What aren't you understanding? The problem that all of these advertising networks, and any future ppv stuff are made to address is that it's too expensive to run a popular, content-driven site out of your own pocket.
What aren't you understanding? Sure, people have a right to advertise. My point is that advertising is not guaranteed revenue. Unless you can find a way to make advertising that actually works, or do a pay-per-view situation, the people using the advertising to generate revenue really shouldn't be complaining. If they want advertising to work, I say they should put some effort into making it work.
Now, can you address my point that there are people out there like me that don't really see the twenty dollars a month it costs to host a not-so-popular site as the greatest sin of all time against their pocket books? And if it got more popular and I had to start paying more, split five ways a $200 (and I have seen $200 a month dedicated servers for rent) a month bill is not that extravagent. I realize that wouldn't cover a slashdot like site, but for people like me that seriously are just interested in low-traffic sites, why is it so evil to say, "Sure, I can pay for that out of my own pocket."
If people need/want to generate revenue, they should put effort into figuring out a way to actually get that revenue. That's my point.
I know, in the corporate mentallity nowadays it is evil to say that someone should work for money, but that is all that I'm trying to say. But, that's probably just my ego talking. Everybody that pays attention to me knows I'm a prick.
That implies that you're running a website simply as a hook to get you a higher paying job.
It always comes back to money doesn't it?
You probably have no interest in hearing this but our site is built for the group (a band) to display other things they are interested in. Our band is completely non-profit, and our hope is to generate just enough interest to have people occasionally ask us for more.
While I realize no one out there believes it is possible in this day and age to do something just for the love of doing it (I have a day job and other monetary income, this I do for love of music, writing and whatever else I feel like doing), this is exactly what Faulty Dreams is all about.
Now, having said that, I personally don't think you are interested in sincere discussion about people that are wanting to just get things "out there". You obviously don't understand the concept if all that it brings to mind is a desire to make more money.
Our group/band is not something that will have massive appeal. We knew that going into it. And that is the situation I was addressing. There are more people like me out there, whatever other words you try to push into my mouth. This isn't about money to me. Now, for those that do want to generate money, hey, like you I say go for it. But don't expect that people are going to go out of their way to hand you their wallet. You need to earn the money you generate (one of the reasons we aren't trying to earn money with our site). That means hard work, coming up with a way to draw in people and a way to make those people part with some of their hard earned cash.
And your correlation of web access to shoes doesn't quite seem appropriate. If you put something up without a positive way of generating revenue (as suggested, a pay-per-view arrangement), then you get what you get and there isn't much you can do about it. You can complain if you want, but the burden to come up with a way to earn money should be up to the people trying to earn the money, not the people wishing to view the content that person put up. If that makes me a whiny fuck, then so be it. I don't really see why people owe anyone unless they are told, "TO VIEW THIS SUBMIT YOUR CREDIT CARD FOR PAYMENT". That will probably ultimately be the way it goes for a lot of sites.
But the whole idea that you are owed a living just because you put up a web site is ridiculous. Of course, so is the idea that anyone would want to do something just for the joy of doing it. I guess I should know better.
Well, we have discussed it a bit (the group). Probably, since our web site is just an outlet for the group (and the group is really a band) we will probably use the small amount of money we generate from selling band memorabilia and (when we get the proper equipment) CDs and such.
Our web site is an addition to our band, and as such, we don't see it as a revenue generating thing. It's just something we do. And our band is extremely non-profit oriented. Any money we make at anything, shows, T-shirts sales, picture sales, goes right back into the band. And when we are earning more than we spend on the band, here's a kicker for ya, we drop prices. Granted, we don't sell a lot of stuff yet, but what we do sell we try to be fair about.
Our whole band is a labor of love. And the idea that we are going to try to "turn a profit" on any part of it seems silly to us. We're family people with day jobs, and if the web site becomes "too" popular, we will find other ways to fund it. We aren't going to resort of web advertising. That was a decision we made a long time ago.
OK, something about your post just kind of got under my skin (not flammage, just a mild irritation).
