"Yeah, having Alanis Morissette as God was actually respectful..."
Actually, I thought it was. I could think of few concepts of a deity more appealing than the charming personality exibited by Morissette's God. This was not making fun of God, it was saying warmly, 'Wouldn't it be nice if God were like this?' Quite a difference from the usual stern, harsh, bearded authority figure.
But hey, if even daring to come up with an alternative image for God is insulting to you personally, then I can understand why you would find Dogma disrespectful. I didn't see it that way. I saw it as Smith's funny riff on all the beliefs he not only grew up with, but believes to this day.
"This movie backs off from the controversial religion-bashing of Dogma..."
Wrong. That is the accusation that was lobbed against Kevin Smith, but I'm disappointed to see this mainstream misinformation repeated here. (Yes, I know, there's plenty of misinformation on/., but it's usually off-center geek misinformation, not repeated mainstream misinformation).
Dogma was a funny movie that parodied religious dogma, not religious beliefs. Kevin Smith was and is a Catholic, and the movie was actually respectful of Catholic beliefs -- just not rigid dogma. Typically, this flew right over the Catholic church's head and they protested, looking ignorant in the process. I'm surprised to see Katz repeating this untrue accusation here.
"Asuming the answer is "no it's not a crime" the next questions I wonder are - can it be (given the First Amendment), and should it be (seeing that it's essentially political fraud)?"
Well, no, it could never be found to be a crime since this was done on behalf of a corporation. Only when something is done that a corporation finds threatening to its profits does something get labeled a crime and the First Amendment gets thrown out the window...
You've completely missed the point. What he's saying is that there shouldn't be any government intervention in the first place. Anti-trust laws are unamerican
No government intervention? So what happens when a law is violated? We put ourselves in jail and fine ourselves?
Since when are anti-trust laws 'unamerican'? They have been around for over 100 years and serve to encourage competition. Last I checked, only with competition do you get better service, innovation, and price (see Microsoft for an example of what happens in a monopoly).
The real solution to the problem is a completely open and free market. Let the consumers and the market dictate the answer. Whatever you do, though, keep the government out of it.
So how should illegal actions taken by the telcos be handled? By consumers marching up and down in front of the house of the president of the telco? The DSL market is shrinking because the telcos are breaking the law in order to avoid doing what the law says they must do for competition. They don't care. They can pay their piddling fines, years later, as a simple cost of doing business. Meanwhile, after running their competition into the ground, they get monopoly prices, and there isn't anything the consumers can do about it.
And don't say this is the marketplace in action -- it isn't. The consumer made their choices and went with alternative sources of DSL instead of the telcos. Instead of competing fairly in response, the telcos broke the law and forced us back into their arms. So if you don't want the government to take any actions (including enforcing existing laws??), how would you solve this problem?
You say the real solution to the problem is a completely open and free market. We don't actually have that at this time.
> And since the DSL marketplace is precisely the
> sort of marketplace that is manipulated by
> politicians and hurge multinational monopolistic
> corporations, what say you now?
Don't confuse the police and army-backed politicians deciding how things will be, and the heavy-competition of the "huge multinationals".
And don't confuse my comment as indicating a desire to see the police and army-backed politicians getting heavily involved. All I suggested is that if the existing laws, which the telcos are violating, are enforced with more bite, it might help. No new laws, just the existing laws.
Now the telco, violating the law, gets hit with a massive fine. The government collects it and (probably squanders it on pork but let's be optimistic) helps pay for things for the public good (hey, it happens -- even politicians screw up once in a while and do something good). It's a win-win. The telcos are less likely to rape their competition the next time, and the public gets more money from the mountains of gold the telcos are sitting on.
Of course, this will never work, since the telcos have used some of their mountains of gold to buy off politicians to ensure the penalties for breaking the law are child's play.
"I am personally for the market deciding as long as that market is not manipulated by politicians or huge multinational monopolistic corporations."
And since the DSL marketplace is precisely the sort of marketplace that is manipulated by politicians and hurge multinational monopolistic corporations, what say you now?
