The RIAA is desperate because bands that used to make good records can't make any more. Why? Well, because:
1) they may not have been that talented in the first place, and/or
2) it's hard to be that inspired when you got 5 million bucks in your pocket.
  Ever seen 5 million bucks? Most people, one they get that kinda money, go one of 2 ways:
1) they get super-greedy, and try to just make super-popular records, which flops hard at some point.
2) they just say "ok, i'm done" and that's it.
Here is the big piece you are missing: The record companies are only looking for hit artists. They don't stand behind artists who can't go platinum, or make hit singles. And once their 15 minutes are up - out the door.
I have read many accounts of this, where artists are promised all kinds of fame and fortune, how they are the next big thing, and if their album just does so-so, they are just left out. Sure, they might have a contract for 3 albums, but if that first one didn't hit big, then the record company can let them work out their contract, not promote them at all, and let them fade into obscurity. Why? Because the RIAA is the only gig in town! They have the power to be able to do that. So they have created this music market. They benefitted from Mariah Carey's bewildering success in the 90's, they created and profited from bands like N'Sync, The Backstreet Boys, New Kids, etc. They created Milli Vanilli. They saturate the market with what they think will sell, where selling is the only important thing. Now they wonder why people don't want to buy music anymore?
They have in front of them, a market where people want to listen to music all the time. With new technology, you can take tons of music with you. The more you listen, the more you want. They *created* the music market, and convinced people that they need more and more music, all the time. So now people want more and more music, and have found that it doesn't have to be expensive and difficult to get it. The RIAA refuses to accept technology, and instead of fostering the market with affordable alternatives to P2P services, they try to stop them. There is a proven market, with nearly zero-cost distribution, that ensures people will continue to listen to music. Ask *ANY* other business this question: If you could modify your business model to guarantee that people will continue to use your product, or even increase your sales, would you? Any sane businessman would do it. The RIAA chooses not to.
Reap what you sow, motherfuckers.
Actually, it IS as easy as sending email - most cellular phones also have an email address (for example, to send to an ATT mobile phone, use ##########@mobile.att.net)
Sounds like an email problem, not a mobile phone problem. Probably harvesters sending emails to all combinations of email addresses are getting their message in the hands of phone users, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
The providers could handle this in a variety of ways - they decided to set up the numbers as email addresses. So now they have to deal with the spam to their customers. I can think of several ways off the top of my head they could resolve this.
The goal of the AmiZilla effort is to raise such an obscene/huge amount of money to give away to the first programmer/team that can port Mozilla to Amiga that Amiga programmers will be falling over themselves getting this application coded in record time. The booty currently stands at $3696.
Hey, that's great. The goal is to raise an obscene/huge amount of money, but they currently have a little over $3500? I think they would need at least $10k for it to be considered big, and more than that to be obscenely huge. The faster it gets programmed, the less they have to pay. If that kitty sits for a year, I am sure there might be a considerable amount of money in it, but then it wouldn't exactly be done in record time.
An interesting idea, kind of like an open contract - but it sounds a little hyped to me. But with all the out-of-work programmers out there, any job is a good job I guess.
Dam has it been 20 yrs? I remember that series like it just aired last year.. I was 12 when it hit the little screen. I remeber the Eating live mice bit and all the lasers... This rag tag humans were just so ingenious compared to the dim witted aliens. Oh.. and the glasses so you could figure out who was a visitor and who wasnt. I remeber on of the big fast food chains gave those out.. Red colored glasses I think.
I also remember seeing a big red "V" spray painted on every abandoned house, on mailboxes, school doors, etc in my home town. It was pretty cool. I remember seeing a clip from it a few years ago, and MAN did it look cheesy. But that was the 80s. I think I remember playing Laser Tag and splitting people up into the Lizards and the Resistence teams. I still have my original Laser Tag gun and sensor, but I threw away the dumb harness and belt about 2 months after I got it.
I wondered if they would ever bring it back. I kind of wish they wouldn't, just because it was cool then, but now it seems kind of lame.
Want some more nostalgic cheese? What about Flash Gordon from 1980? With Queen doing the soundtrack. Oh yeah. "Flash! Ahhh-ahh. Savior of the universe!"
I recently bought a bare bones, no-OS system from tigerdirect. I later received a survey from them via email that was a thinly veiled survey direct from Microsoft. They offered an $80 gift certificate off the purchase of XP if you filled it out. I filled it out anyway. It basically asked what OS you use, how many computers you have, what word processing program you use, and why (i.e. price, performance, features, etc.)
