In Katz's review of the movie he said we were supposed to hate Magneto. At no point in time did I ever get that feeling.
I think we were supposed to feel sorry for him, see how he could arrive at his conclusion due to his past, see that his means were obviously wrong but the sentiment stems from a yearning to prevent a holocaust, not cause one.
His master scheme could clearly have been more malicious. His villainous flaw was he was willing to sacrifice others to achieve his end goals.
If we were supposed to hate him, he would not have been given such a sympathetic introduction, and Prof. X would not have continued to consider him a friend.
Napster is not really a winning business model is it?
No, it isn't. And once the media hoopla dies down, it won't be long before they have to shut their servers down. The banks will be knocking on their doors and bankruptcy will follow.
Taking a nifty piece of programming and turning it into a profitable venture is always tricky. What is even worse is not even having a plan that would eventual create a revenue stream. I understand many companies lose money in their first few years as they struggle to reach a capacity, but as soon as they reach that capacity, they are making money.
What has been demonstrated with Napster is people like free things. Any first year sociology or marketing major could have told us that. As a piece of software it does help move us to a different level of computing.
Perhaps what Hollywood is trying to do is leverage a moderately successful application into another means of distribution. As it has been pointed out several times already, FTP is a much more effective method of digital distribution.
AppleSoup also has the potential of stopping Napster from going Divx. Today's Wall Street Journal's Marketplace has an article on DivX and how it is becoming easier to download digital quality movies and burn them onto a standard cd. Time to alert the MPAA, the future is nigh.
Discussion of actual PDC events was light, coated in acid, lacked objectivity. Relying upon Mapquest to guide someone through an unknown city demonstrates a high level of naivete. Paper maps, which Alamo gives for free, always work better. Smoking a cigar in a smoke free room out of spite demonstrates a wanton disregard for the health and comfort of other people. Dismissing this as saying it is the hotel's fault is not acceptable. Making critical statements about MarchFirst's splash page while having one of the most amateurish, might-as-well-have-done-it-with-frontpage, website is downright hypocritical. The threats of violence against the room cleaning service was too heavy handed and betrayed an intense loathing of humanity. The desire to take a waitress home because she was flirty clearly shows a high level of desperation. Referring to a waitress as a peach gives us a glimpse at his desire to be seen as some sort of hard-boiled detective type who can fling such coloquialism without batting an eye. The writer clearly wants to be seen as the Man in Charge, the Man with the Plan, the Man who is never wrong. Another poster said that if they were this man's boss, they'd fire his ass for wasting money on this convention. I don't think I'd fire him, but I would think twice about sending him to any convention ever again. I wouldn't expect my people to go down and get brainwashed, but I would expect them to delve in and bring back information on how these developments will help/hinder my business. I understand a journal is a personal thing, but seeing he submitted his journal as some sort of newsworthy item, I feel comfortable in making these comments. Notice, I didn't touch upon his sushi obsession.
Unfortunately, I can imagine my work, in response to heavy negative feedback to the website doing one of two things: Wanting to put up a splash page and have the user click on the link defining their browser (heaven forbid we run the code that identifies the browser and direct the user without their knowledge) or strip everything down to basic HTML with the rationale that it may not be as pretty but at least people can get the information. What Microsoft is trying to do is leverage their share of the browswer market into controlling the internet. If they control how people interact with the net, they essentially control the net. Oddly, if they have 86% of the browser market as the originally article claims they do, then why in my weblogs do I see a 60-40 split on browser platforms? IE is definately dominant, but I think their 86% is counting the number of people who use the web once or twice and simply use the IE installed on their machine. I wonder if Netscape (AOL) were to send out the Netscape browser with each AOL disk how many people would switch over?