The free market is great for the telcos -- they get to violate the law and screw the consumer, paying piddling fines along the way, until all their competition is crushed and we are forced back into their arms. Yup, just the way I like my free market to operate!
My solution? Not sure. How about fines with bite for a start so that when telcos break the law in their thuggish manner they get discouraged from doing it a second time by the fine?
This is good. The first time a new Star Wars film was discussed on/., it was hyped to the moon. Every detail was discussed breathlessly, evey rumor was treated with exaggerated importance, people were lining up a month in advance and writing their experiences.....and then the movie came out and was lame.
This time, every thing to do with the second movie is denigrated. Rumors are treated with rolling of eyes. News is ridiculed. This movie is going to suck, we say...and then the movie will come out and...
"If I were to buy a Mac right now, I would end up spending around $3000. "
Good Lord why?! We're talking newbies here, and a $999 iMac will be great for them. $3000 will get you a PowerBook, let alone any iBook or iMac you can think of with money left over. ________________
Re:Here's the appeal of the Net in a nutshell
on
IANAL
·
· Score: 3
Yes, you make valid points. The Net introduces all new prejudices into the mix. That's humanity for you! Every chance they get to dislike someone, they'll take it.
Maybe I should have said that to the extent that a person can mask those identifying traits that will tend to prejudice their readers, either real-world traits or online traits, to that extent the person can largely escape the usual bias. The 15-year-old in this story, for instance, would have gotten nowhere if people knew who they were talking to up front. Because he was able to present himself solely by his knowledge, he was able to escape the normal bias he would have faced when giving legal advice. If, instead, his handle was '15yearoldguy@aol.com', it would have been a different story, as you point out. ________________
Here's the appeal of the Net in a nutshell
on
IANAL
·
· Score: 3
On the Web, he had come across to many as a font of legal expertise. In the flesh, he gave a more eclectic performance -- which was no doubt one reason he found the Internet as appealing as he did. Like Jonathan Lebed, he was the kind of person high school is designed to suppress, and like Jonathan Lebed, he had refused to accept his assigned status. When the real world failed to diagnose his talents, he went looking for a second opinion. The Internet offered him as many opinions as he needed to find one he liked. It created the opportunity for new sorts of self-perceptions, which then took on a reality all their own.
The old New Yorker cartoon about how 'on the Web no one knows you are a dog,' is so true. How appealing it must be to those society marginalizes or ignores to reinvent their personas online. Online, you are what you know and project, not who you are, or what you look like, or how much money you have, or where you live. None of that matters on the Net, and thus it becomes the great equalizer.
Mind to mind, that is what counts. All other factors, so important in 'real' life, melt away to insignificance here. ________________
Re:A.I.: View at the Matinee price!
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 2
The aliens. Awful. Lousy. Everything about them was worthless.
Yes, especially since those weren't aliens... ________________
The appeals court vacated the verdict because there could be the appearance of bias in the matter. Yet they said they found no actual evidence of bias in the case. This is what many of us predicted would happen. The case itself was solid (and yes, I read every page of what Jackson wrote). But Jackson then went and shot his mouth off, saying the kind of stuff we all say from time to time.
There you have it: The case was vacated because Jackson said some commonplace things. Being a judge, he used bad judgment, for he needed to appear to ride above such matters. But the fact is that what he said is what pretty much everyone in the computer world knows to be true. It is so obvious that MS is a monopoly it's not worth discussing. When Jackson said something along those lines, he doomed his verdict.
Still, it is interesting that the appeals court couldn't actually find evidence of bias in the ruling. They just didn't like what Jackson said on his own time. And you know that MS hired plenty of guns to find bias anywhere they could. They failed. MS is a monopoly, and there was no official bias. Merely unofficial bias. Just as we all have. ________________
The justification offered by the recording industry is that CD's are both higher fidelity and longer lasting than tapes. Since you are getting a better quality product that does not deteriorate with use they feel justified in charging higher prices.
Perhaps a valid argument 15 years ago. So why hasn't the same old CD format not dropped in price after all this time, all that volume, yet it's now the same old quality as it's been since the beginning?