Where, exactly, is the promise to anyone that creates a web site that they should be able to "make a return on their investment", especially a monetary return? I'm working with a group that has put up a site purely for the hope of getting our work out there. We don't want to have pop-ups, so we don't. We don't like banner ads, so we don't have them. Nowhere did we see, when we were setting up our web site, the guarantee that we would recieve any sort of compensation just for doing what we enjoy doing.
There seems to be this overwhelming mentality anymore that just by having a web presence you should be entitled to make money. It doesn't matter if your site sucks. It doesn't matter if you have absolutely no clue how to attract people. It doesn't matter if you have no revenue generation program of any sort. Just by being there, that should entitle you to make massive sums of money. I disagree with that mentality, and I know I'm not the only one.
The web started as a medium with relatively free information dispersal. And, in time, advertising agencies will come to terms with the fact that they have to be much more over-the-top, and in-your-face to make people see their ads on the web. If people aren't disgusted by it, then it may work. Here's an idea, do what they've done on TV and radio and make the ads entertaining. If there were any effort at all to make ads as entertaining as, say, the Bud character plays (with the frogs and lizards and feret) then maybe people wouldn't just ignore them. Just because you stick an ad on the page, that doesn't entitle you to any sort of monetary compensation. Do something to get people's attention in a way that doesn't just piss them off to no end.
Of course, having said all that I would say it is just a matter of time before the government cracks down on all this illegal software that blocks web ads. After all, we are destroying hard working ad companies if we ignore their ads. More and more it seems the most important thing in the world is to keep all the money we can moving towards the corporations and away from the people. Why corporations have so much more right to it than people in general I'm not quite sure. But I am sure that it's just a matter of time before it is law that advertising cannot be removed from web sites (just as TV is moving more and more towards a type of medium where ads cannot be ignored, or at least cannot be fast-forwarded through). It will take them some time, but it will happen.
I just don't quite get why it's so important that when you pay for your web connection, some people are even paying for bandwidth, you should still have to pay for content. With your cable bill you don't get charged extra for ads (unless you order a pay-per-view with lots of commercials, and they do exist, believe it or not). But with the Internet it seems that people feel they are entitled to monetary compensation just for throwing some words and pictures up on a page. It just seems wrong to me. You should have to work for money. The Internet is not the "get rich quick" scheme that many have made it out to be. You have to work just as hard to earn money this way as any other. It takes more than just saying, "I have a right to earn money dammit!" to actually earn money. I hope at some point people realize that. But more than likely the government will intervene on the behalf of the big corps and tell us that we are being criminals because we aren't just bowing down and handing over our paychecks to any moron that's in league with an ad agency.
It just seems stupid. But what the hell do I know. I'm not in it for the money. So I guess that means I'm evil, evil, evil!
The group I work with will always have a free site. Granted, it isn't the most impressive thing in the world, but there are people out there like us that are more interested in the slashdot like community type sites with the time and ambition to keep it going.
Unless hosting costs and connection costs go through the roof, there will always be some free sites. A labor of love by a few people pooling resources can definitely afford to keep a site alive. And if it is really good you will eventually get donations (in other words, if you grow too big for your britches, someone will probably buy you a new pair, or something like that).
The concept that everything has to be commercialized now is just sick, and wrong. There will always be some people that believe in the concept of a "free" web site, information or whatever. And I'm one of those people. Not everything is based on how much money you can generate. Hosting isn't that much (it costs a little, but split five ways, as in Faulty Dreams' case it isn't bad), and I don't really see hosting costs increasing. They seem to still be going down.
While I agree with your rant (and have said basically the same thing myself many times) I would like to point out that HDTV has been available for a while (at least the hardware) and hasn't exactly been a major seller. Maybe the consumers aren't as stupid as we've always given them credit for?
