My understanding of the RIAA argument is "Record sales are down, therefore that must be caused by filesharing". Perhaps they miss the point that the general public is bored and disinterested with the bland repetitive "product" which these companies provide.
No offense, but perhaps they miss this "point" because it's a crock of shit.
I'm a jazz musician, and journalist. You're right: Pop music is repetitive. (Being "repetitive" is actually kind of the point of pop music, but we'll set that aside for the moment.) Most of it is also garbage. 16-year-old children, even with admittedly good voices, record their own poorly-written crap (Debbie Gibson notwithstanding) and are rewarded with national circulation. And somebody, PLEASE...explain Macy Gray.
But let's be clear: Any decline in CD sales is despite this truth, not because of it. Check the playlists on P2P, next time you're surfing. Eminem, Britney Spears...people aren't turning to P2P because they want to be turned onto new, engaging music. They use it because it's free. On this point, the record industry is 100% right. People use P2P, for the most part, to listen to the exact same crap that's on the radio.
When the public becomes "bored and disinterested" with "bland" and "repetitive" music, then Bob Brookmeyer won't have to turn to Dutch labels to record his music. Rap fans will learn about J-Live, and they'll forget about DMX. Rock fans will hear bands like Don Caballero and Shipping News, and schmucks like that Andrew-somebody-or-other won't be able to find work at McDonald's.
Don't take my word for it. When the record labels -- the folks who really study this data -- saw their sales figures starting to decline, what was the first thing they cut? Jazz. Almost completely. Classical? Most people think, "Mozart," "Bach"...and on the rare occasions when they're in the market for a classical CD, you'd better have those two on-hand; because they're not interested in Ligeti or Lutoslawski. If you really believe that the general public is even remotely "bored" by the same-old, same-old, then you're kidding yourself. It's a dream world I'd like to live in, but it just ain't so.
This incident supports my longstanding theory that hardly anyone possesses any sense of irony, nowadays. (Hey, after watching Norm McDonald's Hasselhoff/Germans thing play out, I decided that I needed a theory, too.)
I'll agree that Garrett should be neither ashamed nor embarrassed by her original email. Yes, it's disappointing to see shoddy language skills from a professional journalist. And yes, it would be nice if a Pulitzer and Peabody Prize winner didn't exhibit such naiveté and ignorance about both the security and the intimacy of the internet. But she's right: The fact that a "Fwd" button simplifies the act of sharing personal correspondence, should not make it less egregious. Someone on Metafilter suggested that, because Garrett didn't specifically write, "Don't pass this along," she couldn't expect the email to remain private. I don't think we've reached that point, in our march toward the erosion of privacy...and I hope we won't.
Having written that: I think Garrett's email to Metafilter is shameful. It's ignorant. She assumes that people discussing her email on Metafilter are unproductive people who neither experience nor contribute to much of life. This ignorant presumption is beneath a professional journalist, and it's certainly beneath a Pulitzer writer. She is obviously angry, and she probably feels violated. This is understandable, and most of us sympathize. But she responds with ad hominem attacks on an entire community, invoking stereotypical references. Cracking on nerds about William Shatner, I guess, is more acceptable than cracking about blacks and fried chicken? Jews and Barbra Streisand?
Garrett was pardoned for this vitriol, by another Metafilter poster, because she was "writing in anger." And that's really the bottom line, here: Has she learned nothing? She's angry because something she wrote off-the-cuff, without the consideration she would give to a professional article, found its way into public consumption. So in response, she types an angry, bitter, off-the-cuff missive, and mails it into a discussion revolving around the incident? Has she NO sense of irony?!?
Garrett remarks that she has learned her lesson: She will no longer email personal messages; because online, "no one can be trusted." Well, as we all say, the only way to truly secure a document is not to write it. But it seems to me that she has missed the larger lesson, here: If your words are unconsidered, don't share them. A personal letter shouldn't require the effort of a professional article, of course. But a personal misunderstanding, stemming from poorly-written thoughts, can be just as damaging as a professional embarrassment.
Privacy is an important concern, and Garrett's was violated. Yes, email simplifies "gossip." Yes, the internet has eroded privacy. But part of that erosion has been incidental: The internet's effect is less upon the privacy of your words, and more upon their permanence. Learn from Garrett's mistake, and remember that permanence every time you type.
1.) As other posters have written: Hindsight is needed to appreciate breakthroughs which "change...lives in a profound way." If there have been any such breakthroughs, recently (no, I'm not suggesting that Segway will qualify), they haven't yet had time to be fairly judged.
2.) I think it's also worth considering that recent years, more than the past, have seen our "technological progress" move more toward improving existing tools rather than inventing new ones. The obvious example is the internet -- now that its infrastructure is present, and it has been adopted into a large percentage of homes and businesses, we're seeing real and profound development occur. Amazon, eBay, Bibliofind -- hell, even pr0n -- aren't "inventions," per se, but they certainly represent new developments which I suspect may be seen as quite impactful.