I support the right to own weapons but I do not support the right of people who do not know how to use the weapon to own it. The 'well-regulated' provision implies 'skilled in the use of' which means to me trained. A simple fact that those individuals who go through Hunter Safety classes or train at Shooting Clubs have a much lower rate of accidents with guns than those individuals who do not clearly demonstrates that since this is a country that has the right to bear arms directly in the Constitution, then any individual wanting to own and use a gun needs to trained in the use and handling of the gun. And to keep the 'militia' 'well-regulated' periodic re-training would need to be done. Essentially, to legally use the weapon, your firearm registration card needs to signify that you've been to Firearm Training within the past five years. Will this stop gun violence? No. Laws don't stop actions, laws make actions crimes. To stop gun violence (or any similar act) a society needs to address the reasons 'why' the action is occurring.
Essentially any discourse about improvements to Napster is doomed by the simple fact that Napster is not a viable business. Unless it can develop a way to make money off its 'directory service' it will go the way of the dodo. In fact, I would almost be willing to bet that the whole Napster thing would have slowly died if the RIAA didn't get its panties all twisted up and allowed Napster to play the martyred revolutionary which helped attract the attention of attention seeking lawyers. As with all technology improvements, I judge the effectiveness by asking myself if I could imagine my older brothers and sisters using it. With Napster I can't. Now these are the same people who have no problem taping movies off of pay per view and making copies for friends. There isn't a big ethical cloud and sanctimonious behavior about them. But they wouldn't use Napster because, essentially, it isn't convenient and easy. Sure, free music is great, but having to download it (over 56k mind you) is a pain when buying the cd at the mall isn't. For Napster to have been successful, it really needs to tap in that middle of the road crowd. As much as I like my MP3's, even I couldn't be persuaded to pay money to have the ability to use Napster. It is a poor business model (was there a model?) and natural selection would have kept it in the fringes.
At least selling someone else's music as your own is a real crime without any areas of gray. Anyone doing this would be in clear violation of copyright laws. This is the same issue with bootleg videotapes, etc. Piracy will happen. With this system, it is easier to identify the pirates. I like the idea of divorcing the product from the artist. I like many musicians who have put out crappy songs. I would still give them money because as artists I really like what they do. Anyone I find selling their music, I would willingly report. As some public service announcement will one day say, "Fraud isn't cool."
In a different age, artists weren't paid by the individual pieces they created but were paid because they were artists. I like the idea that the band offer their music for general release and if the public likes it, they can go to the website and send them money (make it a fan club, let people 'subscribe' to a band $5 a year, $10, what have you) and in exchange, get the chance to download their songs first. Part of the music culture is liking a band before they become massively popular.
Just a few quick P.K.D. points. Imposter coming out sometime this year is based on a PKD story as is Minority Report (directed by Spielberg) coming out in 2001.
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can devastate a musician who sells a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans in some small and little known community. This is an amazing bit of faulty logic. What struggling writer or musician, trying to get their cd picked up by a distributor (who uses computer inventory reports to predict sales of future books and albums off of past sales and are reluctant to carry new titles and artists with unproven track records) wouldn't love to know that instead of a few thousand listeners or readers, they have tens of thousands who will be willing to pitch out a few bucks for the next book/album? Seagrams is worried that they won't be able to control the next break out artist.
Ghana is not a starving country. It is a country that lacks finances and resources to develop beyond its current level. If it stays in its current level, it will slip into social chaos. It is a common problem in developing countries. Usually they get dependent upon a U.S. corporation for development, and then that company pulls out, creating a power vacuum. Someone coming to a developing country and assisting them to develop in the direction they want to without forcing an ideology down their throats is a wonderful positive thing.
All in all, if someone doesn't support this concept due to anti-altruistic beliefs, then this concept can be thought of in selfish terms. The lessons we can learn in dealing with the difficulties in wiring developing countries can be applied to rural America. Why not start in rural America? Because the situation isn't so bad as to force us to develop new concepts and new technologies.