The fact of the matter is that when it comes to TV, people are generally happy with what they've got. And I doubt that the big media companies can force people the buy HDTV. They may try to push digital only TV, and try to pull the plug on the "old" standard, but there are a lot of people that are not interested in replacing the five or six TVs they have now (yeah, I agree they need more life/less TV). Less people buying TVs=less viewers for the "new" standard=less money pouring into the content providers pockets=executives scratching their heads and saying, "Wow, maybe they actually figured out our little ploy."
Of course, five minutes after that scenario, the executives will say, "OK, then it's time to start our 'this is for your own good' campaign and get the government to force everyone to purchase HDTV." I pray the government isn't that screwed by then, but I wouldn't be overly suprised. It's already illegal to attempt fair-use, someday it will be illegal to not have the "government sactioned" TV that we should praise and worship at nightly.
Oh no, please do not repeat that part of the previous story.
The real question should be, why did these companies merge? I mean, yes, one provides a service whereas the other was primarily a distrobution provider, but together are they a lot stronger than they are alone?
I'm not sure all this consolidation of the market lately is a good thing. Granted, this is a lot smaller consolidation than the AOL/Time-Warner thing, but it is consolidation. Whatever happened to the idea that competition stimulates the economy and creates multiple cheap alternatives? It seems like the government and the business world are working together to create an economic down-slump by creating huge multi-national corporations that will charge such extreme rates for everything that no one will be able to afford it. Of course in their minds (the government officials) it probably translates to, "We will get lots of money up-front from the special interests, plus we will collect more in taxes later! WHOOHOO!"
As I said, I realize this isn't a major consolidation, but it does tend to point out a rather major trend. And I'm not sure that it's a healthy trend. The open market is supposed to create competition, not conglomerations.
But, in the end, I guess the big money people know best. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Because the other thread is already so full of trolls and spammers that it would not be re-visited by the people that would actually care about the story. Updates rarely get reviewed. And the previous story seemed so entirely made-up that it was really not worthy of a re-visit if you had read it the first time.
On the other hand, a new story will be viewed by anyone that is interested. Seems justified to me.
All of those arguments about "running out" of resources on Earth aside, what do you say to people like me that say "get off of this single planet"?
I know, everybody says it's such a remote possibility that anything could ever happen to destroy the Earth before we destroy ourselves, blah, blah, blah, but seriously. Why is it so difficult to just think in realistic terms what would happen if there were a natural disaster of some sort that wiped out the Earth? I would hate to think that all of our thousands/millions of years of development as a planet/species had led to one moment of death and that there was no lasting effect. Humans are the most intelligent creatures we currently are aware of, and I for one am extremely curious to know what is out there. And frankly, it isn't going to happen if people keep saying we need to just stay here, stick our collective heads in the sand and pretend that the rest of the Universe doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong, I tend to be cautious when it comes to new discovery. But if we were capable of a moon landing as long ago as it happened, I say that we should have made it somewhere else by now. Mars is the next logical step to me and many others. Why haven't we at least got a nice permanent residence on the moon if we can't get our asses to Mars? Why don't we do something, anything, to increase our experience in space? Instead, we just sit here twiddling our thumbs asking why we should bother. It's maddening to those of us that would like to see some sort of progress from space exploration.
Personally, I am well aware that the Earth isn't going to run out of resources, and those that try to scare people into space using that tactic are doing a great disservice to themselves and humanity. And perhaps my idea that we need to get out of here before something big happens to the Earth seems similar. But, to me at least, it seems far more realistic to prepare for something that is very possible at any given moment than to prepare for something that isn't likely in the immediate future.
And honestly, getting a few people somewhere other than the Earth seems like a really good idea to me. Instead of everyone trying to come up with reasons why we shouldn't go into space, why not a few people saying, "Why the hell shouldn't we?" There's a lot to be gained. We would gain a lot of knowledge from travels and explorations in space and on other planets and space bodies. We would have some sort of backup in the case of an "Earth Emergency". We would gain experience in travel to other worlds and learn how to adapt ourselves to other environments (or adapt other environments to ourselves, either way). There just seems like so much could be gained. What's to lose? A few dollars? Who cares. More money is spent on new weapons development each year than what it would cost to put together a solid Mars mission including humans. Why squabble over something that could potentially give us back a lot more than what we currently spend money on?
