Why the hell don't they just tax the media like they do with everything else that is considered to be primarly used for piracy?
That's exactly why they say CD costs are so high despite the fact manufacturing costs are so low. I'll pay quite a bit for say, Star Wars on HD-DVD, as will a lot of other people. I won't pay the same amount for Stargate, even though I enjoyed the movie. Honestly, the MPAA isn't really worried about Joe HaX0r and his FTP server. They are worried that when REALLY fast internet is around (say 10 years from now) noone will bother buying little shiny discs when they can get the same thing easily for free.
Maybe the MPAA could actually do something useful and actually back an open, flexible, and useful standard that can be used in computers and HD-DVD players.
Whoa there, think about it for a second. The MPAA wants computer drives and whatever media format it chooses to diverge as much as possible. They will not be able to secure their media (as happened with DeCSS) and they know it. They'll only be able to secure the medium on which that data passes. That's why we will be saddled with DVI copy protection and other restrictive media abominations. That's also why high-rez audio formats (DVD-A and SACD) are both analog outputs only (unless you get a super-expensive player/receiver combo that uses proprietary encryption).
It really makes no difference to me which HD-DVD solution emerges...I just want it to be backwards compatible and I want it to hurry up and get here. I don't want to get into the same quandry that DVD-A and SACD have audiophiles in. Consumers are staying away from both of them until they figure out which will emerge. Labels are picking sides and some of my favorite groups have albums in one format and other groups have albums in the other format. If there was one agreed upon format, I think people would really start to embrace high-rez audio. While competition is good, it sure is hell on those of us who are both impatient and economical.
This is offtopic but the parent's question reminded me of a funny story.
A few years ago Larry King was interviewing Stephen Hawking, one of the great minds of our time and the world's best known physicist, and he asked a similar question.
"What problem do you think about the most? What problem plagues your mind the most?" queried King.
After a short pause, Hawking's synthesizer replied succintly: "Women."
Will we find a way to quell the anti-american hatred that our actions have incited?
Cut it with the wild speculation for once. Your initial post was riddled with it and so is this one. They were anti-American long before we went over there. If we were to completely remove ourself from that part of the world, Arabians schools will still teach their children that America is the Great Satan (TM).
Winning truly is a subjective term, but in every sense of the word the United States will have won this war. It will have accomplished what it set out to do and the opposition will have failed in what it tried to do. That's a win and you can chalk it up in the record books.
Can we please cut it with the wild speculation? Other than calling Halliburton a bunch of racist whores, is there anything that Cheney could have done, in your eyes, to separate himself form Halliburton in a satisfactory manner?
Thousands upon thousands work for Halliburton and those thousands will benefit from Halliburton winning bids on contracts like the one mentioned in this discussion. Must Halliburton preclude itself from any governmental doings because you think there are brother-in-law deals going on? Man, with what you were able to ascertain from the Internet you'd think that someone could dig up proof of your accusations.
But then, you expose your true colors (red) with this gem:
This crony capitalism mindset
What evidence do you have that ANYONE is getting screwed in this deal, other than your typical knee-jerk, socialistic nonsense?
Well you will be identified with what you don't excise, and you chose not to excise some really idiotic stuff. This place isn't known for editorial excellence you know.
Do we chalk this up to the cost of "freedom" or are we repeating the same mistakes the Catholics made in the Middle Ages (keep em' ignorant and our rule is secured)...."
Good to see chrisd is still wearing his tinfoil hat. We'll get Mulder and Scully to investigate this ASAP!
It isn't about you, it's about your audience. You won't get treated professionally if you don't look professional. That's just the way the world works. It doesn't matter how sage your points are if noone is listening.
This is an excellent opportunity to show that the DMCA is crap but please, those of you who attend don't make fools of yourselves. That means dress nice (no DeCSS t-shirts and wear a tie) and that means bathe, shave, and shower. That also means wear both shoes.
The objective is not to be seen, it's to convince others that your position is the correct and just position.
If you think the media is liberal and would naturally want to skew opinions towards anti-war sentiments, I suggest you check out Alterman's book "What Liberal Media"
That's not what I said. I said that the protestors arguments are covered constantly. If you look right now on CNN you're likely to see stories about protests, both at home and abroad. It's been like this for weeks. I didn't say that the media was promoting an opinion.