I really hope that RMS and ESR bought a bare bones, no-OS system from tigerdirect recently too. I'd like to see the look on the face of the lackey who got to tabulate those survey results. (imagine voice of pimply faced kid from the Simpsons)
"uhh, what do we do if somone attached a 500 page essay to their survey?"
Knowing the "mess" they're in and fixing it has always been one of their strong suits. When they released Windows 3.x and found lukewarm support by WordPerfect and Lotus, they admitted it and took a course of action to correct it. When they realized they were too late in jumping on the Internet bandwagon, they admitted it and started development on a browser to compete with Netscape. Now, they realize that they are falling behind in the security and "features people need" area and will most certainly strive to correct the situation. So, don't just sit back, point your finger, and laugh; take a good look within the open source world and see what needs fixing.
Uhh, you do realize that the "course of action" that they took to correct their own defects were to break interoperability and strike up OEM deals to rub out the competition, right? It goes back to before Win3.1 to the DOS days. They shut out DRDos, a superior product. This is well documented. As is the fact that Windows 3.1 reported false errors if you tried to install it on DRDos instead of MSDos.
So no, the Open Source doesn't need to look to Microsoft for any examples on how to fix things. We need to look at them for reminders of what NOT to do.
Also, until I can have an OS install on my computer that is as easy as 'pop in the disk, turn the thing on, choose a few simple options, then sit back and wait until its done', Windows will still have an advantage over Linux in the installer department.
You mean like many of the various Knoppix variations out there? Pop in the disk, it boots up and runs off the cd. If you want to install it to the hard disk, just select that from the menu.
It has been a while since I installed any Windows machines, but I found it was much scarier installing Windows. You don't know what it is doing, you have to reboot often, and god help you if you have any driver issues. My Linux installs have been easier. I chose to set up my own partitions, but I didn't have to - but I had that choice.
The difference is, MS has ensured that you don't have to install the OS, because the OEM will do it for you (or they'll pay the price!). The only time you have to install it yourself is if you are buying a retail version, or you got a bootleg from a friend. And you should only have to install once, so I don't know what all the hubub is about. Once you get a machine up and running, that is where it becomes important. Being able to manage a system is much more important than being able to install it. That is Windows' strength (and flaw, IMO).
I don't knock the TA led small groups or even small classes, because often the TAs are more current on the material being taught than the profs can be, especially when its more basic undergrad stuff.
Of course, it all depends on the coursework, the prof, and the TA. I have a couple of stories here, bear with me.
My cousin is now attending the same university that I did 10 years ago. He is taking CS, and is considering changing majors. We were just talking this weekend at his brothers wedding, and he was relaying his opinions to me. He talked about one prof, one that I had trouble with initially, and said he is too tough, he is out of touch, etc. After I graduated, I realized that that prof was the best teacher I had. He was tough, but I learned a lot in his classes. I thought it was interesting that my cousin had the same opinion of him. I told him what I thought, but I think he is still going to get out of CS.
My wife got her Masters a couple of years ago (French linguistics) and during that time she was a student teacher. Her experience was NOTHING like what I had with TAs when I tool classes. She taught a minimum of two classes a semester. And when I say taught, I mean fully taught. No prof ever had anything to do with the class. She had to come up with all the lesson plans, collaborate with other student teachers to come up with tests (for the same class levels), teach, grade homework and essays, the whole experience. WHILE she was getting her Master's full time, and working part time. One of her friends was a TA in biology, got more money for his student teaching, and only had to teach one lab. Needless to say, the foreign language department there was a little rougher on the student teachers. (TAs == student teachers, at least there they were)
I called in sick to work one day and went to spend a long weekend with her. I went to one of her 200 level classes, and sat in on it. The students were giving presentations. They were some of the most gawd-awful things I have seen. One guy ran a Pepe Le Pew cartoon, then gave a couple of phrases in French at the end. All the others were less memorable. She was only a couple of years older than these kids, but even she was apalled at their apathy towards school. Of course there were a few that cared, but most didn't. They would bring McDonalds into her classroom, and she would ask them to leave. One guy showed up with 10 minutes LEFT in the class. They were taking cell-phone calls during class. She did her best to keep them in line, but damn, college kids are self centered lazy bastards. I would say about 75% fell into this category, from the two classes I saw.