I believe the internet cafe was being used as an example of the types of services that can be provided. And I am almost sure they aren't saying developing countries need equal access to porn but an internet cafe in a village could help dispense up-to-date information on AIDS and other diseases. As seen with Chechnya and Fiji, empowering people with the ability to communicate beyond borders can do more good than harm. Also, Geekcorps aren't planning on going into Eritrea or backwater Senegambia, but to countries that already have the technological infrastructure to take advantage of the Internet but aren't.
I'm on the pro side of this also. I am more likely to support a program like this than one of the Lords of Poverty programs that do nothing to alleviate the causes of poverty and hunger. Feeding the poor will never work. It is a logistical impossibility due to human nature. Freeing the poor from oppressive structures that prevent them from getting the knowledge and education needed to avoid disease and to increase food production is possible and will work. I also believe it isn't the U.S.'s responsibility to wire the world, care for everyone, but it is the responsibility of developed countries as a whole to make sure conditions don't get so bad that there isn't any hope at all. Stable economies lead to stable political systems.
I can't imagine The Powers That Be allowing DVD-R to even be marketed on a mass consumer level. I can see them being priced out of the common person's hands. Not saying they won't come around, but expect a long arduous fight when they do.
I'm not going to come out defending Metallica completely but it isn't their responsibility to turn this into an opportunity. I agree that the way we think of the music industry is slowly dying and these lawsuits are the beginning of the death spasms, but the rights of the artist to control his/her work have to the paramount. Expecting Metallica to suddenly learn a new technology, to throw out the advice of their managers and Industry groups in order to embrace a new and untested way of doing business is a bit absurd. Napster, if it wants these attacks, no matter how unwarranted, to cease, needs to develop a business model that allows Metallica and any other artist being traded on Napster to get sum compensation. Essentially, without those artists, Napster wouldn't be as popular, thus Napster owes those artists something.
There are many better responses to this question, but 'Management Methodology' has always seemed flat to me. Just because a particular practice works at Ford Motors doesn't mean it will work in IT departments across the country.
As with real diets, any real effort to develop a Management Methodology, whether adopted from the outside or developed internally, will have a positive effect. What won't work are fads and half-assed implementation. The latter explains most of the failures in Management Methodology. For the most part, poor managers start to look at these Methodologies to explain failures not prevent them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we were supposed to feel sorry for him, see how he could arrive at his conclusion due to his past, see that his means were obviously wrong but the sentiment stems from a yearning to prevent a holocaust, not cause one.
His master scheme could clearly have been more malicious. His villainous flaw was he was willing to sacrifice others to achieve his end goals.
If we were supposed to hate him, he would not have been given such a sympathetic introduction, and Prof. X would not have continued to consider him a friend.
No, it isn't. And once the media hoopla dies down, it won't be long before they have to shut their servers down. The banks will be knocking on their doors and bankruptcy will follow.
Taking a nifty piece of programming and turning it into a profitable venture is always tricky. What is even worse is not even having a plan that would eventual create a revenue stream. I understand many companies lose money in their first few years as they struggle to reach a capacity, but as soon as they reach that capacity, they are making money.
What has been demonstrated with Napster is people like free things. Any first year sociology or marketing major could have told us that. As a piece of software it does help move us to a different level of computing.
Perhaps what Hollywood is trying to do is leverage a moderately successful application into another means of distribution. As it has been pointed out several times already, FTP is a much more effective method of digital distribution.
AppleSoup also has the potential of stopping Napster from going Divx. Today's Wall Street Journal's Marketplace has an article on DivX and how it is becoming easier to download digital quality movies and burn them onto a standard cd. Time to alert the MPAA, the future is nigh.