Maybe the government isn't interested. In which case, let the private sector go to town. Make it profitable. Trips for billionares or whatever you have to do. God, just somebody, please, please, for the love of all that matters, please get some people off of this rock!
Humanity progressed in so many directions for so long. Now we seem to be in a steady slow-down. Corporate interests and big-government is far more important that science, discovery, advancement, and other developmental ideas. I'm not saying to create advancement without reason. Question it all you want. But don't question it so long that you never do anything about it (as we have for the past few decades). Question it, make sure you can pull it off without hurting/destroying anything, make sure it doesn't cross any moral/ethical boundaries (while still ignoring the "god doesn't want us to" idiots), and then do it!
The question shouldn't be "why bother?" The question should be "Why the hell not?" What is everyone so afraid of?
As to the "We have messed up this planet bad enough" babblers, if you seriously believe that we are going to make a signifigant impact on the Universe in the next few centuries or even millineum, then you need to realize just how small we are. Make sure you stay clean, but don't be so obsessed with it that you lock yourself in a dark closet to avoid creating clutter in the Universe. And that's what humanity has done for the past couple of decades. It's time to change that.
Does it really surprise anyone that this went through? A deal like this is potentially way too profitable for any government agency to stand in the way (and by that I mean the profits that are poured directly into that agency's member's pockets). Not to mention the concept that with fewer media "outlets" it will be a lot easier to coordinate when there is a situation where the government wants to make sure that there is no media leakage (and if there would be just say, nudge, nudge, remember when we let you do this).
But the real story here is that the government lately is promoting bigger and bigger business entities. The reasoning probably goes along the lines of bigger business=bigger government. The bigger the businesses get, the more justified the government can feel when they say they need to create new laws and make themselves bigger. Bigger government means more power. God it's great to be an American! Next thing you know I'll be blocked from buying a guitar because I might "disrupt the flow of information" from the big media conglomerates.
The great thing here is that (if MS is not already involved in some way with this) Microsoft will bring this up left and right and say that everyone that bought Linux (carefully neglecting to mention VA and stock) should be seeking damages.
OK, enough of the conspiracy theory. It does however, really, really bother me that they chose to use Linux as an abreviation for VA (which is what most people use as an abbreviation for VA Linux). It really makes me wonder if there isn't an ulterior motive/motivator behind the scenes saying, "Hey, this would be some nice nasty press about Linux!" But, even if that isn't the case, it is something that I hope they have the decency to correct when the large number of slashdotters tell them (probably not so politely, but since when did law firms deserve to be addressed politely?) that Linux isn't actually a good abbreviation of VA. But if they insist that Linux is the proper abbreviation and get real belligerant about it, then I might think that my original conspiracy theory wasn't that far off the mark.
Thank you for the compliment on the site. The gang will be proud to hear of it. Oh yeah, and if you've ever had a cat sit above you a thwack you with their tale, then the idea of nine cat tails *shudder*. Never mind, some things are best left unsaid.
Yes, I know that. I was responding to the statement that there should be a total media silence. I disagree. The more information people get the better in my opinion.
It's like loading up a Ford Model T with the world's largest fishing sinker collection and then trying to take it out onto the Santa Monica Freeway.
Ouch. I had one of those days myself today. We had a plant-wide meeting and I had to sit at the "executive" table. Of course, the only people that wouldn't sit there and shut up through the entire meeting was the rest of the idiots sitting at that table. What a bunch of babies. They all wanted to talk about shit that they felt was waaaaaay more important than the stuff the meeting was about (you know, quality control, getting communications better, things like that). They had to talk about their goddamned boats, a RVs and four wheelers and shit.
I don't think a media silence would improve a situation like that. A media silence (at least in the case of a NASA driven thing) would create an information vacum that would create more a desire for information that would cause more pressure to open up. In my mind, if more information is readily available to the public, you are far less likely to have to deal with us pesky "public" people and more likely to be able to get on with doing your jobs because we are getting the information we desire.
