though, in which case I rely on people like you to kindly point it out.
The CIA has been spying on its fellow Americans for fifty years, during which America has experienced significant domestic tranquility. Using those techniques they broke up both the KKK and Black Panthers.
+5, Insightful
saying that a single click of the mouse is obvious makes you look dumb.
Why?
I've been boycotting Amazon since the patent was first awarded. Haven't we all been doing that? The boycott was a big deal for nerds back then. What, did the rest of you get out-waited by Jeff Bezos?
(My money isn't where my mouth is, though: it's in my pocket; my mouth is on my face.)
Not really. Playback Prevention technology doesn't manage authors' digital rights, though it may approximate them. The obvious example is when the technology is used to prevent legal playback or copying of the materials. Considering that use case, it isn't managing digital rights, theirs or mine; it is preventing playback.
Besides, what is a digital right? Or is it digital management?
Once again I insist that our community stop calling it copy protection. Does it protect my copies? No. We also need to stop calling it DRM. Does it manage my digital rights? No. (In fact it does the opposite of that, it cripples my digital rights -- DRC.)
We should call it what it is, which is Playback Prevention. That's what the technology does, it prevents playback. Both the consumers and the producers can agree that's what it does, although we will disagree about whether or not that's a good thing for technology to do.
Tag this story !copyprotection !drm playbackprevention.