maybe because by the time it comes out in 2007, it won't be Backyard Baseball 2007 GameCube anymore. or maybe it will be, but it will be simultaneously released with Backyard Baseball 2007 Wii. just a hunch.
Also, he didn't call it The Origins of the Species; he called it The Origin of Species. Written that way, I think it is much easier to parse what Darwin meant.
you're right. he's an ESTABLISHED nerdcore rapper. and if you don't think that "white and nerdy" or "all about the pentiums" do not qualify as nerdcore, then wtf does?
Why, exactly, would the slashdot editors post an article that links to a PAY website, where you can't actually, you know, RTFA without forking over cash. I mean, they post some shitty non-articles around here, but at least we can READ them.
the most obvious answer, i think, is because that's where the article is.
but, to answer the real question - why link to a paid article, period, instead of just not running the story at all? the reason, i think, is that CR is a website that i think many typical/.ers would support because of the service that they provide. remember, CR (by which both the website and the magazine) have NO advertising, whatsoever, which allows them to be truly impartial in their judgment of products. they never have to worry about pissing off sponsors, so they never pull any punches.
if i'm not mistaken, it was also one scenario where they were written and produced by someone other than nintendo. some sort of wierd licensing deal with phillips iirc.
Also, it wasn't false advertising. The downloading WAS free - you didn't pay for Kazaa or a monthly subscription to use it.
that's true; however, that's not the complaint. she's suing over deceptive advertising practices, not false advertising. specifically, her claim is, "Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads'" not that they said there were free downloads, but there really weren't.
Could the problem be avoided by opening the any.doc files with OO.org? i'm assuming that the exploit will only work if the file is actually opened with word, so it would stand to reason that opening it with some other application would be safe. can anyone tell me why i'm wrong?
I disagree. Leonardo Da Vinci, for example, spent a lot of time on things which are not art -- engineering, for instance. In fact, he's the archetypal "Renaissance Man" specifically because he did so many varied things!
yes, this is true. also true is the fact that, compared to his contemporaries, he produced very little art, and, though he drew designs for a great many things, actually built few of his inventions. he also was fairly poor.
Why not? Einstein was a patent clerk when he came up with the theory of relativity. (Aside: what were you thinking when you wrote "clerk?" Surely you saw this counterexample coming...)
einstein is, perhaps, the one example one can come up with in any situation involving creativity, thought, intellect, etc. he was working not only in a patent office, but in complete isolation from academia when he came up with his theories, which is by far the exception, and not the rule.
Are you kidding? The thousands (or more?) unsigned garage bands manage it all the time! Why wouldn't Pink Floyd be able to also?
wow! where do you live that thousands of garage bands are recording works as good as "dark side of the moon" on a regular basis because i seriously want to move there. it takes time to write really, really good music. and time to get a really, really good recording of it. it also takes money.
No, but so what? Maybe the sound quality wouldn't be quite as good, but it's entirely possible to record music with one Mac and maybe a microphone. Heck, it even comes with the software (i.e., GarageBand) preinstalled!...and that's good enough.
i would argue that garageband only exists because apple saw the marketability of a low-low end logic pro. no logic pro, no garageband.
Okay, now that's just silly. Humans have been entertaining each other for thousands of years without getting paid for it. If every copyrighted piece of art instantly disappeared right now, people would still be more than capable of entertaining themselves! So no, entertainment does not "deserve" compensation!
Thousands of years? Really? So Homer was just reciting the illiad and odyssey for fun? and all this time, i thought he was getting compensated in some way in all of those towns he would travel to and perform his epics. oh wait, he was. and people have been, for thousands of years. Yes, in the very beginnings of human pre-history, cave men chanted and made cave paitings, etc, for "free." pretty much everything done was for free until we actually get to civilization. which brings me to my next point...
you do not address the point that art is something peculiar to humanity. i certainly hope that means that you agree with me on that point. moreover art is the main component of human culture. surely, we should foster the continued development of art and human culture. and yes, i do realize that the majority of the crap foisted on us by the **AAs are in fact steps backward with regard to human culture. but the original post i replied to was about artists in general, and whether their services had any value. i really don't understand people who feel that they don't. also note, in all of the examples of my original post, nothing was dependent on cd or dvd purchases or anything of the sort. pink floyd and nin made/make their money on merchandising and touring. shakespeare made his money through patronage and performance. michelangelo made his money through patronage. i would be fine with a society where patronage and performance paid for the artists. in fact, outside of movies and certain popular music acts, that is the society that we have.