In any event, I think cutting people off from things like this is never a good thing. If NASA wants to keep people interested in the space program, or even get them excited with it again, there is going to have to be some information dispersal. Telling people, "There's a thing up there." and 'cutting off' all coverage will not exactly get people excited about the possibilities.
But, that's just my opinion.
Re:Wow, open source taken to the next level.
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
Woah, I don't know if I agree with the Robert Jordan assesment. I couldn't even get through the first book in that series.
I love Margaret Weis's work, even her sci-fi isn't bad, and her colaborations are wonderful. I kind of dig the sci-fi-ish fantasy/horror type work by Dan Simmons (but that's not your standard fantasy stuff, and his Hyperion/Endymion books are the best of all time in my opinion). And probably more authors than I could remember that I read in my youth.
Definitely sounds like my ex-boss (I left that place for the sake of my sanity). And that girl definitely sounds like the women I was talking about too.
I've never been much of a school person myself either. But I've probably got as much overall knowledge, and way more practical (as in usuable) knowledge than most of the college going bookworm types. Of course, I'm just a regular bookworm type.
BTW, nice rant. Doesn't it feel good to vent?
Re:Most real musicians have gone underground-Falla
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
On the other hand, orchestras rarely have the big-time corporate support that pop-rock bands get.
And assuming that a member of an orchestra is as real as musicians get is kind of going overboard on generalizations. I've been in a few orchestras, and let me tell you, some of those people are nothing more than elitist scum. They know all the chords, they know all the notes, they play technically brilliant and know it. But they have absolutely no heart whatsoever. They don't pour their soul into their music. And to me, that is what makes a real musician.
Of course, this is a touchy subject to me so I'll leave it at that.
Here's an idea that they haven't mentioned. Check out this article and then think about the possibilities.
All they are able to do is detect a large gavitational fluctuation, right? So, maybe that large graviational fluctuation is really just a large mass of dark matter? Or perhaps an entire "small dark galaxy" that has somehow been captured in an orbit of a regular star?
I'm not really a scientist, and don't know if any of these possibilities are realistic. But I think at the very least it could be an interesting theory for the scientists to think about if it was possible. But, maybe I'm totally off-base. I just like thinking of things that are way out there. And this seemed like the perfect opportunity.
If you see a commercial for an album on TV before it comes out, especially during prime time, that is not a band of musicians.
I especially love the bands that try to portray themselves as the poor repressed youth that aren't understood by anyone, yet are obviously paid for all the way by corporate rock. (Godsmack and A Perfect Circle come to mind.)
Oh, I'm sorry, what was the subject again?
Re:Wow, open source taken to the next level.
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
In my opinion you should read Tolkien after you have read a number of other fantasy works so that you can appreciate the master at the time you read it. I read it after reading quite a large number of other fantasy books and found the difference between Tolkien and other authors to be extremely fascinating.
Of course, there are those that are stupid enough to think that since they read Tolkien after reading some author that obviously ripped him off that Tokien is a copy cat. To those people I say:
1. Engage brain.
2. Check original publishing dates.
3. Feel ashamed.
But, my point was that it is tough to truly appreciate Tolkien if you don't read some other fantasy work first, and it is really tough to appreciate other fantasy work if you don't read it before Tolkien.
Does her head bounce back and forth as she talks too? Sounds like a couple of women (and I use that term very loosely, insert loose joke here) I know too.
Not to be harsh, but the people that think they are going to get rich just because they have a "COMPUTER DEGREE" from some community college are precisely the people that aren't going to make any money. There are a lot of those 'degrees' that can be earned without learning anything more about computers than how to market speak computer jargon. I had a boss that was that way. Head of IT, yet he couldn't figure out the simplest of computer concepts without at least two of the help desk people there to tell him how to do it. But he had a DEGREE in computers, so he had to know what he was doing!