Also, the past ten or fifteen years have seen a progressive slide in our economy from product-oriented business to service-oriented business. Maybe it is true that we're not pumping out wold-changing inventions (the Foreman grill and the Popeil pasta maker aside) at the same rate we were a century ago; but I think that it has to be acknowledged that we are also offering (and consuming) services which didn't exist in the past. It's worth considering whether the rate of decline in our production of "inventions" is perhaps matched by our rate of growth in providing "services."
Finally, although I think the above is more relevant, there's the obligatory shot at the Clinton generation: One of the notions held by that generation, I think, is the idea of "quick profit" -- and specifically, that it's quicker, cheaper and generally more efficient to improve upon an existing product, rather than produce something entirely new. I think that generation, as compared to the economic drivers of the 1940s, have been more interested in taking charge of what's around them than developing anew. So if we're seeing less inventions and more "version 2.4"...well, I'm not surprised.
> If for no other reason, it's interesting > Slashdot is one of the sites Google News searchs.
Yes. Slashdot bills itself as a news site, and it is looked upon as a news site.
Begging the question, as several have already asked: If this story had been posted 11 hours later (mid-morning), and it had caused -- even temporarily -- repercussions for Sony's stock value...what exactly would Slashdot's liability be?
(Or, to ask another way: How soon thereafter would Sony OWN Slashdot?)
Has anyone else noticed that, the more hyperlinks a submission includes, the more likely the Slashdot editors are to take it seriously?
If I were to submit a story including links to a commercial real estate firm, eBay, and a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge, would you post my story about how I'm auctioning it off using a zero-feedback profile with a "Buy It Now!" of $19.95?
It looks to me like "Magamo" figured out exactly how to slip one through your blind spot, chrisd. Better work on your tells.
Plan something BIG for number three, would ya? If you're going to get booted as a Slashdot "editor" (even with quotes, I can't believe I just juxtaposed those two words...), your final act should be something really monumental.
Seriously, though: Is this, like, the earliest April Fool's joke in history? I mean, past mistakes aside, I never figured you for a dumb guy. Are you really telling us that you read this submission, and you seriously thought it seemed plausible?!?
Otherwise, you should be thankful you posted this at 1238AM. Imagine if you'd posted it mid-morning, and every Slashdotter had run straight to Ameritrade to sell his/her shares in Sony. Imagine what might have happened, at least temporarily, to Sony's stock. (In this climate, a small blip can be interpreted as a relatively large spike...and before you can say "Open Source," stockholders are assuming that "spike" represents information they don't have, and they're scrambling not to be left behind.)
Now imagine what the correspondence from Sony's attorneys might have looked like, when it arrived in your office the next morning. Does the name "PairGain" ring any bells?
The most amazing part of this story? This thing comes from Berlin....'Cause if there's ever been a more American-sounding invention, I've never heard of it.
(Although I suppose the fact that it doesn't come armed with two semi-automatic pistols might have been a clue...)
That sounds terrific. Because if there's one thing I'm tired of, it's all those damn old people marching around, bragging about their loss of hearing, uncontrollable trembling, and incontinence.
Kudos to the scientists who came up with this miracle device. Drive-thru windows insured that I don't have to wait for my hamburger. Fotomat made certain I wouldn't have to wait for my pictures. Now, thanks to this wondrous creation, I don't even have to wait to feel old!!
Seriously: The next time you scientists wake up bored, on a rainy Sunday, looking for something to do...CANCER. Forget Viagra, Rogaine, and "old machines." CURE CANCER.
LOL. An obvious case of a submitter without ZERO sense of irony.
"There's a new study which suggests scientists don't read the studies which they cite....Rather than read that study, why not glance at this news-edited abbreviation?"
You've got a good point. And I wish you were right; I really do. Every time I see one of these "stories" posted on the front page, boasting a couple hundred responses, I get my hopes up about the insightful replies I'll see reading at +3.
Read through this thread for yourself. This is what usually happens. 80% disappointing.
The problem with a thread like this is the very nature of Slashdot....Yes, partly, the problem is the clichéd complaint: too many lamers posting and moderating. But really, the problem has much more to do with the "First Post!" mentality that has become the nature of the site.
How often have you seen a discussion on Slashdot continue to acquire a significant number of responses, say, three hours after it's been posted? And how often have you seen any real moderation done to a thread, say, 90 minutes after it's been posted?
Slashdot happens too damn quickly. Too many participants really do sit in front of their computers all day clicking "Refresh." In this thread, the submitter appealed to the community to offer reasoned arguments, and objective facts. Certainly, many Slashdot readers are capable of doing this. But for most, it would involve a bit of thought and research. And so they don't bother -- because they know that, by the time they come back in 20 minutes with some hard numbers, their post will be buried under a couple of hundred garbage postings, and it's unlikely that any moderator will take the trouble to boost their signal above the noise. (And most of that "garbage/noise," of course, has already been modded up to 4's and 5's by lamebrained moderators, anyway.)