Then, of course, there's also the final possibility: they don't. After all, what makes you so sure content has to be "worth something?" Who says that having people "make a living" doing this stuff is necessary? Isn't it possible that making people keep their day job and do this stuff in their free time if they want to is good enough?
a few points. content has to be worth something because people are willing to pay for it. i think that your bulleted list of possible ways to fund things is a good start, and it's the way that most of the big stars in the arts (music, drama, visual arts, et al) get paid anyway. movie stars and big-name directors are pretty much the only ones who are not getting paid principally in one of those above ways.
with regards to your last question, no, I don't think that it's good enough. the great works of art created throughout human history were able to be created because the artists were able to work exclusively or almost exclusively on their art. without a system of patronage, there would have been no renaissance. if shakespeare were working as a government clerk, do you think he would have also had time to write the greatest plays in the history of the world (and he only was able to do that, mind you, because his acting company were the only one's performing them and had the patronage of the royalty)? do you think pink floyd would have found time to record dark side of the moon if they all had to have day jobs to pay for living? do you think someone like trent reznor could eventually, working as computer tech somewhere, would be able to afford all of the power macs, mixing boards and consoles, and software in his recording studio, if people didn't pay to see him perform live? hell, would a program like logic pro 7 even exist if we didn't have musicians making money and able to buy said programs?
even if you don't view artistic and creative genius as something special, unique, and magical to what we call humanity, at the very least, you should admit that the arts provide entertainment, which is a service which deserves compensation.
Um, I don't think being a Biology Ph.D. candidate makes one an expert at astronomy. If you try to pull that stunt in court as an expert witness, the judge won't like it.
They're not saying that, and that's not the "stunt" they "[tried] to pull". They're saying that the biology Ph.D candidate is an expert in biology, and he, as an expert in biology, rated biology articles rather high as far as accuracy goes. He then rated astronomy articles (a field in which he isn't an expert) lower. Now, move on to the guy who is a Ph.D candidate in astronomy, and you end up with opposite results (biology articles rated lower than astronomy articles). They weren't testing grad students against non-grad students, they were testing grad-students of different disciplines against each other.
i know arthritis can be quite painful. is it such that you would be unable to grasp the Wiimote? if you can, well, you might have several more years of gaming in Nintendo's brave new world.
What you said is somewhat true. the heavy threading made it feel very fast and responsive. it also would handle media (audio, MIDI, video) very quickly. Certain benchmarks, i'm sure, would show it to be slower. but not all types of opearations, as a rule, would be slower, just because of the microkernel or the multithreading.
Uhh, if i pay to download something--a movie, to use your example--i expect that i have the right to watch it on whatever device that i own and that i shouldn't have to ask for permission to move it from my desktop to my notebook. i don't want to pay for licenses. i want to pay for the movie, and then use that movie in a anyway that i please that is legal without having to ask for permission, and if that means you have to trust me that i won't do anything illegal with that movie, well boo-fucking-hoo. i haven't committed any crimes, so i don't want to be treated like a criminal.
The young people that O'Reilly says are divorced from reality turned out in record numbers to vote a couple of Tuesdays back, and, horror of horrors, in a stinging rebuff to the current president and his administration, they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, returning them to power in the congress and in a majority of state legislatures and governorships. You could only possibly do something like this if you're divorced from reality, in Bill's mind, anyway. Because, reality is, terrorists are around every single corner, and only George W. and the GOP can protect you from them.
And of course, in Bill's head, the technology is to blame, because all of these crazy kids with their iPods and Nintendo DSs and the like got their political info from websites, horrible, liberal, progressive, blogspherical, divorced-from-reality websites.
I guess O'Reilly hasn't heard about reality's well known liberal bias.
At frist glance it might seem like a lock in, but look at it carefully. You can listen to an ITMS song on your computer, up to 4 other computers, burn it to a CD, or listen to it on your iPod. The biggest thing to remember is that once you've burned it to a CD, it's pretty much open season what you can do with it then.