Slashdot Mirror
What aren't you understanding? Sure, people have a right to advertise. My point is that advertising is not guaranteed revenue. Unless you can find a way to make advertising that actually works, or do a pay-per-view situation, the people using the advertising to generate revenue really shouldn't be complaining. If they want advertising to work, I say they should put some effort into making it work.
Now, can you address my point that there are people out there like me that don't really see the twenty dollars a month it costs to host a not-so-popular site as the greatest sin of all time against their pocket books? And if it got more popular and I had to start paying more, split five ways a $200 (and I have seen $200 a month dedicated servers for rent) a month bill is not that extravagent. I realize that wouldn't cover a slashdot like site, but for people like me that seriously are just interested in low-traffic sites, why is it so evil to say, "Sure, I can pay for that out of my own pocket."
If people need/want to generate revenue, they should put effort into figuring out a way to actually get that revenue. That's my point.
I know, in the corporate mentallity nowadays it is evil to say that someone should work for money, but that is all that I'm trying to say. But, that's probably just my ego talking. Everybody that pays attention to me knows I'm a prick.
It always comes back to money doesn't it?
You probably have no interest in hearing this but our site is built for the group (a band) to display other things they are interested in. Our band is completely non-profit, and our hope is to generate just enough interest to have people occasionally ask us for more.
While I realize no one out there believes it is possible in this day and age to do something just for the love of doing it (I have a day job and other monetary income, this I do for love of music, writing and whatever else I feel like doing), this is exactly what Faulty Dreams is all about.
Now, having said that, I personally don't think you are interested in sincere discussion about people that are wanting to just get things "out there". You obviously don't understand the concept if all that it brings to mind is a desire to make more money.
Our group/band is not something that will have massive appeal. We knew that going into it. And that is the situation I was addressing. There are more people like me out there, whatever other words you try to push into my mouth. This isn't about money to me. Now, for those that do want to generate money, hey, like you I say go for it. But don't expect that people are going to go out of their way to hand you their wallet. You need to earn the money you generate (one of the reasons we aren't trying to earn money with our site). That means hard work, coming up with a way to draw in people and a way to make those people part with some of their hard earned cash.
And your correlation of web access to shoes doesn't quite seem appropriate. If you put something up without a positive way of generating revenue (as suggested, a pay-per-view arrangement), then you get what you get and there isn't much you can do about it. You can complain if you want, but the burden to come up with a way to earn money should be up to the people trying to earn the money, not the people wishing to view the content that person put up. If that makes me a whiny fuck, then so be it. I don't really see why people owe anyone unless they are told, "TO VIEW THIS SUBMIT YOUR CREDIT CARD FOR PAYMENT". That will probably ultimately be the way it goes for a lot of sites.
But the whole idea that you are owed a living just because you put up a web site is ridiculous. Of course, so is the idea that anyone would want to do something just for the joy of doing it. I guess I should know better.
Well, we have discussed it a bit (the group). Probably, since our web site is just an outlet for the group (and the group is really a band) we will probably use the small amount of money we generate from selling band memorabilia and (when we get the proper equipment) CDs and such.
Our web site is an addition to our band, and as such, we don't see it as a revenue generating thing. It's just something we do. And our band is extremely non-profit oriented. Any money we make at anything, shows, T-shirts sales, picture sales, goes right back into the band. And when we are earning more than we spend on the band, here's a kicker for ya, we drop prices. Granted, we don't sell a lot of stuff yet, but what we do sell we try to be fair about.
Our whole band is a labor of love. And the idea that we are going to try to "turn a profit" on any part of it seems silly to us. We're family people with day jobs, and if the web site becomes "too" popular, we will find other ways to fund it. We aren't going to resort of web advertising. That was a decision we made a long time ago.
That was part of the intended pun. Obviously the moderators disagree.
OK, something about your post just kind of got under my skin (not flammage, just a mild irritation).