It's unfortunate. There are a lot of smart people on Slashdot. But the volume of participants, coupled with the obsession with immediacy, effectively prevents Slashdot from ever hosting a real in-depth conversation about any topic which doesn't appeal to the firsthand expertise of the community. If you want some insightful opinions about Linux, you'll strike gold at Slashdot. But for any other topic, this is the wrong place to expect engaging conversation -- the intellects of the participants notwithstanding.
Assuming Mr. Lelyveld did write this email...what, exactly, constitutes "despicable conduct"?
Maybe his characterization of Digital Consumer -- which reads, to me, as obvious hyperbole -- is inaccurate. Show me a heated political debate where each side DOESN'T routinely cast their opponents in a bad (and yes, usually "inaccurate") light?
I'm willing to give Mr. Lelyveld the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he genuinely holds the opinion expressed in the letter. After all: His professional title would, in the eyes of his email's intended audience, lend more weight to his note. If he intentionally omitted reference to his profession, it seems he took this opportunity to exercise his voice as a citizen.
However foolish and misguided we all might believe his opinion to be, do most people on Slashdot really believe that those who disagree with us -- Jack Valenti & co. -- have no right to speak their opinions? Or do you think that, by obtaining a law license, Mr. Lelyveld effectively surrendered his right to speak as a citizen?
"Shocker"? "Despicable Conduct"? This seems to me a non-issue. A government organization asked for the public's input, and Mr. Lelyveld chose to exercise his voice as a citizen. But because he disagrees with us, and because his paycheck is signed by Disney, Slashdot sees fit to cry foul and pot his email address on the front page.
But for future reference, if you decide to recycle this witty little quip of yours: The 'hyperbole' you want is actually something more like, "Two drunken, crippled monkeys twisting bananas into each other's buttocks could have spit onto manuscript paper and produced a better script than this garbage."
'Cause, y'know... If a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters could type "Hamlet," I'd think they could manage to trump the Bayville Junior High A/V Team's weekend project.
Another show which boasts rabidly loyal fan support bites the dust. Just yesterday, Comics2Film reported rumors that the Batman-inspired "Birds Of Prey" won't be renewed by the WB network.
These networks need some perspective. They're never going to be NBC, and they're never going to produce "Friends." The absolute best they can hope for is to attract a couple of million die-hard fans, who tune in week after week -- guaranteeing a specific demographic to sell to advertisers.
So, "FarScape" only attracted a bunch of geeks and nerds. That's what's called a "high-saturation demographic." Sure, it's not very appealing to advertisers trying to sell basketball shoes; but for the company selling video games, or computer software, or pocket protectors...advertising on "FarScape" is money well-spent. You're pitching to an audience which might be 90% favorable to your product -- as opposed to betting on the more mixed demographics watching, say, "Trading Spaces" or "Emeril Live."
Old marketing adage: Figure out your strength, and play it. As long as these cable channels keep trying to compete with The Big Three, they're going to keep tripping over themselves.
crib
Re:Again: "Perspective"
on
Skydriving
·
· Score: 2
You want the original poster to "clarify" his use of the term "skydrive"?
Here's a wild thought: Next time you decide to post into a thread, how about you take a moment to read the subject article, first? Or even the TITLE of the frickin' thread?
No? Too crazy? Too much effort?
Forget skydriving and roller coasters. Let's get some decent legislation on the books addressing rampant idiocy.
Again: "Perspective"
on
Skydriving
·
· Score: 5, Funny
But fast ROLLER COASTERS are the great, perilous danger from which we must protect the masses.
Riiiight.
Sometimes the funniest part of being American is comparing the things we can't do with the things that are perfectly legal.
Do I think it's "American" to lecally prohibit someone from hurling themselves down a steel railing at Ludicrous Speed?
No, not particularly.
But at present, do I feel it's the sort of "right" which our efforts can be BEST spent protecting?
No. Let's worry about Joe-Bob's "Constitutional Right To Scary Carnival Rides" in a couple of months. For the moment, let's see whether we can allow a bunch of medical students to drive cross-country without closing down interstate highways and expelling them from school (all in 48 hours) on the word of some half-witted busybody.
In this day and age, in the midst of the impositions being advocated by the MPAA, the RIAA, the FBI, Eunice Stone, and a hundred thousand other people who want you to keep your front door ajar, you're objecting to a law that limits the danger to which foolhardy folk may subject themselves within a tiny state no one really cares about?
The first thing you have to realize is that there isn't any, "OK, here's what happened..." answer. Superman and Batman (in comics) are separate storylines, directed by separate creative teams. Each has its own loose continuity; but as the books change hands over the years, different artists and writers come and go, and many try to stake out their own territory by (1) writing continuity-altering events into the present, or (2) revising the past.