US police DO NOT have the right to search your car for a routine traffic stop. It is a violation of the 4th amendment, and every time a cop asks to search your vehicle without reason, and you let him, you are just throwing your constitutional rights away. If a cop pulls you over because you were speeding or your inspection is expired or because you didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, et al, he does not have the right to search your vehicle. I repeat:
POLICE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEARCH YOUR CAR DURING A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP IN THE US!!!
Now then, if something else is amiss, like say, when the cop turned on his lights, you started throwing bags of white powder out the windows onto the highway median, then he does have the right to search your vehicle.
is this about trying to get a licensing agreement, or are they maybe thinking they could destroy a website that has proved to be an excellent avenue for unsigned and indie musicians to get exposure?
Joe and Jane Sixpack have been getting DRM since the opening of the iTunes store and they love it.
For starters, I don't know that I accept that statement at face value. But even more salient to the discussion at hand, FairPlay is not obtrusive or cumbersome to the typical user; however, much of the DRM associated with nascent digital media formats and Vista is obtrusive and cumbersome for almost all users. That's a big difference - perhaps enough of a one to actually make a difference in how Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack react.
As a side note, I don't know who the Sixpacks are, but I'm amazed at the amount of technology that they possess and use in there everyday lives, yet still have such a poor grasp and understanding of the issues.
I and a friend discussed this shortly after Ep. III came out. I suggested the following order: IV, V, I, II, III, VI. There's nothing that says you have to watch the trilogies together; in this order, the prequels form a sort of extended flashback that explains the Vader-Anakin connection. Watching them in this order, if you've never happened to see them, doesn't ruin the twist in V. The twist about the Luke and Leia is lost in IV, but only because it becomes a twist in III. In fact, several things in the prequel trilogy that would otherwise be expected become twists. The only thing that's really lost in this order is that we already know what the Emperor is capable of when we get to the final confrontation between Luke and Vader.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe because by the time it comes out in 2007, it won't be Backyard Baseball 2007 GameCube anymore. or maybe it will be, but it will be simultaneously released with Backyard Baseball 2007 Wii. just a hunch.
Also, he didn't call it The Origins of the Species; he called it The Origin of Species. Written that way, I think it is much easier to parse what Darwin meant.
But the question is, has Weird Al gotten laid yet?
uhh, he's married and has a kid. i'll let you come to your own conclusions.
oops. double negative. sorry. my bad.
and i even previewed first...god i suck.
Weird Al is NOT an aspiring "nerdcode" rapper
you're right. he's an ESTABLISHED nerdcore rapper. and if you don't think that "white and nerdy" or "all about the pentiums" do not qualify as nerdcore, then wtf does?
Sally only won home coming queen because she's a cheerleader and promiscuous!
I'd like to meet this Sally.
Why, exactly, would the slashdot editors post an article that links to a PAY website, where you can't actually, you know, RTFA without forking over cash. I mean, they post some shitty non-articles around here, but at least we can READ them.
/.ers would support because of the service that they provide. remember, CR (by which both the website and the magazine) have NO advertising, whatsoever, which allows them to be truly impartial in their judgment of products. they never have to worry about pissing off sponsors, so they never pull any punches.
the most obvious answer, i think, is because that's where the article is.
but, to answer the real question - why link to a paid article, period, instead of just not running the story at all? the reason, i think, is that CR is a website that i think many typical
if i'm not mistaken, it was also one scenario where they were written and produced by someone other than nintendo. some sort of wierd licensing deal with phillips iirc.
Also, it wasn't false advertising. The downloading WAS free - you didn't pay for Kazaa or a monthly subscription to use it.
that's true; however, that's not the complaint. she's suing over deceptive advertising practices, not false advertising. specifically, her claim is, "Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads'" not that they said there were free downloads, but there really weren't.
Could the problem be avoided by opening the any .doc files with OO.org? i'm assuming that the exploit will only work if the file is actually opened with word, so it would stand to reason that opening it with some other application would be safe. can anyone tell me why i'm wrong?
I disagree. Leonardo Da Vinci, for example, spent a lot of time on things which are not art -- engineering, for instance. In fact, he's the archetypal "Renaissance Man" specifically because he did so many varied things!
yes, this is true. also true is the fact that, compared to his contemporaries, he produced very little art, and, though he drew designs for a great many things, actually built few of his inventions. he also was fairly poor.