Where, exactly, is the promise to anyone that creates a web site that they should be able to "make a return on their investment", especially a monetary return? I'm working with a group that has put up a site purely for the hope of getting our work out there. We don't want to have pop-ups, so we don't. We don't like banner ads, so we don't have them. Nowhere did we see, when we were setting up our web site, the guarantee that we would recieve any sort of compensation just for doing what we enjoy doing.
There seems to be this overwhelming mentality anymore that just by having a web presence you should be entitled to make money. It doesn't matter if your site sucks. It doesn't matter if you have absolutely no clue how to attract people. It doesn't matter if you have no revenue generation program of any sort. Just by being there, that should entitle you to make massive sums of money. I disagree with that mentality, and I know I'm not the only one.
The web started as a medium with relatively free information dispersal. And, in time, advertising agencies will come to terms with the fact that they have to be much more over-the-top, and in-your-face to make people see their ads on the web. If people aren't disgusted by it, then it may work. Here's an idea, do what they've done on TV and radio and make the ads entertaining. If there were any effort at all to make ads as entertaining as, say, the Bud character plays (with the frogs and lizards and feret) then maybe people wouldn't just ignore them. Just because you stick an ad on the page, that doesn't entitle you to any sort of monetary compensation. Do something to get people's attention in a way that doesn't just piss them off to no end.
Of course, having said all that I would say it is just a matter of time before the government cracks down on all this illegal software that blocks web ads. After all, we are destroying hard working ad companies if we ignore their ads. More and more it seems the most important thing in the world is to keep all the money we can moving towards the corporations and away from the people. Why corporations have so much more right to it than people in general I'm not quite sure. But I am sure that it's just a matter of time before it is law that advertising cannot be removed from web sites (just as TV is moving more and more towards a type of medium where ads cannot be ignored, or at least cannot be fast-forwarded through). It will take them some time, but it will happen.
I just don't quite get why it's so important that when you pay for your web connection, some people are even paying for bandwidth, you should still have to pay for content. With your cable bill you don't get charged extra for ads (unless you order a pay-per-view with lots of commercials, and they do exist, believe it or not). But with the Internet it seems that people feel they are entitled to monetary compensation just for throwing some words and pictures up on a page. It just seems wrong to me. You should have to work for money. The Internet is not the "get rich quick" scheme that many have made it out to be. You have to work just as hard to earn money this way as any other. It takes more than just saying, "I have a right to earn money dammit!" to actually earn money. I hope at some point people realize that. But more than likely the government will intervene on the behalf of the big corps and tell us that we are being criminals because we aren't just bowing down and handing over our paychecks to any moron that's in league with an ad agency.
It just seems stupid. But what the hell do I know. I'm not in it for the money. So I guess that means I'm evil, evil, evil!
The group I work with will always have a free site. Granted, it isn't the most impressive thing in the world, but there are people out there like us that are more interested in the slashdot like community type sites with the time and ambition to keep it going.
Unless hosting costs and connection costs go through the roof, there will always be some free sites. A labor of love by a few people pooling resources can definitely afford to keep a site alive. And if it is really good you will eventually get donations (in other words, if you grow too big for your britches, someone will probably buy you a new pair, or something like that).
The concept that everything has to be commercialized now is just sick, and wrong. There will always be some people that believe in the concept of a "free" web site, information or whatever. And I'm one of those people. Not everything is based on how much money you can generate. Hosting isn't that much (it costs a little, but split five ways, as in Faulty Dreams' case it isn't bad), and I don't really see hosting costs increasing. They seem to still be going down.
While I agree with your rant (and have said basically the same thing myself many times) I would like to point out that HDTV has been available for a while (at least the hardware) and hasn't exactly been a major seller. Maybe the consumers aren't as stupid as we've always given them credit for?
The fact of the matter is that when it comes to TV, people are generally happy with what they've got. And I doubt that the big media companies can force people the buy HDTV. They may try to push digital only TV, and try to pull the plug on the "old" standard, but there are a lot of people that are not interested in replacing the five or six TVs they have now (yeah, I agree they need more life/less TV). Less people buying TVs=less viewers for the "new" standard=less money pouring into the content providers pockets=executives scratching their heads and saying, "Wow, maybe they actually figured out our little ploy."