So after she graduated, she got a job teaching French to 6-8 graders at a private school for gifted kids. They are still kids, and they provide moments of tension too, but it is such a different world. I have seen some of the projects these kids turn in, and they are awesome. One girl did a French anime-style comic book. It was about 10 pages, and it was good - and it was only a homework assignment! Granted, these kids are smart - one kid got a perfect 36 on his ACT as a 5th grader - but the complete 180 between college kids and pre-teens was amazing. Because these kids do care, and do put forth effort, my wife has been able to grow as a teacher too. She is challenged to teach them well. After only one full year teaching at university level, she was getting burned out and struggling to care. She felt that the students just did not care about their classes. When she started, she thought the profs were just lazy, but after seeing what they had to deal with she understood a little better WHY they were so burned out. I can't imagine teaching like that for 20 years.
So there are definitely two sides to this fence, and while the poster of this question may truly want to learn and be one of those good students, there are a lot more out there who have beaten those profs down to where they don't care anymore. The best you can do is give them a reason to care. If you do that, they will warm up to you. They are teachers, after all, so they want to teach you. They certainly aren't doing it for the money.
For the record, the story was submitted with the title (How) Has the Internet Changed College. I put the "how" in there because I know it has, but I am not sure of the scope of how it has. Has it affected registration in any way? Textbook purchasing? Dating? (what is your email vs what is your phone #) Time management skills? Off-time activities? Are there LAN parties? How has it affected the non-tech major?
I was hoping for some interesting stories and experiences, not just "Duh! Of course it has"
Ahh, but they'll change just enough so that the sheeple will want to upgrade.
"Oh, Mommy, look, it's Shiny Video Game. Can we buy it?"
"No, darling, it says it only runs on Palladium, and we still run XP."
"But MOMMY, I WANT SHINY VIDEO GAME!"
Total cost of that trip to Best Buy?
Trusted Computer -- $999.99
Palladium -- $199.99
Shiny Video Game -- $9.99 per month license fee
Customer's soul -- priceless.
People will buy whatever is being sold to them. They deserve it all, especially since they'll be trampling us on the way.
It isn't the people they are after. It is the companies. The company I work for is a fortune 50 company. They just announced that we are all going to be standardizing on one platform, XP. I was talking this over with my boss, and questioned the move. He started in telling me how it is much more efficient to standardize on one platform, and... I interrupted him, and asked "Why XP?". Because it has been proven to be stable.
"But why not Win2K? It has proven itself."
Because XP is the next generation OS, Win2k is 3 years old. Going to XP will also minimize the time when we have to upgrade the standard.
"But what does XP offer that Win2k doesn't? We don't use multimedia stuff at work."
They want to standarize the office suite and the OS together, and we are going to Office XP.
"OK, what does Office2k not do that we need it to do?" They probably got a license deal on XP and Office XP.
"Bingo. It isn't necessarily better, it is what we are told to buy."
Look, there isn't anything wrong with it, standardizing on one platform will help our IT department and.......
Nobody cares*. Companies want the best deal, and they get that by toeing the MS line. Everyone else doesn't care, they want to get to use the latest OS for free, and burn a copy for home.
* Not that some people don't care, but statistically, it is virtually noone.
It could be worth a lot for the webcam if some really dedicated viewer is able to piece together the plot, or other spoiling elements. Although you could just wait for the DVD, which will probably have all the thousands of hours of webcam footage included.
I am still trying to piece together the plot from that highly complex, mind-bending story called Attack of the Clones.
blaming lawyers for making laws is in the same
boat as blaming gun makers for killing someone.
Bad analogy. Really bad.
They just write down the laws, the politicians come up with them and weild them about threateningly.
I agree...
Data compiled by Robert Schmults of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, and Investor's Business Daily, drawn from a variety of sources indicates that about 40% of the 535 members of Congress are attorneys. This includes over half of the senators.
I found this info here via a quick Google search, and have heard similar figures many times. So who do you think will be drafting these laws, the guy with the law degree or the career politician? Who drafts and passes these things into LAW?
Whether you think society is too litigious is your opinion. But, to blame that on "lawyers" and not all the assholes who file the frivilous suits is not "insightful" at all.
No, I think you are wrong. It is the lawyers. I am not talking about anyone in particular you know, or any one person, but the profession of lawyers. They created the environment where it is OK to file stupid lawsuits. What do they care, as long as they get paid.
Who do you think makes the laws? Lawyers. You can argue that they are drafted and passed by Congress or the Senate or the friggin PTA, but lawyers create and revise the laws. Everything has to be in correct legal terms. Everyone who has power has "legal council" who can manipulate the system. When you think of "scumbag" lawyers, it isn't just the ambulance chaser, it is also the divorce attorney who is trying to get his client all the money he can, or the defense attorney who gets his client off on a technicality when he was guilty. They manipulate the legal system to suit their own needs. All of them.