A few weeks ago I saw pictures from one of the onslaught of San Fran protests. One particularly dull woman had a cap on that said "Where's the media?". The funny thing was that the protest was covered by CNN, FoxNews, ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, the NYTimes, the SF Chronicle, and a number of other media outlets.
That's not only humorous but it's insightful as well. The reaction most get to website defacements and other obnoxious forms of civil disobedience is the same that Slashdot readers get from reading a troll. It's counterproductive to the cause.
remember, if you can, when you were a child, you had a point, and **nobody** would listen to you; so you get louder, and louder, and louder, because it's the world to you
I'm trying to discuss just the act of protesting, not the issue being protested, so I apologize for ignoring the 'life & death and global importance' aspect of your comment.
Your child analogy is very good. The reason why you weren't listened to is because you acted like a child, so was it any wonder that people figured you'd say childish things? Even if you had something sage to offer, your reputation preceded you. That's the whole deal with the anti-war protests. These people often act like children (Bush = Hitler signs...for example) and then they act offended when they are ignored. In retaliation, they vomit on sidewalks, throw things at police, break store windows, block streets, and do obnoxious chants. As a result, these types will be ignored no matter what position they take, as they've ruined their credibility.
You may say that those types of protesters are in the minority and I hope you're right, but the resounding silence of those non-idiotic protestors in condemning the stupidity of the attention mongers is telling in many people's eyes. If you are an anti-war protestor, the should preface anything you say with a condemnation of the types of idiocy that everyone sees in the papers. That would definitely add to the legitimacy of your opinion, in my eyes.
Another thing...why do the protestors all fit the stereotype that people expect? Protesters urge that the majority feel just as they do, but all I see protesting are the usual nonconformist suspects (nonconformity is just another form of conformity but that's another issue). One of the reasons that the civil rights protests worked was because people looked at the protesters and they looked like everyday people. Just like the people next door. They were, first and foremost, civil, which was very much a justification of their position. These kooks blocking the streets and throwing up on sidewalks don't elicit the same response because it's clear to the average person that their motivation isn't the cause, it's the protest.
Once upon a time, protest was a means of bringing attention to an idea that was either being suppressed or ignored. However, the anti-war protesters instead are just being obnoxious. Everyone, at least hear in America, has not only heard the protesters opinions over and over again, as each week's protest is carried by every major news agency in the world. America has heard the protesters' reasoning but they've rejected them to the tune of 70% or so the populace. Protesters...getting louder is just making you look obnoxious.
As Theodore Roosevelt once said, it is even more important for the people of America to scrutinize their leader's actions of time of war than in time of peace.
Roosevelt also said something about carrying a big stick.
I think that's definitely helped, but I know literally dozens of people, especially children, who wouldn't have a DVD player if their console didn't play DVDs. Originally it was an added bonus that they didn't intend to use, but with DVDs so widespread they ended up embracing it.
Mark my words, next generation console gaming will have as much effect on the adoption of HDTV as HDTV content does.
Sony won't pump out the Playstation 3 until they get a better idea of how many people will adopt HDTV, which technology will succeed DVD in the home, and when Microsoft will release a competing product. They can't afford to release a piece of hardware that isn't compatible with what people want. You can't believe how many people use their PS2 (or X-Box) as their primary (if only) DVD player. This is a huge selling point for the consoles and has been a huge boon to the DVD industry. It has, in essence, single handedly killed VHS, as many major retail outlets have already announced plans to phase out VHS sales.
It's not just about games anymore. Gaming consoles will become the media hub of the future home, not PCs (yes you can argue that gaming machines are specialized PCs but that's not completely accurate), and it's critical that Sony continue with that concept, but it's risky at the same time.
I've got my degree, thanks for your concern. Good to see you've got the night off away from the drive-through window so you can go online and play intellectual.
Just keep hating the same people who have provided you with the safety and prosperity your cowardly ass takes for granted.
Listen to this mp3 and tell me how Bush is just as bad as Saddam. You'd have your sorry ass murdered for equating Bush to Saddam if you were in Baghdad and your family would be billed for the bullet (unless of course the Iraqis decided to kill you with their human shredder).