First, a nameless thug gunned down Bruce Wayne's parents. Then, a team came along and named that character ("Joe Chill"), and wrote a confrontation between the Chill and Batman ("Batman: Year Two"). Then another team came along and wrote a story that said, "No, actually, it wasn't Joe Chill after all..." And then, of course, the 1989 movie came along, and said, "Hey, it wasn't a nameless thug who killed the Waynes. It was the Joker." Back and forth. "Suspension of disbelief" is very important.:-)
There have been all sorts of confrontations between Batman and Superman in comics throughout the years. The basic conflict boils down to this: Batman is a dark, obsessed character. He distrusts everyone, and is your basic control freak. Superman, on the other hand, is your basic "good guy": He wants to save everybody from everything, and doesn't want anything in return. Batman doesn't trust Superman 'cause Batman doesn't trust anyone; and Superman doesn't trust Batman 'cause Batman's obsessed, and could fly off the handle at any time -- quite possibly killing someone.
Charitable writers have teamed up the pair in the past, but it's never a "comfy" team-up. At the end of the day, Batman always knows he has a chunk of kryptonite hidden away in his Batcave, just in case Superman (who is an alien, after all) gets out of control. Other writers have played up the conflict, usually using Batman's obsessive side as catalyst. Example: Gotham City was destroyed by an earthquake, and Superman wanted to help the citizens. Batman told his to get out of "my city" (his words). Several writers have referenced a standing agreement on the part of other superheroes: They stay out of Gotham, unless their help is specifically requested by Batman.
As far as the loose continuity goes, there isn't any standing grudge between Batman and Superman. They don't get along very well, but they work together respectfully when they have to. There's no backstory that involves any sort of huge blowout. Every big fight they've had has occurred outside the continuity. (Several readers have referenced Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" storyline. This took place far in Batman's future. The story begins with Batman's return from retirement, and Miller introduces familiar characters who have undergone huge changes during the story's course.)
I doubt they'll make an actual "Batman Battles Superman" movie. More likely, the two will have some rivalry, but eventually team up to destroy...Brainiac, or the Joker, or the Clock King, or whomever the hell the producer decides to cast. Personally, I think it'd be REALLY cool to see Adam West in a major role, maybe as Ra's al Ghul -- one of Batman's lesser-known but major foes....Hope I helped.
You want to talk about a superior system being trampled beneath the feet of a software-laden crowd? Forget Dreamcast, and even Jaguar; try NEC's TurboExpress. This little gem put 16-bit color in your hand back when most folks hadn't peeled the shrinkwrap off their Gameboys. Hell, it even played the same cartridges ("cards," really) as its parent console, the Turbografx 16. But NEC didn't have backing; and at $300, in most folks' estimation, the TurboExpress just wasn't worth it for Bonk's Adventure and R-Type.
...And now, today, Nintendo's JUST getting around to producing their own comparable handheld.
...Further proof that the world is in dire need of more (competent) editors.
The authors open their article with a neat little chart listing "the dates of the introductions of various consoles.... Relative successes are listed in bold." NEC's Turbografx 16 is listed in bold, as a "relative success." Sega's Genesis, on the other hand...? Apparently Genesis wasn't "relatively successful," according to Hodgson, etc. Oh, and FYI, while I'm sure Nintendo appreciates their listing N64 as a "relative success," they might have preferred that the authors at least INCLUDE the Super NES on the list.
Their wonderfully-short second section, "Console History," spans in painstaking detail the gaming industry's progress during the crucial period between the heyday of MIT's Rail Road Club and the formation of software giant Infocomm in 1979. From there, they proceed directly to the next logical video gaming landmark -- with a third section, accurately titled, "Then Came Doom."
The article's most valuable offerings are a 21-item chart comparing a whopping three consoles (Xbox, PS2 and GCN), including such poignant criteria as "DVD Movie Playback" and "Broadband Enabled"; and a whole five sentences comparing these three systems, proving conclusively that somewhere during the authors' extensive research for this article, one of them did in fact quickly scan MSNBC's "Game Time" article -- which, it's worth adding, is a vastly more useful and intelligent article (with regard to the current "Top 3"), and can be found at the following URL:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/techgames_front.asp
crib
Dialing "Guinness"...
on
Magnetic Fluids
·
· Score: 5, Funny
The "nerd's nerd" couldn't handle three measly hits? This has to be a "slashdotting" record.;-)
Not to bitch, but really: must you inform us of stories on sites like Wired? Isn't it fair to assume that most people who visit Slashdot are well aware of -- and probably check with at least the same frequency -- Wired's site?
There's got to be SOMETHING in your "bag-o-plentiful-submissions" that's just as interesting as a story about chess-playing computers, and that most of us HAVEN'T already read.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but perhaps they miss this "point" because it's a crock of shit.