Why not? Einstein was a patent clerk when he came up with the theory of relativity. (Aside: what were you thinking when you wrote "clerk?" Surely you saw this counterexample coming...)
einstein is, perhaps, the one example one can come up with in any situation involving creativity, thought, intellect, etc. he was working not only in a patent office, but in complete isolation from academia when he came up with his theories, which is by far the exception, and not the rule.
Are you kidding? The thousands (or more?) unsigned garage bands manage it all the time! Why wouldn't Pink Floyd be able to also?
wow! where do you live that thousands of garage bands are recording works as good as "dark side of the moon" on a regular basis because i seriously want to move there. it takes time to write really, really good music. and time to get a really, really good recording of it. it also takes money.
No, but so what? Maybe the sound quality wouldn't be quite as good, but it's entirely possible to record music with one Mac and maybe a microphone. Heck, it even comes with the software (i.e., GarageBand) preinstalled!...and that's good enough.
i would argue that garageband only exists because apple saw the marketability of a low-low end logic pro. no logic pro, no garageband.
Okay, now that's just silly. Humans have been entertaining each other for thousands of years without getting paid for it. If every copyrighted piece of art instantly disappeared right now, people would still be more than capable of entertaining themselves! So no, entertainment does not "deserve" compensation!
Thousands of years? Really? So Homer was just reciting the illiad and odyssey for fun? and all this time, i thought he was getting compensated in some way in all of those towns he would travel to and perform his epics. oh wait, he was. and people have been, for thousands of years. Yes, in the very beginnings of human pre-history, cave men chanted and made cave paitings, etc, for "free." pretty much everything done was for free until we actually get to civilization. which brings me to my next point...
you do not address the point that art is something peculiar to humanity. i certainly hope that means that you agree with me on that point. moreover art is the main component of human culture. surely, we should foster the continued development of art and human culture. and yes, i do realize that the majority of the crap foisted on us by the **AAs are in fact steps backward with regard to human culture. but the original post i replied to was about artists in general, and whether their services had any value. i really don't understand people who feel that they don't. also note, in all of the examples of my original post, nothing was dependent on cd or dvd purchases or anything of the sort. pink floyd and nin made/make their money on merchandising and touring. shakespeare made his money through patronage and performance. michelangelo made his money through patronage. i would be fine with a society where patronage and performance paid for the artists. in fact, outside of movies and certain popular music acts, that is the society that we have.
Then, of course, there's also the final possibility: they don't. After all, what makes you so sure content has to be "worth something?" Who says that having people "make a living" doing this stuff is necessary? Isn't it possible that making people keep their day job and do this stuff in their free time if they want to is good enough?
a few points. content has to be worth something because people are willing to pay for it. i think that your bulleted list of possible ways to fund things is a good start, and it's the way that most of the big stars in the arts (music, drama, visual arts, et al) get paid anyway. movie stars and big-name directors are pretty much the only ones who are not getting paid principally in one of those above ways.
with regards to your last question, no, I don't think that it's good enough. the great works of art created throughout human history were able to be created because the artists were able to work exclusively or almost exclusively on their art. without a system of patronage, there would have been no renaissance. if shakespeare were working as a government clerk, do you think he would have also had time to write the greatest plays in the history of the world (and he only was able to do that, mind you, because his acting company were the only one's performing them and had the patronage of the royalty)? do you think pink floyd would have found time to record dark side of the moon if they all had to have day jobs to pay for living? do you think someone like trent reznor could eventually, working as computer tech somewhere, would be able to afford all of the power macs, mixing boards and consoles, and software in his recording studio, if people didn't pay to see him perform live? hell, would a program like logic pro 7 even exist if we didn't have musicians making money and able to buy said programs?
even if you don't view artistic and creative genius as something special, unique, and magical to what we call humanity, at the very least, you should admit that the arts provide entertainment, which is a service which deserves compensation.
Um, I don't think being a Biology Ph.D. candidate makes one an expert at astronomy. If you try to pull that stunt in court as an expert witness, the judge won't like it.