Yes it can. George W. Bush did not go to Vietnam. That's all you know. You have then extrapolated that bit of information into "George W. Bush weaseled his way out of going to Vietnam" and "He is a coward".
I have read your post and now I use my freedom to assume you're an idiot.
See, if it weren't for those video games you gifted ones would have that cancer thing figured out but NoOoOoOo you waste your time with that whole video game garbage!
Seriously though bud, if kids were all like you I'd be worried a lot more about my job and a lot less about security to protect my family.
I agree with your statements about gulags - I just knew I had to clarify because many get prison-like imagery when they think of boot camp. That's what many feel-good parents miss when looking at parents who push their kids hard. They think its done because parents consider their children prisoners, when actually the parents are just trying to teach their children respect and responsbility.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of nutcases who take it too far. Even the military is reasonable.
The kids that I've seen treated as people tend to act like them; responsible, mature, knowledgable, and intelligent.
But they are CHILDREN. They aren't responsible, mature, or knowledgable by nature. That's simply the way it works. By treating a child as a subordinate, you aren't wiping a kid's butt and cutting up his food, you are just making sure he knows his place. The military is the very best place in the world for a human being to learn what it means to be mature and responsible and it isn't taught by elevating one's self esteem. People are broken down as far as they can go before they are built up, bit by bit. The very first thing one learns in the military is respect. The rest quickly follow. It's that very thing that's missing from the majority of American children. If you don't have respect, you can't be considered mature or responsible.
Honestly, I think we approach raising children in the very same way, we just come at it from different angles. One shouldn't treat a child like a dog, but at the same time one shouldn't treat a child like a pint-sized adult. A friend's philosophy on raising children is very wise. He says "you have to break their will but not their spirit". That's exactly what the military does and it works almost every time.
Don't run away with my military analogy because I don't think parents should turn their houses into gulags. It's just that parents need to quit trying to be their parents friends and start being their parents. That means you are responsible for and in control of the majority of your childrens lives. That's a mighty burden to bear and most parents took the cowardly way out and decide to befriend their children.
I really can't see why you don't believe children should be treated as subordinates. That's what they are! Hell, we all are in one way or another! I have to pay taxes or they'll come lock my ass up. I have to go to work or my boss will fire my ass. I have to come home at night so my wife doesn't beat me to a pulp while I sleep. That's just the way the world works. At the same time, that is the only way to learn true respect.
While the intent of the subject in the article is noble, it's just another example of educators trying to treat the symptoms and not the sickness. Kids aren't learning science (as well as pretty much every other subject) and the readability of science textbooks have almost nothing to do with it. The problem facing schools today is a cultural problem, not a logistical problem. We keep lowering the bar, instilling some idiotic postmodern philosophy of entitlement into kids who will one day grow into the idiotic adults everyone expects them to be, instead of raising the bar and working kids harder. Can't cut the mustard? You should be embarrassed. Instead, parents blame teachers for their own parental failures and everyone is hunky dory, as long as there is someone to blame. Teachers get beat down by this and feel like nothing they do helps so they quit too, robbing other children of the education provided by Uncle Sam.
It's funny. I graduated high school in '97 and have since gotten a BS in comp sci and I look back and realize my favorite teachers are the ones that made me bust ass. I couldn't stand them when I was under their totalitarian rule but I learned whether I liked it or not. Sure, I had plenty of teachers whose classes were a joke. Nothing was expected of me and so I did as little as I could get away with...what else would a teenager do? I despise those teachers now, as I realize that their insistence on being my friend and not working hard was a disservice to me.
There's plenty of blame to go around, whether it be lazy teachers, apathetic parents, cowardly administrators, or rowdy kids, but instead we pour more and more money into facilities, books, technology, or some other taxpayer funded red herring. Kids of the ages mentioned in the article...junior high age...aren't self-motivated. Less than 1% of kids that age have the self-motivation to pursue knowledge so you have to cram it down the little SOBs throats. Eventually, you'll find that the majority of them will then develop a craving for it and your work as a teacher is done.
It's the exact same way with behavior. You don't ask a child to behave, you have to make them behave. If parents would get over their little ego trip of how high and mighty their children are and treat them like the subordinates they are, this wouldn't be a problem. God forbid we hurt poor little Johnny's self esteem though.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the hell don't they just tax the media like they do with everything else that is considered to be primarly used for piracy?