I'm a jazz musician, and journalist. You're right: Pop music is repetitive. (Being "repetitive" is actually kind of the point of pop music, but we'll set that aside for the moment.) Most of it is also garbage. 16-year-old children, even with admittedly good voices, record their own poorly-written crap (Debbie Gibson notwithstanding) and are rewarded with national circulation. And somebody, PLEASE...explain Macy Gray.
But let's be clear: Any decline in CD sales is despite this truth, not because of it. Check the playlists on P2P, next time you're surfing. Eminem, Britney Spears...people aren't turning to P2P because they want to be turned onto new, engaging music. They use it because it's free. On this point, the record industry is 100% right. People use P2P, for the most part, to listen to the exact same crap that's on the radio.
When the public becomes "bored and disinterested" with "bland" and "repetitive" music, then Bob Brookmeyer won't have to turn to Dutch labels to record his music. Rap fans will learn about J-Live, and they'll forget about DMX. Rock fans will hear bands like Don Caballero and Shipping News, and schmucks like that Andrew-somebody-or-other won't be able to find work at McDonald's.
Don't take my word for it. When the record labels -- the folks who really study this data -- saw their sales figures starting to decline, what was the first thing they cut? Jazz. Almost completely. Classical? Most people think, "Mozart," "Bach"...and on the rare occasions when they're in the market for a classical CD, you'd better have those two on-hand; because they're not interested in Ligeti or Lutoslawski. If you really believe that the general public is even remotely "bored" by the same-old, same-old, then you're kidding yourself. It's a dream world I'd like to live in, but it just ain't so.
crib
This incident supports my longstanding theory that hardly anyone possesses any sense of irony, nowadays. (Hey, after watching Norm McDonald's Hasselhoff/Germans thing play out, I decided that I needed a theory, too.)
I'll agree that Garrett should be neither ashamed nor embarrassed by her original email. Yes, it's disappointing to see shoddy language skills from a professional journalist. And yes, it would be nice if a Pulitzer and Peabody Prize winner didn't exhibit such naiveté and ignorance about both the security and the intimacy of the internet. But she's right: The fact that a "Fwd" button simplifies the act of sharing personal correspondence, should not make it less egregious. Someone on Metafilter suggested that, because Garrett didn't specifically write, "Don't pass this along," she couldn't expect the email to remain private. I don't think we've reached that point, in our march toward the erosion of privacy...and I hope we won't.
Having written that: I think Garrett's email to Metafilter is shameful. It's ignorant. She assumes that people discussing her email on Metafilter are unproductive people who neither experience nor contribute to much of life. This ignorant presumption is beneath a professional journalist, and it's certainly beneath a Pulitzer writer. She is obviously angry, and she probably feels violated. This is understandable, and most of us sympathize. But she responds with ad hominem attacks on an entire community, invoking stereotypical references. Cracking on nerds about William Shatner, I guess, is more acceptable than cracking about blacks and fried chicken? Jews and Barbra Streisand?
Garrett was pardoned for this vitriol, by another Metafilter poster, because she was "writing in anger." And that's really the bottom line, here: Has she learned nothing? She's angry because something she wrote off-the-cuff, without the consideration she would give to a professional article, found its way into public consumption. So in response, she types an angry, bitter, off-the-cuff missive, and mails it into a discussion revolving around the incident? Has she NO sense of irony?!?
Garrett remarks that she has learned her lesson: She will no longer email personal messages; because online, "no one can be trusted." Well, as we all say, the only way to truly secure a document is not to write it. But it seems to me that she has missed the larger lesson, here: If your words are unconsidered, don't share them. A personal letter shouldn't require the effort of a professional article, of course. But a personal misunderstanding, stemming from poorly-written thoughts, can be just as damaging as a professional embarrassment.
Privacy is an important concern, and Garrett's was violated. Yes, email simplifies "gossip." Yes, the internet has eroded privacy. But part of that erosion has been incidental: The internet's effect is less upon the privacy of your words, and more upon their permanence. Learn from Garrett's mistake, and remember that permanence every time you type.
crib
Two things to consider:
1.) As other posters have written: Hindsight is needed to appreciate breakthroughs which "change...lives in a profound way." If there have been any such breakthroughs, recently (no, I'm not suggesting that Segway will qualify), they haven't yet had time to be fairly judged.
2.) I think it's also worth considering that recent years, more than the past, have seen our "technological progress" move more toward improving existing tools rather than inventing new ones. The obvious example is the internet -- now that its infrastructure is present, and it has been adopted into a large percentage of homes and businesses, we're seeing real and profound development occur. Amazon, eBay, Bibliofind -- hell, even pr0n -- aren't "inventions," per se, but they certainly represent new developments which I suspect may be seen as quite impactful.
Also, the past ten or fifteen years have seen a progressive slide in our economy from product-oriented business to service-oriented business. Maybe it is true that we're not pumping out wold-changing inventions (the Foreman grill and the Popeil pasta maker aside) at the same rate we were a century ago; but I think that it has to be acknowledged that we are also offering (and consuming) services which didn't exist in the past. It's worth considering whether the rate of decline in our production of "inventions" is perhaps matched by our rate of growth in providing "services."