Our legal profession is a joke, and even if you aren't one of the bad guys, you have to play the bad guys' game. Now you might think that it is our legal system that is messed up, and you would be right, but who do you think created it? Lawyers created the legal system. Judges. They have created a nation of people whose first response to a problem is "sue them". They have created an environment where they are, consciously or not, creating job security. I am amazed at the people who scoff at the hot coffee lawsuit at McDonald's, yet their first thought when they are wronged is to sue someone. Some telemarketer called me in the middle of the night - I'll take them to court! Lawyers have dug themselves into the skin of our society, and have played a large part in ruining it. They have created an atmosphere of fear, where nobody will admit they are wrong - ever! If someone admits to being wrong, they are ripe for a lawsuit. Malpractice insurance is so high that some doctors can't stay in business. A doctor makes a mistake, and immediately runs to his legal council about what to do. Legal council will try to handle the issue within the legal system, which basically means trying to get the doctor absolved of any wrongdoing. The patient gets frustrated at playing the legal game, and decides to sue! It is insane.
I have a friend who is in law school, and he basically hates humanity right now. I would have classified him as morally questionable before he started this degree, but he is even put off by the legal profession. He told me he hates it. But that is where the money is at, which is pretty much the other half of the problem in this country. Combine greed and our legal system, and you have one fine clusterfuck of a society.
Hey, smartass, so what is the solution? I have no idea. We are in a bad situation, where the laws are simply growing and growing, and the attitude is getting worse and worse. I don't know how it can get better. Thank you, legal system, and all your lawyer henchmen, for making our society what it is today. I won't deny that there are some good lawyers out there, but they shouldn't even be necessary. The fact that you have to classify them as good or bad should tell you something. We have accepted the facts that our society has become a legal game. It is sad.
Re:What I think MS was up to...
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
For that to work, GNU/Linux would have to infringe on Unix copyrights. Despite what SCO keeps saying (without providing proof), GNU/Linux does not infringe.
Ahh, but GNU/Linux would have to prove that in court. Who has better court legs, Microsoft or Linux companies? Even if MS wasn't able to prove infringement, they could put the hurt on the companies monetarily. That is what SCO is trying to do, MS would just have more money and power (and arguably, credibility) to throw at it.
Virtual property is worth something if people are willing to exchange it for money (and evidently this is the case).
Your values are not my values, but value is in the eye of the purchaser (or in cases of extortion, the vendor...?)
Having said that, I think it's nuts that people exchange money for this sort of thing.
If someone gives me a dollar for no reason, then I have given them nothing in return. There was an exchange there, even though one half of that transaction was nothing. Does that mean that nothing is worth something?
If so, then every day I work, I lose something (nothing) by coming in to work when I could be at home doing nothing (something). Therefore, my employer is robbing me of something (nothing) for 40 hours a week! Instead of just paying me for working, they are also taking away my nothing. I did not agree to that when I took this job, so now I can sue them to oblivion! USA! USA!
At some point, someone has to draw the line on this stupid shit.
What I think MS was up to...
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
SCO doesn't appear to be forcing Microsoft, so I can only come to the conclusion that Redmond is thinking of actually using that license, selling its own version of Unix.
I never put those together until Cringely did, and ya know, Cringley could be on to something here. It's entirely possible that Microsoft staged this whole thing from day one. That would be the ultimate evil -- but then, again, wouldn't that be just like them? Yeah.;)
Actually, I think what they (SCO and MS) wanted to happen didn't materialize, so they are taking this route. Consider this from the article by Cringely:
But Novell made a good point, which was that SCO had been asking for the copyrights for some time, and Novell had refused. If being the copyright holder didn't matter, why did SCO want that role so badly?
Gee, maybe SCO wanted to get its hands on the copyrights to UNIX so that Microsoft could buy SCO. If MS were to buy SCO, then they would have the copyright rights to UNIX, and could sic the lawyers on all the Linux vendors. All the greedy, incompetent execs at SCO get to retire on a nice fat payday, simply for turning over the keys to Linux. This plan didn't materialize because Novell wouldn't give up the rights, so Microsoft came up with this strategy. The execs at SCO don't really care what happens, they just need an out. They are heading a dying company, so all they are concerned about it how they can get paid before the whole things collapses.