That's exactly why they say CD costs are so high despite the fact manufacturing costs are so low. I'll pay quite a bit for say, Star Wars on HD-DVD, as will a lot of other people. I won't pay the same amount for Stargate, even though I enjoyed the movie. Honestly, the MPAA isn't really worried about Joe HaX0r and his FTP server. They are worried that when REALLY fast internet is around (say 10 years from now) noone will bother buying little shiny discs when they can get the same thing easily for free.
Maybe the MPAA could actually do something useful and actually back an open, flexible, and useful standard that can be used in computers and HD-DVD players.
Whoa there, think about it for a second. The MPAA wants computer drives and whatever media format it chooses to diverge as much as possible. They will not be able to secure their media (as happened with DeCSS) and they know it. They'll only be able to secure the medium on which that data passes. That's why we will be saddled with DVI copy protection and other restrictive media abominations. That's also why high-rez audio formats (DVD-A and SACD) are both analog outputs only (unless you get a super-expensive player/receiver combo that uses proprietary encryption).
It really makes no difference to me which HD-DVD solution emerges...I just want it to be backwards compatible and I want it to hurry up and get here. I don't want to get into the same quandry that DVD-A and SACD have audiophiles in. Consumers are staying away from both of them until they figure out which will emerge. Labels are picking sides and some of my favorite groups have albums in one format and other groups have albums in the other format. If there was one agreed upon format, I think people would really start to embrace high-rez audio. While competition is good, it sure is hell on those of us who are both impatient and economical.
This is offtopic but the parent's question reminded me of a funny story.
A few years ago Larry King was interviewing Stephen Hawking, one of the great minds of our time and the world's best known physicist, and he asked a similar question.
"What problem do you think about the most? What problem plagues your mind the most?" queried King.
After a short pause, Hawking's synthesizer replied succintly: "Women."
I wish that they would make a qualifying exam for software engineers, so that one could get a PE in software engineering.
They have.
Check it out
Will we find a way to quell the anti-american hatred that our actions have incited?
Cut it with the wild speculation for once. Your initial post was riddled with it and so is this one. They were anti-American long before we went over there. If we were to completely remove ourself from that part of the world, Arabians schools will still teach their children that America is the Great Satan (TM).
Winning truly is a subjective term, but in every sense of the word the United States will have won this war. It will have accomplished what it set out to do and the opposition will have failed in what it tried to do. That's a win and you can chalk it up in the record books.
Can we please cut it with the wild speculation? Other than calling Halliburton a bunch of racist whores, is there anything that Cheney could have done, in your eyes, to separate himself form Halliburton in a satisfactory manner?
Thousands upon thousands work for Halliburton and those thousands will benefit from Halliburton winning bids on contracts like the one mentioned in this discussion. Must Halliburton preclude itself from any governmental doings because you think there are brother-in-law deals going on? Man, with what you were able to ascertain from the Internet you'd think that someone could dig up proof of your accusations.
But then, you expose your true colors (red) with this gem:
This crony capitalism mindset
What evidence do you have that ANYONE is getting screwed in this deal, other than your typical knee-jerk, socialistic nonsense?
Anyone remember this one? I loved it as a kid.
Well you will be identified with what you don't excise, and you chose not to excise some really idiotic stuff. This place isn't known for editorial excellence you know.
Do we chalk this up to the cost of "freedom" or are we repeating the same mistakes the Catholics made in the Middle Ages (keep em' ignorant and our rule is secured)...."
Good to see chrisd is still wearing his tinfoil hat. We'll get Mulder and Scully to investigate this ASAP!
It isn't about you, it's about your audience. You won't get treated professionally if you don't look professional. That's just the way the world works. It doesn't matter how sage your points are if noone is listening.
This is an excellent opportunity to show that the DMCA is crap but please, those of you who attend don't make fools of yourselves. That means dress nice (no DeCSS t-shirts and wear a tie) and that means bathe, shave, and shower. That also means wear both shoes.
The objective is not to be seen, it's to convince others that your position is the correct and just position.
If you think the media is liberal and would naturally want to skew opinions towards anti-war sentiments, I suggest you check out Alterman's book "What Liberal Media"
That's not what I said. I said that the protestors arguments are covered constantly. If you look right now on CNN you're likely to see stories about protests, both at home and abroad. It's been like this for weeks. I didn't say that the media was promoting an opinion.