Finally, although I think the above is more relevant, there's the obligatory shot at the Clinton generation: One of the notions held by that generation, I think, is the idea of "quick profit" -- and specifically, that it's quicker, cheaper and generally more efficient to improve upon an existing product, rather than produce something entirely new. I think that generation, as compared to the economic drivers of the 1940s, have been more interested in taking charge of what's around them than developing anew. So if we're seeing less inventions and more "version 2.4"...well, I'm not surprised.
crib
Trillian:
> If for no other reason, it's interesting
> Slashdot is one of the sites Google News searchs.
Yes. Slashdot bills itself as a news site, and it is looked upon as a news site.
Begging the question, as several have already asked: If this story had been posted 11 hours later (mid-morning), and it had caused -- even temporarily -- repercussions for Sony's stock value...what exactly would Slashdot's liability be?
(Or, to ask another way: How soon thereafter would Sony OWN Slashdot?)
crib
Has anyone else noticed that, the more hyperlinks a submission includes, the more likely the Slashdot editors are to take it seriously?
If I were to submit a story including links to a commercial real estate firm, eBay, and a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge, would you post my story about how I'm auctioning it off using a zero-feedback profile with a "Buy It Now!" of $19.95?
It looks to me like "Magamo" figured out exactly how to slip one through your blind spot, chrisd. Better work on your tells.
crib
"STEEEEEEEEEE-RIKE TWO!!!!"
Nice going, chrisd.
Plan something BIG for number three, would ya? If you're going to get booted as a Slashdot "editor" (even with quotes, I can't believe I just juxtaposed those two words...), your final act should be something really monumental.
Seriously, though: Is this, like, the earliest April Fool's joke in history? I mean, past mistakes aside, I never figured you for a dumb guy. Are you really telling us that you read this submission, and you seriously thought it seemed plausible?!?
Otherwise, you should be thankful you posted this at 1238AM. Imagine if you'd posted it mid-morning, and every Slashdotter had run straight to Ameritrade to sell his/her shares in Sony. Imagine what might have happened, at least temporarily, to Sony's stock. (In this climate, a small blip can be interpreted as a relatively large spike...and before you can say "Open Source," stockholders are assuming that "spike" represents information they don't have, and they're scrambling not to be left behind.)
Now imagine what the correspondence from Sony's attorneys might have looked like, when it arrived in your office the next morning. Does the name "PairGain" ring any bells?
crib
The most amazing part of this story? This thing comes from Berlin. ...'Cause if there's ever been a more American-sounding invention, I've never heard of it.
(Although I suppose the fact that it doesn't come armed with two semi-automatic pistols might have been a clue...)
crib
That sounds terrific. Because if there's one thing I'm tired of, it's all those damn old people marching around, bragging about their loss of hearing, uncontrollable trembling, and incontinence.
Kudos to the scientists who came up with this miracle device. Drive-thru windows insured that I don't have to wait for my hamburger. Fotomat made certain I wouldn't have to wait for my pictures. Now, thanks to this wondrous creation, I don't even have to wait to feel old!!
Seriously: The next time you scientists wake up bored, on a rainy Sunday, looking for something to do...CANCER. Forget Viagra, Rogaine, and "old machines." CURE CANCER.
Christ...
> New Scientist has a good overview of the work.
...Rather than read that study, why not glance at this news-edited abbreviation?"
LOL. An obvious case of a submitter without ZERO sense of irony.
"There's a new study which suggests scientists don't read the studies which they cite.
crib
You've got a good point. And I wish you were right; I really do. Every time I see one of these "stories" posted on the front page, boasting a couple hundred responses, I get my hopes up about the insightful replies I'll see reading at +3.
...Yes, partly, the problem is the clichéd complaint: too many lamers posting and moderating. But really, the problem has much more to do with the "First Post!" mentality that has become the nature of the site.
Read through this thread for yourself. This is what usually happens. 80% disappointing.
The problem with a thread like this is the very nature of Slashdot.
How often have you seen a discussion on Slashdot continue to acquire a significant number of responses, say, three hours after it's been posted? And how often have you seen any real moderation done to a thread, say, 90 minutes after it's been posted?
Slashdot happens too damn quickly. Too many participants really do sit in front of their computers all day clicking "Refresh." In this thread, the submitter appealed to the community to offer reasoned arguments, and objective facts. Certainly, many Slashdot readers are capable of doing this. But for most, it would involve a bit of thought and research. And so they don't bother -- because they know that, by the time they come back in 20 minutes with some hard numbers, their post will be buried under a couple of hundred garbage postings, and it's unlikely that any moderator will take the trouble to boost their signal above the noise. (And most of that "garbage/noise," of course, has already been modded up to 4's and 5's by lamebrained moderators, anyway.)