It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I think it is a pretty good one. Using money and power, Microsoft could legally squash Linux. What, you think they wouldn't want to do that?
What you call "students and residents finding open proxies to surf the web"(inspiring warm and fuzzy feelings), I call network abuse and inappropriate use of resources. It's like spam- you're hitting hundreds of thousands of systems in the hopes of hitting one proxy.... Sorry, this is not the "coolest" use of nmap- it's probably, aside from scanning for vulnerable services, the most unethical use of nmap I can think of.
Holy crap. You are either a really bad troll, or you have never heard of China.
Re:These people are idiots.
on
A Tour of Pixar
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
THis article talks about a high quality rip of Matrix Reloaded. That sure as hell didn't come from a theater-goer with a sony..
Nor did it have any impact on the box office take of the movie. It was the highest opening for an R rated movie ever. So if it wasn't on the net, does that mean that they would have made 100 million more? The other pirated movies on the net that make the articles are LOTR and Spider-man. Both couldn't have done much better at the box office. I don't understand why these movies make the news. If it hitting the net was such a revenue hit, wouldn't these things do poorly at the box-office? Or is it just that they would have made so much MORE money? Boo frickin hoo.
I understand why Pixar would take measures to prevent people from taking it before the release. EVERYONE steals stuff from work, it would be no different at Pixar. They have every right to keep people from pilfering it. (Hey, I would too). After it hits the public though, all bets are pretty much off.
Re:Penny Arcade to the rescue
on
Neuros Review
·
· Score: 1
It's no big deal really, but come on, PA would love the ad impressions frankly they deserve it.
Yeah, you are right. I actually linked to the GIF intentionally, but I wasn't thinking. I thought "hey, i'll try and minimize the slashdotting" by linking to the image directly. I was trying to be considerate, but I guess it turned out to be the opposite. SORRY PA GUYS!
Anyone not familiar with this Heinlein tome, and who has an interest in the next century should read it.... Democracy cannot fight gravity, nor stop a 1/2km bolder travelling at Mach 33 coming down through the atmosphere.
The United States Government's Department of Homeland Security has announced that Robert Heinlein is now wanted under the U.S. Patriot Act for sponsoring terrorism. His idea of using the moon as a base to attack Americans will not be tolerated.
Slashdot Mirror
1) they may not have been that talented in the first place, and/or
2) it's hard to be that inspired when you got 5 million bucks in your pocket. Â Â Ever seen 5 million bucks? Most people, one they get that kinda money, go one of 2 ways:
1) they get super-greedy, and try to just make super-popular records, which flops hard at some point.
2) they just say "ok, i'm done" and that's it.
Here is the big piece you are missing: The record companies are only looking for hit artists. They don't stand behind artists who can't go platinum, or make hit singles. And once their 15 minutes are up - out the door.
I have read many accounts of this, where artists are promised all kinds of fame and fortune, how they are the next big thing, and if their album just does so-so, they are just left out. Sure, they might have a contract for 3 albums, but if that first one didn't hit big, then the record company can let them work out their contract, not promote them at all, and let them fade into obscurity. Why? Because the RIAA is the only gig in town! They have the power to be able to do that. So they have created this music market. They benefitted from Mariah Carey's bewildering success in the 90's, they created and profited from bands like N'Sync, The Backstreet Boys, New Kids, etc. They created Milli Vanilli. They saturate the market with what they think will sell, where selling is the only important thing. Now they wonder why people don't want to buy music anymore?
They have in front of them, a market where people want to listen to music all the time. With new technology, you can take tons of music with you. The more you listen, the more you want. They *created* the music market, and convinced people that they need more and more music, all the time. So now people want more and more music, and have found that it doesn't have to be expensive and difficult to get it. The RIAA refuses to accept technology, and instead of fostering the market with affordable alternatives to P2P services, they try to stop them. There is a proven market, with nearly zero-cost distribution, that ensures people will continue to listen to music. Ask *ANY* other business this question: If you could modify your business model to guarantee that people will continue to use your product, or even increase your sales, would you? Any sane businessman would do it. The RIAA chooses not to. Reap what you sow, motherfuckers.
Sounds like an email problem, not a mobile phone problem. Probably harvesters sending emails to all combinations of email addresses are getting their message in the hands of phone users, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
The providers could handle this in a variety of ways - they decided to set up the numbers as email addresses. So now they have to deal with the spam to their customers. I can think of several ways off the top of my head they could resolve this.
For those not familiar with dating: If a girl mentions something to you about enlarging your penis, she probably isn't picking up on you.