They're not saying that, and that's not the "stunt" they "[tried] to pull". They're saying that the biology Ph.D candidate is an expert in biology, and he, as an expert in biology, rated biology articles rather high as far as accuracy goes. He then rated astronomy articles (a field in which he isn't an expert) lower. Now, move on to the guy who is a Ph.D candidate in astronomy, and you end up with opposite results (biology articles rated lower than astronomy articles). They weren't testing grad students against non-grad students, they were testing grad-students of different disciplines against each other.
i know arthritis can be quite painful. is it such that you would be unable to grasp the Wiimote? if you can, well, you might have several more years of gaming in Nintendo's brave new world.
What you said is somewhat true. the heavy threading made it feel very fast and responsive. it also would handle media (audio, MIDI, video) very quickly. Certain benchmarks, i'm sure, would show it to be slower. but not all types of opearations, as a rule, would be slower, just because of the microkernel or the multithreading.
uhh, BeOS uses a microkernel, and is quite fast. much faster than Linux or NetBSD for many operations.
Uhh, if i pay to download something--a movie, to use your example--i expect that i have the right to watch it on whatever device that i own and that i shouldn't have to ask for permission to move it from my desktop to my notebook. i don't want to pay for licenses. i want to pay for the movie, and then use that movie in a anyway that i please that is legal without having to ask for permission, and if that means you have to trust me that i won't do anything illegal with that movie, well boo-fucking-hoo. i haven't committed any crimes, so i don't want to be treated like a criminal.
The young people that O'Reilly says are divorced from reality turned out in record numbers to vote a couple of Tuesdays back, and, horror of horrors, in a stinging rebuff to the current president and his administration, they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, returning them to power in the congress and in a majority of state legislatures and governorships. You could only possibly do something like this if you're divorced from reality, in Bill's mind, anyway. Because, reality is, terrorists are around every single corner, and only George W. and the GOP can protect you from them.
And of course, in Bill's head, the technology is to blame, because all of these crazy kids with their iPods and Nintendo DSs and the like got their political info from websites, horrible, liberal, progressive, blogspherical, divorced-from-reality websites.
I guess O'Reilly hasn't heard about reality's well known liberal bias.
ahh, but the mythbusters have already proven that buttered toast does not, in fact, always land buttered side down.
uhh, they're making kick ass smart phones, because no one owns just a PDA anymore.
At frist glance it might seem like a lock in, but look at it carefully. You can listen to an ITMS song on your computer, up to 4 other computers, burn it to a CD, or listen to it on your iPod. The biggest thing to remember is that once you've burned it to a CD, it's pretty much open season what you can do with it then.
US police DO NOT have the right to search your car for a routine traffic stop. It is a violation of the 4th amendment, and every time a cop asks to search your vehicle without reason, and you let him, you are just throwing your constitutional rights away. If a cop pulls you over because you were speeding or your inspection is expired or because you didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, et al, he does not have the right to search your vehicle. I repeat:
POLICE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEARCH YOUR CAR DURING A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP IN THE US!!!
Now then, if something else is amiss, like say, when the cop turned on his lights, you started throwing bags of white powder out the windows onto the highway median, then he does have the right to search your vehicle.
is this about trying to get a licensing agreement, or are they maybe thinking they could destroy a website that has proved to be an excellent avenue for unsigned and indie musicians to get exposure?
Joe and Jane Sixpack have been getting DRM since the opening of the iTunes store and they love it.
For starters, I don't know that I accept that statement at face value. But even more salient to the discussion at hand, FairPlay is not obtrusive or cumbersome to the typical user; however, much of the DRM associated with nascent digital media formats and Vista is obtrusive and cumbersome for almost all users. That's a big difference - perhaps enough of a one to actually make a difference in how Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack react.
As a side note, I don't know who the Sixpacks are, but I'm amazed at the amount of technology that they possess and use in there everyday lives, yet still have such a poor grasp and understanding of the issues.
I and a friend discussed this shortly after Ep. III came out. I suggested the following order: IV, V, I, II, III, VI. There's nothing that says you have to watch the trilogies together; in this order, the prequels form a sort of extended flashback that explains the Vader-Anakin connection. Watching them in this order, if you've never happened to see them, doesn't ruin the twist in V. The twist about the Luke and Leia is lost in IV, but only because it becomes a twist in III. In fact, several things in the prequel trilogy that would otherwise be expected become twists. The only thing that's really lost in this order is that we already know what the Emperor is capable of when we get to the final confrontation between Luke and Vader.