Also, people keep buying CD's at the current prices in greater numbers every year so what incentive has the industry had to lower prices (FTC anti-trust rulings aside)?
Ah, here we have the real motive. The industry thinks, "Hmmm...we could pass our savings on to the consumers or--- BWAHAHAHA what am I THINKING? They'll pay for it, we charge 'em for it, case closed." ________________
You're right, I should have noticed that and I didn't. Where I was getting my info from was all the other articles I've read that universally show that CD sales rose as Napster sales rose. This one seems to be an anomoly. Must be something to do with those tricky Canadians, or something.
Seriously, I can't imagine why CD sales would drop because of Napster. No, I'm not joking. Exposing vast audiences to new music usually helps your cause, not hurt. ________________
...last year CD sales were up, and Napster was going full-steam ahead. This year Napster is seriously hamstrung and CD sales begin to slip.
Hmmm...Napter does well, CD sales do well. Napster is emasculated, CD sales begin to slip. Now, I realize one cannot prove causation from this, but if they are going to use the "Napster is to blame" game, then they should work it both ways and realize that by their logic, when Napster is rocking their sales improve. ________________
I understand that legal precedents in the Napster case have been set, and I understand that the RIAA is using current laws to argue their case. I further understand that they are in business and have a right to extract profits for their efforts.
But boy, they way they go about their business, refusing to embrace new technology but stomping out of existence anything that threatens to interfere with their current distribution methods, the RIAA is acting like the mob. "Do what we say and no one gets hurt," is the message they keep sending over and over again.
How sad that the law is allowing these bullies to do whatever they want, and their propaganda is causing many persons (even here) to defend their actions. It may be legal, but it's morally wrong. ________________
"...officials warned of "online heroin", saying access to pornographic sites and "illegal games" in internet cafes pose a threat to the country's younger generation, who are becoming blighted by the "online poison". It is being said that "Some teenagers are so deeply entrapped by such internet cafes that their minds are severely distorted."
Wait, how did this quote from Congress get in this story? I thought this was about China, not Washington? ________________
First of all, how is this a "rant"? He's explaining something in answer to a question, not ranting.
Secondly, the article barely mentions America (other than a brief post-World War II period). It's about London and, secondarily, Vancouver. So all the comments about America's fascination with Japan, while interesting, show little relation to the actual article.
Gibson writes an article talking about the mutual fascination between the British and the Japanese. The American/. editors/readers then come along and assume he was talking about America instead? ________________
"...to mimic the press's deadly habit of balancing every single point of view with an opposite one..." [Emphasis mine]
"Deadly habit"? I dunno. I think I'd rather have the press presenting both sides, even when it's "obvious" which side is right, than to have them wholeheartedly advocate one point of view to the exclusion of alternative thoughts. With the current system, we the reader can make our own judgment as to which side to believe. With the alternative, we will never even hear about the other side in order to make a judgment.
________________
"I'd just like to know where does this elitist outlook about the President came from? "
From the President's own mouth. Dubya has made so many funny verbal mistakes that the satire you are seeing is not that far from reality. He may be an intelligent man (I don't think so, but I could be wrong), but he sure doesn't sound intelligent. At times, he makes himself sound like an idiot. ________________
Actually, no. I want both. The gameplay of many games is excellent. I was hoping that the graphics could keep pace as well in short order. Apparently not. ________________
Slashdot Mirror
"Yeah, having Alanis Morissette as God was actually respectful..."
Actually, I thought it was. I could think of few concepts of a deity more appealing than the charming personality exibited by Morissette's God. This was not making fun of God, it was saying warmly, 'Wouldn't it be nice if God were like this?' Quite a difference from the usual stern, harsh, bearded authority figure.
But hey, if even daring to come up with an alternative image for God is insulting to you personally, then I can understand why you would find Dogma disrespectful. I didn't see it that way. I saw it as Smith's funny riff on all the beliefs he not only grew up with, but believes to this day.
"This movie backs off from the controversial religion-bashing of Dogma..."
/., but it's usually off-center geek misinformation, not repeated mainstream misinformation).