It's unfortunate. There are a lot of smart people on Slashdot. But the volume of participants, coupled with the obsession with immediacy, effectively prevents Slashdot from ever hosting a real in-depth conversation about any topic which doesn't appeal to the firsthand expertise of the community. If you want some insightful opinions about Linux, you'll strike gold at Slashdot. But for any other topic, this is the wrong place to expect engaging conversation -- the intellects of the participants notwithstanding.
crib
Assuming Mr. Lelyveld did write this email...what, exactly, constitutes "despicable conduct"?
Maybe his characterization of Digital Consumer -- which reads, to me, as obvious hyperbole -- is inaccurate. Show me a heated political debate where each side DOESN'T routinely cast their opponents in a bad (and yes, usually "inaccurate") light?
I'm willing to give Mr. Lelyveld the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he genuinely holds the opinion expressed in the letter. After all: His professional title would, in the eyes of his email's intended audience, lend more weight to his note. If he intentionally omitted reference to his profession, it seems he took this opportunity to exercise his voice as a citizen.
However foolish and misguided we all might believe his opinion to be, do most people on Slashdot really believe that those who disagree with us -- Jack Valenti & co. -- have no right to speak their opinions? Or do you think that, by obtaining a law license, Mr. Lelyveld effectively surrendered his right to speak as a citizen?
"Shocker"? "Despicable Conduct"? This seems to me a non-issue. A government organization asked for the public's input, and Mr. Lelyveld chose to exercise his voice as a citizen. But because he disagrees with us, and because his paycheck is signed by Disney, Slashdot sees fit to cry foul and pot his email address on the front page.
We should be better than this.
Not to nitpick your obviously-acerbic wit...
But for future reference, if you decide to recycle this witty little quip of yours: The 'hyperbole' you want is actually something more like, "Two drunken, crippled monkeys twisting bananas into each other's buttocks could have spit onto manuscript paper and produced a better script than this garbage."
'Cause, y'know... If a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters could type "Hamlet," I'd think they could manage to trump the Bayville Junior High A/V Team's weekend project.
crib
Another show which boasts rabidly loyal fan support bites the dust. Just yesterday, Comics2Film reported rumors that the Batman-inspired "Birds Of Prey" won't be renewed by the WB network.
These networks need some perspective. They're never going to be NBC, and they're never going to produce "Friends." The absolute best they can hope for is to attract a couple of million die-hard fans, who tune in week after week -- guaranteeing a specific demographic to sell to advertisers.
So, "FarScape" only attracted a bunch of geeks and nerds. That's what's called a "high-saturation demographic." Sure, it's not very appealing to advertisers trying to sell basketball shoes; but for the company selling video games, or computer software, or pocket protectors...advertising on "FarScape" is money well-spent. You're pitching to an audience which might be 90% favorable to your product -- as opposed to betting on the more mixed demographics watching, say, "Trading Spaces" or "Emeril Live."
Old marketing adage: Figure out your strength, and play it. As long as these cable channels keep trying to compete with The Big Three, they're going to keep tripping over themselves.
crib
You want the original poster to "clarify" his use of the term "skydrive"?
Here's a wild thought: Next time you decide to post into a thread, how about you take a moment to read the subject article, first? Or even the TITLE of the frickin' thread?
No? Too crazy? Too much effort?
Forget skydriving and roller coasters. Let's get some decent legislation on the books addressing rampant idiocy.
But fast ROLLER COASTERS are the great, perilous danger from which we must protect the masses.
Riiiight.
Sometimes the funniest part of being American is comparing the things we can't do with the things that are perfectly legal.
crib
Do I think it's "American" to lecally prohibit someone from hurling themselves down a steel railing at Ludicrous Speed?
No, not particularly.
But at present, do I feel it's the sort of "right" which our efforts can be BEST spent protecting?
No. Let's worry about Joe-Bob's "Constitutional Right To Scary Carnival Rides" in a couple of months. For the moment, let's see whether we can allow a bunch of medical students to drive cross-country without closing down interstate highways and expelling them from school (all in 48 hours) on the word of some half-witted busybody.
crib
"Sadly"?
In this day and age, in the midst of the impositions being advocated by the MPAA, the RIAA, the FBI, Eunice Stone, and a hundred thousand other people who want you to keep your front door ajar, you're objecting to a law that limits the danger to which foolhardy folk may subject themselves within a tiny state no one really cares about?
Geez. Learn to pick your battles.
The first thing you have to realize is that there isn't any, "OK, here's what happened..." answer. Superman and Batman (in comics) are separate storylines, directed by separate creative teams. Each has its own loose continuity; but as the books change hands over the years, different artists and writers come and go, and many try to stake out their own territory by (1) writing continuity-altering events into the present, or (2) revising the past.
:-)
...Hope I helped.