Hey, that's great. The goal is to raise an obscene/huge amount of money, but they currently have a little over $3500? I think they would need at least $10k for it to be considered big, and more than that to be obscenely huge. The faster it gets programmed, the less they have to pay. If that kitty sits for a year, I am sure there might be a considerable amount of money in it, but then it wouldn't exactly be done in record time.
An interesting idea, kind of like an open contract - but it sounds a little hyped to me. But with all the out-of-work programmers out there, any job is a good job I guess.
Not yet, but I did check out ClusterKnoppix the other day. Quite the impressive little CD it is.
download it!
I also remember seeing a big red "V" spray painted on every abandoned house, on mailboxes, school doors, etc in my home town. It was pretty cool. I remember seeing a clip from it a few years ago, and MAN did it look cheesy. But that was the 80s. I think I remember playing Laser Tag and splitting people up into the Lizards and the Resistence teams. I still have my original Laser Tag gun and sensor, but I threw away the dumb harness and belt about 2 months after I got it.
I wondered if they would ever bring it back. I kind of wish they wouldn't, just because it was cool then, but now it seems kind of lame.
Want some more nostalgic cheese? What about Flash Gordon from 1980? With Queen doing the soundtrack. Oh yeah. "Flash! Ahhh-ahh. Savior of the universe!"
I really hope that RMS and ESR bought a bare bones, no-OS system from tigerdirect recently too. I'd like to see the look on the face of the lackey who got to tabulate those survey results.
(imagine voice of pimply faced kid from the Simpsons)
"uhh, what do we do if somone attached a 500 page essay to their survey?"
Why on earth would you choose RedHat? Haven't you read this ?
Uhh, you do realize that the "course of action" that they took to correct their own defects were to break interoperability and strike up OEM deals to rub out the competition, right? It goes back to before Win3.1 to the DOS days. They shut out DRDos, a superior product. This is well documented. As is the fact that Windows 3.1 reported false errors if you tried to install it on DRDos instead of MSDos.
So no, the Open Source doesn't need to look to Microsoft for any examples on how to fix things. We need to look at them for reminders of what NOT to do.
You mean like many of the various Knoppix variations out there? Pop in the disk, it boots up and runs off the cd. If you want to install it to the hard disk, just select that from the menu.
It has been a while since I installed any Windows machines, but I found it was much scarier installing Windows. You don't know what it is doing, you have to reboot often, and god help you if you have any driver issues. My Linux installs have been easier. I chose to set up my own partitions, but I didn't have to - but I had that choice.
The difference is, MS has ensured that you don't have to install the OS, because the OEM will do it for you (or they'll pay the price!). The only time you have to install it yourself is if you are buying a retail version, or you got a bootleg from a friend. And you should only have to install once, so I don't know what all the hubub is about. Once you get a machine up and running, that is where it becomes important. Being able to manage a system is much more important than being able to install it. That is Windows' strength (and flaw, IMO).
Of course, it all depends on the coursework, the prof, and the TA. I have a couple of stories here, bear with me.
My cousin is now attending the same university that I did 10 years ago. He is taking CS, and is considering changing majors. We were just talking this weekend at his brothers wedding, and he was relaying his opinions to me. He talked about one prof, one that I had trouble with initially, and said he is too tough, he is out of touch, etc. After I graduated, I realized that that prof was the best teacher I had. He was tough, but I learned a lot in his classes. I thought it was interesting that my cousin had the same opinion of him. I told him what I thought, but I think he is still going to get out of CS.
My wife got her Masters a couple of years ago (French linguistics) and during that time she was a student teacher. Her experience was NOTHING like what I had with TAs when I tool classes. She taught a minimum of two classes a semester. And when I say taught, I mean fully taught. No prof ever had anything to do with the class. She had to come up with all the lesson plans, collaborate with other student teachers to come up with tests (for the same class levels), teach, grade homework and essays, the whole experience. WHILE she was getting her Master's full time, and working part time. One of her friends was a TA in biology, got more money for his student teaching, and only had to teach one lab. Needless to say, the foreign language department there was a little rougher on the student teachers. (TAs == student teachers, at least there they were)
I called in sick to work one day and went to spend a long weekend with her. I went to one of her 200 level classes, and sat in on it. The students were giving presentations. They were some of the most gawd-awful things I have seen. One guy ran a Pepe Le Pew cartoon, then gave a couple of phrases in French at the end. All the others were less memorable. She was only a couple of years older than these kids, but even she was apalled at their apathy towards school. Of course there were a few that cared, but most didn't. They would bring McDonalds into her classroom, and she would ask them to leave. One guy showed up with 10 minutes LEFT in the class. They were taking cell-phone calls during class. She did her best to keep them in line, but damn, college kids are self centered lazy bastards. I would say about 75% fell into this category, from the two classes I saw.