Wrong. That is the accusation that was lobbed against Kevin Smith, but I'm disappointed to see this mainstream misinformation repeated here. (Yes, I know, there's plenty of misinformation on
Dogma was a funny movie that parodied religious dogma, not religious beliefs. Kevin Smith was and is a Catholic, and the movie was actually respectful of Catholic beliefs -- just not rigid dogma. Typically, this flew right over the Catholic church's head and they protested, looking ignorant in the process. I'm surprised to see Katz repeating this untrue accusation here.
Fine, moderate that comment as 'flamebait.' It's still true in today's corporate-controlled world.
"Asuming the answer is "no it's not a crime" the next questions I wonder are - can it be (given the First Amendment), and should it be (seeing that it's essentially political fraud)?"
Well, no, it could never be found to be a crime since this was done on behalf of a corporation. Only when something is done that a corporation finds threatening to its profits does something get labeled a crime and the First Amendment gets thrown out the window...
"Sounds like if you start the movie at all, the clock starts ticking so no peaking until you're ready to watch it ALL. "
Saaaaay...what kinda movies are you watching anyway, perverts? Oh wait, you meant 'peeking'...
You've completely missed the point. What he's saying is that there shouldn't be any government intervention in the first place. Anti-trust laws are unamerican
No government intervention? So what happens when a law is violated? We put ourselves in jail and fine ourselves?
Since when are anti-trust laws 'unamerican'? They have been around for over 100 years and serve to encourage competition. Last I checked, only with competition do you get better service, innovation, and price (see Microsoft for an example of what happens in a monopoly).
So how should illegal actions taken by the telcos be handled? By consumers marching up and down in front of the house of the president of the telco? The DSL market is shrinking because the telcos are breaking the law in order to avoid doing what the law says they must do for competition. They don't care. They can pay their piddling fines, years later, as a simple cost of doing business. Meanwhile, after running their competition into the ground, they get monopoly prices, and there isn't anything the consumers can do about it.
And don't say this is the marketplace in action -- it isn't. The consumer made their choices and went with alternative sources of DSL instead of the telcos. Instead of competing fairly in response, the telcos broke the law and forced us back into their arms. So if you don't want the government to take any actions (including enforcing existing laws??), how would you solve this problem?
You say the real solution to the problem is a completely open and free market. We don't actually have that at this time.
I'm only half joking, sadly.
And don't confuse my comment as indicating a desire to see the police and army-backed politicians getting heavily involved. All I suggested is that if the existing laws, which the telcos are violating, are enforced with more bite, it might help. No new laws, just the existing laws.
Now the telco, violating the law, gets hit with a massive fine. The government collects it and (probably squanders it on pork but let's be optimistic) helps pay for things for the public good (hey, it happens -- even politicians screw up once in a while and do something good). It's a win-win. The telcos are less likely to rape their competition the next time, and the public gets more money from the mountains of gold the telcos are sitting on.
Of course, this will never work, since the telcos have used some of their mountains of gold to buy off politicians to ensure the penalties for breaking the law are child's play.
And since the DSL marketplace is precisely the sort of marketplace that is manipulated by politicians and hurge multinational monopolistic corporations, what say you now?
The free market is great for the telcos -- they get to violate the law and screw the consumer, paying piddling fines along the way, until all their competition is crushed and we are forced back into their arms. Yup, just the way I like my free market to operate!
My solution? Not sure. How about fines with bite for a start so that when telcos break the law in their thuggish manner they get discouraged from doing it a second time by the fine?
This time, every thing to do with the second movie is denigrated. Rumors are treated with rolling of eyes. News is ridiculed. This movie is going to suck, we say...and then the movie will come out and...
Good Lord why?! We're talking newbies here, and a $999 iMac will be great for them. $3000 will get you a PowerBook, let alone any iBook or iMac you can think of with money left over.
________________
Maybe I should have said that to the extent that a person can mask those identifying traits that will tend to prejudice their readers, either real-world traits or online traits, to that extent the person can largely escape the usual bias. The 15-year-old in this story, for instance, would have gotten nowhere if people knew who they were talking to up front. Because he was able to present himself solely by his knowledge, he was able to escape the normal bias he would have faced when giving legal advice. If, instead, his handle was '15yearoldguy@aol.com', it would have been a different story, as you point out.