First, a nameless thug gunned down Bruce Wayne's parents. Then, a team came along and named that character ("Joe Chill"), and wrote a confrontation between the Chill and Batman ("Batman: Year Two"). Then another team came along and wrote a story that said, "No, actually, it wasn't Joe Chill after all..." And then, of course, the 1989 movie came along, and said, "Hey, it wasn't a nameless thug who killed the Waynes. It was the Joker." Back and forth. "Suspension of disbelief" is very important.
There have been all sorts of confrontations between Batman and Superman in comics throughout the years. The basic conflict boils down to this: Batman is a dark, obsessed character. He distrusts everyone, and is your basic control freak. Superman, on the other hand, is your basic "good guy": He wants to save everybody from everything, and doesn't want anything in return. Batman doesn't trust Superman 'cause Batman doesn't trust anyone; and Superman doesn't trust Batman 'cause Batman's obsessed, and could fly off the handle at any time -- quite possibly killing someone.
Charitable writers have teamed up the pair in the past, but it's never a "comfy" team-up. At the end of the day, Batman always knows he has a chunk of kryptonite hidden away in his Batcave, just in case Superman (who is an alien, after all) gets out of control. Other writers have played up the conflict, usually using Batman's obsessive side as catalyst. Example: Gotham City was destroyed by an earthquake, and Superman wanted to help the citizens. Batman told his to get out of "my city" (his words). Several writers have referenced a standing agreement on the part of other superheroes: They stay out of Gotham, unless their help is specifically requested by Batman.
As far as the loose continuity goes, there isn't any standing grudge between Batman and Superman. They don't get along very well, but they work together respectfully when they have to. There's no backstory that involves any sort of huge blowout. Every big fight they've had has occurred outside the continuity. (Several readers have referenced Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" storyline. This took place far in Batman's future. The story begins with Batman's return from retirement, and Miller introduces familiar characters who have undergone huge changes during the story's course.)
I doubt they'll make an actual "Batman Battles Superman" movie. More likely, the two will have some rivalry, but eventually team up to destroy...Brainiac, or the Joker, or the Clock King, or whomever the hell the producer decides to cast. Personally, I think it'd be REALLY cool to see Adam West in a major role, maybe as Ra's al Ghul -- one of Batman's lesser-known but major foes.
crib
A direct link to the Complaint:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/spiderman/spide rman040902cmp.pdf
Or, find it on FindLaw's Document Archive. The Spider-Man Lawsuit is currently the fourth heading down the page.
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/
crib
You want to talk about a superior system being trampled beneath the feet of a software-laden crowd? Forget Dreamcast, and even Jaguar; try NEC's TurboExpress. This little gem put 16-bit color in your hand back when most folks hadn't peeled the shrinkwrap off their Gameboys. Hell, it even played the same cartridges ("cards," really) as its parent console, the Turbografx 16. But NEC didn't have backing; and at $300, in most folks' estimation, the TurboExpress just wasn't worth it for Bonk's Adventure and R-Type.
...And now, today, Nintendo's JUST getting around to producing their own comparable handheld.
crib
...Further proof that the world is in dire need of more (competent) editors.
... Relative successes are listed in bold." NEC's Turbografx 16 is listed in bold, as a "relative success." Sega's Genesis, on the other hand...? Apparently Genesis wasn't "relatively successful," according to Hodgson, etc. Oh, and FYI, while I'm sure Nintendo appreciates their listing N64 as a "relative success," they might have preferred that the authors at least INCLUDE the Super NES on the list.
The authors open their article with a neat little chart listing "the dates of the introductions of various consoles.
Their wonderfully-short second section, "Console History," spans in painstaking detail the gaming industry's progress during the crucial period between the heyday of MIT's Rail Road Club and the formation of software giant Infocomm in 1979. From there, they proceed directly to the next logical video gaming landmark -- with a third section, accurately titled, "Then Came Doom."
The article's most valuable offerings are a 21-item chart comparing a whopping three consoles (Xbox, PS2 and GCN), including such poignant criteria as "DVD Movie Playback" and "Broadband Enabled"; and a whole five sentences comparing these three systems, proving conclusively that somewhere during the authors' extensive research for this article, one of them did in fact quickly scan MSNBC's "Game Time" article -- which, it's worth adding, is a vastly more useful and intelligent article (with regard to the current "Top 3"), and can be found at the following URL:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/techgames_front.asp
crib
The "nerd's nerd" couldn't handle three measly hits? This has to be a "slashdotting" record. ;-)
crib
Hmm. "Discussion site."
Point taken. You're (both) right.
crib
Not to bitch, but really: must you inform us of stories on sites like Wired? Isn't it fair to assume that most people who visit Slashdot are well aware of -- and probably check with at least the same frequency -- Wired's site?
There's got to be SOMETHING in your "bag-o-plentiful-submissions" that's just as interesting as a story about chess-playing computers, and that most of us HAVEN'T already read.
crib
There's a more important question we're overlooking here, concerning the tax-exempt status that we give to religions.
If Xenu shows up, will he have to pay taxes?
crib