Discussion of actual PDC events was light, coated in acid, lacked objectivity. Relying upon Mapquest to guide someone through an unknown city demonstrates a high level of naivete. Paper maps, which Alamo gives for free, always work better. Smoking a cigar in a smoke free room out of spite demonstrates a wanton disregard for the health and comfort of other people. Dismissing this as saying it is the hotel's fault is not acceptable. Making critical statements about MarchFirst's splash page while having one of the most amateurish, might-as-well-have-done-it-with-frontpage, website is downright hypocritical. The threats of violence against the room cleaning service was too heavy handed and betrayed an intense loathing of humanity. The desire to take a waitress home because she was flirty clearly shows a high level of desperation. Referring to a waitress as a peach gives us a glimpse at his desire to be seen as some sort of hard-boiled detective type who can fling such coloquialism without batting an eye. The writer clearly wants to be seen as the Man in Charge, the Man with the Plan, the Man who is never wrong. Another poster said that if they were this man's boss, they'd fire his ass for wasting money on this convention. I don't think I'd fire him, but I would think twice about sending him to any convention ever again. I wouldn't expect my people to go down and get brainwashed, but I would expect them to delve in and bring back information on how these developments will help/hinder my business. I understand a journal is a personal thing, but seeing he submitted his journal as some sort of newsworthy item, I feel comfortable in making these comments. Notice, I didn't touch upon his sushi obsession.
Unfortunately, I can imagine my work, in response to heavy negative feedback to the website doing one of two things: Wanting to put up a splash page and have the user click on the link defining their browser (heaven forbid we run the code that identifies the browser and direct the user without their knowledge) or strip everything down to basic HTML with the rationale that it may not be as pretty but at least people can get the information. What Microsoft is trying to do is leverage their share of the browswer market into controlling the internet. If they control how people interact with the net, they essentially control the net. Oddly, if they have 86% of the browser market as the originally article claims they do, then why in my weblogs do I see a 60-40 split on browser platforms? IE is definately dominant, but I think their 86% is counting the number of people who use the web once or twice and simply use the IE installed on their machine. I wonder if Netscape (AOL) were to send out the Netscape browser with each AOL disk how many people would switch over?
I support the right to own weapons but I do not support the right of people who do not know how to use the weapon to own it. The 'well-regulated' provision implies 'skilled in the use of' which means to me trained. A simple fact that those individuals who go through Hunter Safety classes or train at Shooting Clubs have a much lower rate of accidents with guns than those individuals who do not clearly demonstrates that since this is a country that has the right to bear arms directly in the Constitution, then any individual wanting to own and use a gun needs to trained in the use and handling of the gun. And to keep the 'militia' 'well-regulated' periodic re-training would need to be done. Essentially, to legally use the weapon, your firearm registration card needs to signify that you've been to Firearm Training within the past five years. Will this stop gun violence? No. Laws don't stop actions, laws make actions crimes. To stop gun violence (or any similar act) a society needs to address the reasons 'why' the action is occurring.
Essentially any discourse about improvements to Napster is doomed by the simple fact that Napster is not a viable business. Unless it can develop a way to make money off its 'directory service' it will go the way of the dodo. In fact, I would almost be willing to bet that the whole Napster thing would have slowly died if the RIAA didn't get its panties all twisted up and allowed Napster to play the martyred revolutionary which helped attract the attention of attention seeking lawyers. As with all technology improvements, I judge the effectiveness by asking myself if I could imagine my older brothers and sisters using it. With Napster I can't. Now these are the same people who have no problem taping movies off of pay per view and making copies for friends. There isn't a big ethical cloud and sanctimonious behavior about them. But they wouldn't use Napster because, essentially, it isn't convenient and easy. Sure, free music is great, but having to download it (over 56k mind you) is a pain when buying the cd at the mall isn't. For Napster to have been successful, it really needs to tap in that middle of the road crowd. As much as I like my MP3's, even I couldn't be persuaded to pay money to have the ability to use Napster. It is a poor business model (was there a model?) and natural selection would have kept it in the fringes.
At least selling someone else's music as your own is a real crime without any areas of gray. Anyone doing this would be in clear violation of copyright laws. This is the same issue with bootleg videotapes, etc. Piracy will happen. With this system, it is easier to identify the pirates. I like the idea of divorcing the product from the artist. I like many musicians who have put out crappy songs. I would still give them money because as artists I really like what they do. Anyone I find selling their music, I would willingly report. As some public service announcement will one day say, "Fraud isn't cool."