________________
The old New Yorker cartoon about how 'on the Web no one knows you are a dog,' is so true. How appealing it must be to those society marginalizes or ignores to reinvent their personas online. Online, you are what you know and project, not who you are, or what you look like, or how much money you have, or where you live. None of that matters on the Net, and thus it becomes the great equalizer.
Mind to mind, that is what counts. All other factors, so important in 'real' life, melt away to insignificance here.
________________
Yes, especially since those weren't aliens...
________________
There you have it: The case was vacated because Jackson said some commonplace things. Being a judge, he used bad judgment, for he needed to appear to ride above such matters. But the fact is that what he said is what pretty much everyone in the computer world knows to be true. It is so obvious that MS is a monopoly it's not worth discussing. When Jackson said something along those lines, he doomed his verdict.
Still, it is interesting that the appeals court couldn't actually find evidence of bias in the ruling. They just didn't like what Jackson said on his own time. And you know that MS hired plenty of guns to find bias anywhere they could. They failed. MS is a monopoly, and there was no official bias. Merely unofficial bias. Just as we all have.
________________
Perhaps a valid argument 15 years ago. So why hasn't the same old CD format not dropped in price after all this time, all that volume, yet it's now the same old quality as it's been since the beginning?
Also, people keep buying CD's at the current prices in greater numbers every year so what incentive has the industry had to lower prices (FTC anti-trust rulings aside)?
Ah, here we have the real motive. The industry thinks, "Hmmm...we could pass our savings on to the consumers or--- BWAHAHAHA what am I THINKING? They'll pay for it, we charge 'em for it, case closed."
________________
You're right, I should have noticed that and I didn't. Where I was getting my info from was all the other articles I've read that universally show that CD sales rose as Napster sales rose. This one seems to be an anomoly. Must be something to do with those tricky Canadians, or something. Seriously, I can't imagine why CD sales would drop because of Napster. No, I'm not joking. Exposing vast audiences to new music usually helps your cause, not hurt.
________________
Hmmm...Napter does well, CD sales do well. Napster is emasculated, CD sales begin to slip. Now, I realize one cannot prove causation from this, but if they are going to use the "Napster is to blame" game, then they should work it both ways and realize that by their logic, when Napster is rocking their sales improve.
________________
I understand that legal precedents in the Napster case have been set, and I understand that the RIAA is using current laws to argue their case. I further understand that they are in business and have a right to extract profits for their efforts. But boy, they way they go about their business, refusing to embrace new technology but stomping out of existence anything that threatens to interfere with their current distribution methods, the RIAA is acting like the mob. "Do what we say and no one gets hurt," is the message they keep sending over and over again. How sad that the law is allowing these bullies to do whatever they want, and their propaganda is causing many persons (even here) to defend their actions. It may be legal, but it's morally wrong.
________________
Wait, how did this quote from Congress get in this story? I thought this was about China, not Washington?
________________
Secondly, the article barely mentions America (other than a brief post-World War II period). It's about London and, secondarily, Vancouver. So all the comments about America's fascination with Japan, while interesting, show little relation to the actual article.
Gibson writes an article talking about the mutual fascination between the British and the Japanese. The American /. editors/readers then come along and assume he was talking about America instead?
________________
"Deadly habit"? I dunno. I think I'd rather have the press presenting both sides, even when it's "obvious" which side is right, than to have them wholeheartedly advocate one point of view to the exclusion of alternative thoughts. With the current system, we the reader can make our own judgment as to which side to believe. With the alternative, we will never even hear about the other side in order to make a judgment.
________________
From the President's own mouth. Dubya has made so many funny verbal mistakes that the satire you are seeing is not that far from reality. He may be an intelligent man (I don't think so, but I could be wrong), but he sure doesn't sound intelligent. At times, he makes himself sound like an idiot.
________________
Actually, no. I want both. The gameplay of many games is excellent. I was hoping that the graphics could keep pace as well in short order. Apparently not.
________________