So after she graduated, she got a job teaching French to 6-8 graders at a private school for gifted kids. They are still kids, and they provide moments of tension too, but it is such a different world. I have seen some of the projects these kids turn in, and they are awesome. One girl did a French anime-style comic book. It was about 10 pages, and it was good - and it was only a homework assignment! Granted, these kids are smart - one kid got a perfect 36 on his ACT as a 5th grader - but the complete 180 between college kids and pre-teens was amazing. Because these kids do care, and do put forth effort, my wife has been able to grow as a teacher too. She is challenged to teach them well. After only one full year teaching at university level, she was getting burned out and struggling to care. She felt that the students just did not care about their classes. When she started, she thought the profs were just lazy, but after seeing what they had to deal with she understood a little better WHY they were so burned out. I can't imagine teaching like that for 20 years.
So there are definitely two sides to this fence, and while the poster of this question may truly want to learn and be one of those good students, there are a lot more out there who have beaten those profs down to where they don't care anymore. The best you can do is give them a reason to care. If you do that, they will warm up to you. They are teachers, after all, so they want to teach you. They certainly aren't doing it for the money.
Next topic!
For the record, the story was submitted with the title (How) Has the Internet Changed College. I put the "how" in there because I know it has, but I am not sure of the scope of how it has. Has it affected registration in any way? Textbook purchasing? Dating? (what is your email vs what is your phone #) Time management skills? Off-time activities? Are there LAN parties? How has it affected the non-tech major?
I was hoping for some interesting stories and experiences, not just "Duh! Of course it has"
Whoops, right guy, wrong movie.
It isn't the people they are after. It is the companies. The company I work for is a fortune 50 company. They just announced that we are all going to be standardizing on one platform, XP. I was talking this over with my boss, and questioned the move. He started in telling me how it is much more efficient to standardize on one platform, and ... I interrupted him, and asked "Why XP?". .......
Because it has been proven to be stable.
"But why not Win2K? It has proven itself."
Because XP is the next generation OS, Win2k is 3 years old. Going to XP will also minimize the time when we have to upgrade the standard.
"But what does XP offer that Win2k doesn't? We don't use multimedia stuff at work."
They want to standarize the office suite and the OS together, and we are going to Office XP.
"OK, what does Office2k not do that we need it to do?"
They probably got a license deal on XP and Office XP.
"Bingo. It isn't necessarily better, it is what we are told to buy."
Look, there isn't anything wrong with it, standardizing on one platform will help our IT department and
Nobody cares*. Companies want the best deal, and they get that by toeing the MS line. Everyone else doesn't care, they want to get to use the latest OS for free, and burn a copy for home.
* Not that some people don't care, but statistically, it is virtually noone.
I am still trying to piece together the plot from that highly complex, mind-bending story called Attack of the Clones.
Bad analogy. Really bad.
They just write down the laws, the politicians come up with them and weild them about threateningly.
I agree...
I found this info here via a quick Google search, and have heard similar figures many times. So who do you think will be drafting these laws, the guy with the law degree or the career politician? Who drafts and passes these things into LAW?No, I think you are wrong. It is the lawyers. I am not talking about anyone in particular you know, or any one person, but the profession of lawyers. They created the environment where it is OK to file stupid lawsuits. What do they care, as long as they get paid.
Who do you think makes the laws? Lawyers. You can argue that they are drafted and passed by Congress or the Senate or the friggin PTA, but lawyers create and revise the laws. Everything has to be in correct legal terms. Everyone who has power has "legal council" who can manipulate the system. When you think of "scumbag" lawyers, it isn't just the ambulance chaser, it is also the divorce attorney who is trying to get his client all the money he can, or the defense attorney who gets his client off on a technicality when he was guilty. They manipulate the legal system to suit their own needs. All of them.