In a different age, artists weren't paid by the individual pieces they created but were paid because they were artists. I like the idea that the band offer their music for general release and if the public likes it, they can go to the website and send them money (make it a fan club, let people 'subscribe' to a band $5 a year, $10, what have you) and in exchange, get the chance to download their songs first. Part of the music culture is liking a band before they become massively popular.
Just a few quick P.K.D. points. Imposter coming out sometime this year is based on a PKD story as is Minority Report (directed by Spielberg) coming out in 2001.
The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can devastate a musician who sells a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans in some small and little known community. This is an amazing bit of faulty logic. What struggling writer or musician, trying to get their cd picked up by a distributor (who uses computer inventory reports to predict sales of future books and albums off of past sales and are reluctant to carry new titles and artists with unproven track records) wouldn't love to know that instead of a few thousand listeners or readers, they have tens of thousands who will be willing to pitch out a few bucks for the next book/album? Seagrams is worried that they won't be able to control the next break out artist.
Ghana is not a starving country. It is a country that lacks finances and resources to develop beyond its current level. If it stays in its current level, it will slip into social chaos. It is a common problem in developing countries. Usually they get dependent upon a U.S. corporation for development, and then that company pulls out, creating a power vacuum. Someone coming to a developing country and assisting them to develop in the direction they want to without forcing an ideology down their throats is a wonderful positive thing.
All in all, if someone doesn't support this concept due to anti-altruistic beliefs, then this concept can be thought of in selfish terms. The lessons we can learn in dealing with the difficulties in wiring developing countries can be applied to rural America. Why not start in rural America? Because the situation isn't so bad as to force us to develop new concepts and new technologies.
I believe the internet cafe was being used as an example of the types of services that can be provided. And I am almost sure they aren't saying developing countries need equal access to porn but an internet cafe in a village could help dispense up-to-date information on AIDS and other diseases. As seen with Chechnya and Fiji, empowering people with the ability to communicate beyond borders can do more good than harm. Also, Geekcorps aren't planning on going into Eritrea or backwater Senegambia, but to countries that already have the technological infrastructure to take advantage of the Internet but aren't.
I'm on the pro side of this also. I am more likely to support a program like this than one of the Lords of Poverty programs that do nothing to alleviate the causes of poverty and hunger. Feeding the poor will never work. It is a logistical impossibility due to human nature. Freeing the poor from oppressive structures that prevent them from getting the knowledge and education needed to avoid disease and to increase food production is possible and will work. I also believe it isn't the U.S.'s responsibility to wire the world, care for everyone, but it is the responsibility of developed countries as a whole to make sure conditions don't get so bad that there isn't any hope at all. Stable economies lead to stable political systems.
I can't imagine The Powers That Be allowing DVD-R to even be marketed on a mass consumer level. I can see them being priced out of the common person's hands. Not saying they won't come around, but expect a long arduous fight when they do.
I'm not going to come out defending Metallica completely but it isn't their responsibility to turn this into an opportunity. I agree that the way we think of the music industry is slowly dying and these lawsuits are the beginning of the death spasms, but the rights of the artist to control his/her work have to the paramount. Expecting Metallica to suddenly learn a new technology, to throw out the advice of their managers and Industry groups in order to embrace a new and untested way of doing business is a bit absurd. Napster, if it wants these attacks, no matter how unwarranted, to cease, needs to develop a business model that allows Metallica and any other artist being traded on Napster to get sum compensation. Essentially, without those artists, Napster wouldn't be as popular, thus Napster owes those artists something.
As with real diets, any real effort to develop a Management Methodology, whether adopted from the outside or developed internally, will have a positive effect. What won't work are fads and half-assed implementation. The latter explains most of the failures in Management Methodology. For the most part, poor managers start to look at these Methodologies to explain failures not prevent them.