A few weeks ago I saw pictures from one of the onslaught of San Fran protests. One particularly dull woman had a cap on that said "Where's the media?". The funny thing was that the protest was covered by CNN, FoxNews, ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, the NYTimes, the SF Chronicle, and a number of other media outlets.
That's not only humorous but it's insightful as well. The reaction most get to website defacements and other obnoxious forms of civil disobedience is the same that Slashdot readers get from reading a troll. It's counterproductive to the cause.
remember, if you can, when you were a child, you had a point, and **nobody** would listen to you; so you get louder, and louder, and louder, because it's the world to you
I'm trying to discuss just the act of protesting, not the issue being protested, so I apologize for ignoring the 'life & death and global importance' aspect of your comment.
Your child analogy is very good. The reason why you weren't listened to is because you acted like a child, so was it any wonder that people figured you'd say childish things? Even if you had something sage to offer, your reputation preceded you. That's the whole deal with the anti-war protests. These people often act like children (Bush = Hitler signs...for example) and then they act offended when they are ignored. In retaliation, they vomit on sidewalks, throw things at police, break store windows, block streets, and do obnoxious chants. As a result, these types will be ignored no matter what position they take, as they've ruined their credibility.
You may say that those types of protesters are in the minority and I hope you're right, but the resounding silence of those non-idiotic protestors in condemning the stupidity of the attention mongers is telling in many people's eyes. If you are an anti-war protestor, the should preface anything you say with a condemnation of the types of idiocy that everyone sees in the papers. That would definitely add to the legitimacy of your opinion, in my eyes.
Another thing...why do the protestors all fit the stereotype that people expect? Protesters urge that the majority feel just as they do, but all I see protesting are the usual nonconformist suspects (nonconformity is just another form of conformity but that's another issue). One of the reasons that the civil rights protests worked was because people looked at the protesters and they looked like everyday people. Just like the people next door. They were, first and foremost, civil, which was very much a justification of their position. These kooks blocking the streets and throwing up on sidewalks don't elicit the same response because it's clear to the average person that their motivation isn't the cause, it's the protest.
Once upon a time, protest was a means of bringing attention to an idea that was either being suppressed or ignored. However, the anti-war protesters instead are just being obnoxious. Everyone, at least hear in America, has not only heard the protesters opinions over and over again, as each week's protest is carried by every major news agency in the world. America has heard the protesters' reasoning but they've rejected them to the tune of 70% or so the populace. Protesters...getting louder is just making you look obnoxious.
As Theodore Roosevelt once said, it is even more important for the people of America to scrutinize their leader's actions of time of war than in time of peace.
Roosevelt also said something about carrying a big stick.
I think that's definitely helped, but I know literally dozens of people, especially children, who wouldn't have a DVD player if their console didn't play DVDs. Originally it was an added bonus that they didn't intend to use, but with DVDs so widespread they ended up embracing it.
Mark my words, next generation console gaming will have as much effect on the adoption of HDTV as HDTV content does.
Sony won't pump out the Playstation 3 until they get a better idea of how many people will adopt HDTV, which technology will succeed DVD in the home, and when Microsoft will release a competing product. They can't afford to release a piece of hardware that isn't compatible with what people want. You can't believe how many people use their PS2 (or X-Box) as their primary (if only) DVD player. This is a huge selling point for the consoles and has been a huge boon to the DVD industry. It has, in essence, single handedly killed VHS, as many major retail outlets have already announced plans to phase out VHS sales.
It's not just about games anymore. Gaming consoles will become the media hub of the future home, not PCs (yes you can argue that gaming machines are specialized PCs but that's not completely accurate), and it's critical that Sony continue with that concept, but it's risky at the same time.
I've got my degree, thanks for your concern. Good to see you've got the night off away from the drive-through window so you can go online and play intellectual.
Just keep hating the same people who have provided you with the safety and prosperity your cowardly ass takes for granted.
Listen to this mp3 and tell me how Bush is just as bad as Saddam. You'd have your sorry ass murdered for equating Bush to Saddam if you were in Baghdad and your family would be billed for the bullet (unless of course the Iraqis decided to kill you with their human shredder).
