BBC News reports on this article from Some Paper in China which read on Salon.com which was referring to an article in The Economist which was originally published in Business Week which borrowed it from Red Herring which had previously done a special in conjunction with Slashdot which was reported on BBC News via Some Paper in China which read on Salon.com... do any sites write proprietary journalism anymore ? (No. -Ed.)
How about the following scenario: Napster facilitates theft, which is illegal. RIAA requests an opt-in as opposed to opt-out scenario, which eliminates the piracy of intellectual property and copyright. Er, what am I missing ? The RIAA may not be winning popularity contests, but this is about the law, not who gets to be Mr Popular with a bunch of people who don't really care about commerce or the defence of the individual's right to protect their work.
One of the beauties of the Net is information on demand. In other words, you want up-to-the-minute news reporting (as opposed to engaged discussion) - go back to TV and Radio. Life online has the facility of moving at a different pace - yours. (And that includes death, too.) When you lot start paying/., you get the moral right to criticize its timeliness - or lack of it. Until then, I suggest you belt up. And for me, Scooby Doo alone is enough to warrant a seat at the high table of the Gods for the late Mr. Hanna.
Jeez, people can be so literal-minded. Whatever happened to lateral thinking, or imagination ? I find it rich with irony that among the first responses to this piece are tired old prejudices about religion. As if the world wasn't already ****** up enough thanks to the inability of different faiths to co-exist.
There may be hyperbole here - but it's (shock) 'good' hyperbole - the sort whereby people have to think, and challenge their assumptions, rather than meekly cow-tow to the latest inane offerings from more traditional media.
The Internet is not, never was, and never will be, a commercial medium. Don't agree ? How much are you being paid to read, think about, or respond to these words ? We are all here because we want to talk to each other, and because we can ! Add up all the cumulative profits of pure-play Internet companies over the past 4 years, and you probably get to about - $10bn, give or take the odd billion.
The Internet in its first, prime, instance is a communications channel. No corporation in its right mind would boast of being 'THE telephone company' simply by having all its employees use the phone. The Net is already that well ingrained in corporate culture, or it nearly is.
I'd rather have the visionary 'bible-bashing' (but without the religious overtones that gets the zealots all worked up) than facile smiley-talk from tired old world media any day.
love..
Slashdot Mirror
BBC News reports on this article from Some Paper in China which read on Salon.com which was referring to an article in The Economist which was originally published in Business Week which borrowed it from Red Herring which had previously done a special in conjunction with Slashdot which was reported on BBC News via Some Paper in China which read on Salon.com... do any sites write proprietary journalism anymore ? (No. -Ed.)
How about the following scenario: Napster facilitates theft, which is illegal. RIAA requests an opt-in as opposed to opt-out scenario, which eliminates the piracy of intellectual property and copyright. Er, what am I missing ? The RIAA may not be winning popularity contests, but this is about the law, not who gets to be Mr Popular with a bunch of people who don't really care about commerce or the defence of the individual's right to protect their work.
One of the beauties of the Net is information on demand. In other words, you want up-to-the-minute news reporting (as opposed to engaged discussion) - go back to TV and Radio. Life online has the facility of moving at a different pace - yours. (And that includes death, too.) When you lot start paying /., you get the moral right to criticize its timeliness - or lack of it. Until then, I suggest you belt up. And for me, Scooby Doo alone is enough to warrant a seat at the high table of the Gods for the late Mr. Hanna.
Jeez, people can be so literal-minded. Whatever happened to lateral thinking, or imagination ? I find it rich with irony that among the first responses to this piece are tired old prejudices about religion. As if the world wasn't already ****** up enough thanks to the inability of different faiths to co-exist. There may be hyperbole here - but it's (shock) 'good' hyperbole - the sort whereby people have to think, and challenge their assumptions, rather than meekly cow-tow to the latest inane offerings from more traditional media. The Internet is not, never was, and never will be, a commercial medium. Don't agree ? How much are you being paid to read, think about, or respond to these words ? We are all here because we want to talk to each other, and because we can ! Add up all the cumulative profits of pure-play Internet companies over the past 4 years, and you probably get to about - $10bn, give or take the odd billion. The Internet in its first, prime, instance is a communications channel. No corporation in its right mind would boast of being 'THE telephone company' simply by having all its employees use the phone. The Net is already that well ingrained in corporate culture, or it nearly is. I'd rather have the visionary 'bible-bashing' (but without the religious overtones that gets the zealots all worked up) than facile smiley-talk from tired old world media any day. love..