Our legal profession is a joke, and even if you aren't one of the bad guys, you have to play the bad guys' game. Now you might think that it is our legal system that is messed up, and you would be right, but who do you think created it? Lawyers created the legal system. Judges. They have created a nation of people whose first response to a problem is "sue them". They have created an environment where they are, consciously or not, creating job security. I am amazed at the people who scoff at the hot coffee lawsuit at McDonald's, yet their first thought when they are wronged is to sue someone. Some telemarketer called me in the middle of the night - I'll take them to court! Lawyers have dug themselves into the skin of our society, and have played a large part in ruining it. They have created an atmosphere of fear, where nobody will admit they are wrong - ever! If someone admits to being wrong, they are ripe for a lawsuit. Malpractice insurance is so high that some doctors can't stay in business. A doctor makes a mistake, and immediately runs to his legal council about what to do. Legal council will try to handle the issue within the legal system, which basically means trying to get the doctor absolved of any wrongdoing. The patient gets frustrated at playing the legal game, and decides to sue! It is insane.
I have a friend who is in law school, and he basically hates humanity right now. I would have classified him as morally questionable before he started this degree, but he is even put off by the legal profession. He told me he hates it. But that is where the money is at, which is pretty much the other half of the problem in this country. Combine greed and our legal system, and you have one fine clusterfuck of a society.
Hey, smartass, so what is the solution? I have no idea. We are in a bad situation, where the laws are simply growing and growing, and the attitude is getting worse and worse. I don't know how it can get better. Thank you, legal system, and all your lawyer henchmen, for making our society what it is today. I won't deny that there are some good lawyers out there, but they shouldn't even be necessary. The fact that you have to classify them as good or bad should tell you something. We have accepted the facts that our society has become a legal game. It is sad.
Ahh, but GNU/Linux would have to prove that in court. Who has better court legs, Microsoft or Linux companies? Even if MS wasn't able to prove infringement, they could put the hurt on the companies monetarily. That is what SCO is trying to do, MS would just have more money and power (and arguably, credibility) to throw at it.
1. R vs. PG-13
2. It still had a 2nd week gross that most movies would kill for
3. It got so-so reviews
If someone gives me a dollar for no reason, then I have given them nothing in return. There was an exchange there, even though one half of that transaction was nothing. Does that mean that nothing is worth something?
If so, then every day I work, I lose something (nothing) by coming in to work when I could be at home doing nothing (something). Therefore, my employer is robbing me of something (nothing) for 40 hours a week! Instead of just paying me for working, they are also taking away my nothing. I did not agree to that when I took this job, so now I can sue them to oblivion! USA! USA!
At some point, someone has to draw the line on this stupid shit.
I never put those together until Cringely did, and ya know, Cringley could be on to something here. It's entirely possible that Microsoft staged this whole thing from day one. That would be the ultimate evil -- but then, again, wouldn't that be just like them? Yeah. ;)
Actually, I think what they (SCO and MS) wanted to happen didn't materialize, so they are taking this route. Consider this from the article by Cringely:
Gee, maybe SCO wanted to get its hands on the copyrights to UNIX so that Microsoft could buy SCO. If MS were to buy SCO, then they would have the copyright rights to UNIX, and could sic the lawyers on all the Linux vendors. All the greedy, incompetent execs at SCO get to retire on a nice fat payday, simply for turning over the keys to Linux. This plan didn't materialize because Novell wouldn't give up the rights, so Microsoft came up with this strategy. The execs at SCO don't really care what happens, they just need an out. They are heading a dying company, so all they are concerned about it how they can get paid before the whole things collapses.
It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I think it is a pretty good one. Using money and power, Microsoft could legally squash Linux. What, you think they wouldn't want to do that?
Holy crap. You are either a really bad troll, or you have never heard of China.
Nor did it have any impact on the box office take of the movie. It was the highest opening for an R rated movie ever. So if it wasn't on the net, does that mean that they would have made 100 million more? The other pirated movies on the net that make the articles are LOTR and Spider-man. Both couldn't have done much better at the box office. I don't understand why these movies make the news. If it hitting the net was such a revenue hit, wouldn't these things do poorly at the box-office? Or is it just that they would have made so much MORE money? Boo frickin hoo.
I understand why Pixar would take measures to prevent people from taking it before the release. EVERYONE steals stuff from work, it would be no different at Pixar. They have every right to keep people from pilfering it. (Hey, I would too). After it hits the public though, all bets are pretty much off.
Yeah, you are right. I actually linked to the GIF intentionally, but I wasn't thinking. I thought "hey, i'll try and minimize the slashdotting" by linking to the image directly. I was trying to be considerate, but I guess it turned out to be the opposite. SORRY PA GUYS!
The United States Government's Department of Homeland Security has announced that Robert Heinlein is now wanted under the U.S. Patriot Act for sponsoring terrorism. His idea of using the moon as a base to attack Americans will not be tolerated.