Yes it can. George W. Bush did not go to Vietnam. That's all you know. You have then extrapolated that bit of information into "George W. Bush weaseled his way out of going to Vietnam" and "He is a coward".
I have read your post and now I use my freedom to assume you're an idiot.
See, if it weren't for those video games you gifted ones would have that cancer thing figured out but NoOoOoOo you waste your time with that whole video game garbage!
Seriously though bud, if kids were all like you I'd be worried a lot more about my job and a lot less about security to protect my family.
I agree with your statements about gulags - I just knew I had to clarify because many get prison-like imagery when they think of boot camp. That's what many feel-good parents miss when looking at parents who push their kids hard. They think its done because parents consider their children prisoners, when actually the parents are just trying to teach their children respect and responsbility.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of nutcases who take it too far. Even the military is reasonable.
The kids that I've seen treated as people tend to act like them; responsible, mature, knowledgable, and intelligent.
But they are CHILDREN. They aren't responsible, mature, or knowledgable by nature. That's simply the way it works. By treating a child as a subordinate, you aren't wiping a kid's butt and cutting up his food, you are just making sure he knows his place. The military is the very best place in the world for a human being to learn what it means to be mature and responsible and it isn't taught by elevating one's self esteem. People are broken down as far as they can go before they are built up, bit by bit. The very first thing one learns in the military is respect. The rest quickly follow. It's that very thing that's missing from the majority of American children. If you don't have respect, you can't be considered mature or responsible.
Honestly, I think we approach raising children in the very same way, we just come at it from different angles. One shouldn't treat a child like a dog, but at the same time one shouldn't treat a child like a pint-sized adult. A friend's philosophy on raising children is very wise. He says "you have to break their will but not their spirit". That's exactly what the military does and it works almost every time.
Don't run away with my military analogy because I don't think parents should turn their houses into gulags. It's just that parents need to quit trying to be their parents friends and start being their parents. That means you are responsible for and in control of the majority of your childrens lives. That's a mighty burden to bear and most parents took the cowardly way out and decide to befriend their children.
I really can't see why you don't believe children should be treated as subordinates. That's what they are! Hell, we all are in one way or another! I have to pay taxes or they'll come lock my ass up. I have to go to work or my boss will fire my ass. I have to come home at night so my wife doesn't beat me to a pulp while I sleep. That's just the way the world works. At the same time, that is the only way to learn true respect.
While the intent of the subject in the article is noble, it's just another example of educators trying to treat the symptoms and not the sickness. Kids aren't learning science (as well as pretty much every other subject) and the readability of science textbooks have almost nothing to do with it. The problem facing schools today is a cultural problem, not a logistical problem. We keep lowering the bar, instilling some idiotic postmodern philosophy of entitlement into kids who will one day grow into the idiotic adults everyone expects them to be, instead of raising the bar and working kids harder. Can't cut the mustard? You should be embarrassed. Instead, parents blame teachers for their own parental failures and everyone is hunky dory, as long as there is someone to blame. Teachers get beat down by this and feel like nothing they do helps so they quit too, robbing other children of the education provided by Uncle Sam.
It's funny. I graduated high school in '97 and have since gotten a BS in comp sci and I look back and realize my favorite teachers are the ones that made me bust ass. I couldn't stand them when I was under their totalitarian rule but I learned whether I liked it or not. Sure, I had plenty of teachers whose classes were a joke. Nothing was expected of me and so I did as little as I could get away with...what else would a teenager do? I despise those teachers now, as I realize that their insistence on being my friend and not working hard was a disservice to me.
There's plenty of blame to go around, whether it be lazy teachers, apathetic parents, cowardly administrators, or rowdy kids, but instead we pour more and more money into facilities, books, technology, or some other taxpayer funded red herring. Kids of the ages mentioned in the article...junior high age...aren't self-motivated. Less than 1% of kids that age have the self-motivation to pursue knowledge so you have to cram it down the little SOBs throats. Eventually, you'll find that the majority of them will then develop a craving for it and your work as a teacher is done.
It's the exact same way with behavior. You don't ask a child to behave, you have to make them behave. If parents would get over their little ego trip of how high and mighty their children are and treat them like the subordinates they are, this wouldn't be a problem. God forbid we hurt poor little Johnny's self esteem though.