Of course, five minutes after that scenario, the executives will say, "OK, then it's time to start our 'this is for your own good' campaign and get the government to force everyone to purchase HDTV." I pray the government isn't that screwed by then, but I wouldn't be overly suprised. It's already illegal to attempt fair-use, someday it will be illegal to not have the "government sactioned" TV that we should praise and worship at nightly.
Oh, sorry, caffiene getting the best of me again.
Oh no, please do not repeat that part of the previous story.
The real question should be, why did these companies merge? I mean, yes, one provides a service whereas the other was primarily a distrobution provider, but together are they a lot stronger than they are alone?
I'm not sure all this consolidation of the market lately is a good thing. Granted, this is a lot smaller consolidation than the AOL/Time-Warner thing, but it is consolidation. Whatever happened to the idea that competition stimulates the economy and creates multiple cheap alternatives? It seems like the government and the business world are working together to create an economic down-slump by creating huge multi-national corporations that will charge such extreme rates for everything that no one will be able to afford it. Of course in their minds (the government officials) it probably translates to, "We will get lots of money up-front from the special interests, plus we will collect more in taxes later! WHOOHOO!"
As I said, I realize this isn't a major consolidation, but it does tend to point out a rather major trend. And I'm not sure that it's a healthy trend. The open market is supposed to create competition, not conglomerations.
But, in the end, I guess the big money people know best. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Because the other thread is already so full of trolls and spammers that it would not be re-visited by the people that would actually care about the story. Updates rarely get reviewed. And the previous story seemed so entirely made-up that it was really not worthy of a re-visit if you had read it the first time.
On the other hand, a new story will be viewed by anyone that is interested. Seems justified to me.
All of those arguments about "running out" of resources on Earth aside, what do you say to people like me that say "get off of this single planet"?
I know, everybody says it's such a remote possibility that anything could ever happen to destroy the Earth before we destroy ourselves, blah, blah, blah, but seriously. Why is it so difficult to just think in realistic terms what would happen if there were a natural disaster of some sort that wiped out the Earth? I would hate to think that all of our thousands/millions of years of development as a planet/species had led to one moment of death and that there was no lasting effect. Humans are the most intelligent creatures we currently are aware of, and I for one am extremely curious to know what is out there. And frankly, it isn't going to happen if people keep saying we need to just stay here, stick our collective heads in the sand and pretend that the rest of the Universe doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong, I tend to be cautious when it comes to new discovery. But if we were capable of a moon landing as long ago as it happened, I say that we should have made it somewhere else by now. Mars is the next logical step to me and many others. Why haven't we at least got a nice permanent residence on the moon if we can't get our asses to Mars? Why don't we do something, anything, to increase our experience in space? Instead, we just sit here twiddling our thumbs asking why we should bother. It's maddening to those of us that would like to see some sort of progress from space exploration.
Personally, I am well aware that the Earth isn't going to run out of resources, and those that try to scare people into space using that tactic are doing a great disservice to themselves and humanity. And perhaps my idea that we need to get out of here before something big happens to the Earth seems similar. But, to me at least, it seems far more realistic to prepare for something that is very possible at any given moment than to prepare for something that isn't likely in the immediate future.
And honestly, getting a few people somewhere other than the Earth seems like a really good idea to me. Instead of everyone trying to come up with reasons why we shouldn't go into space, why not a few people saying, "Why the hell shouldn't we?" There's a lot to be gained. We would gain a lot of knowledge from travels and explorations in space and on other planets and space bodies. We would have some sort of backup in the case of an "Earth Emergency". We would gain experience in travel to other worlds and learn how to adapt ourselves to other environments (or adapt other environments to ourselves, either way). There just seems like so much could be gained. What's to lose? A few dollars? Who cares. More money is spent on new weapons development each year than what it would cost to put together a solid Mars mission including humans. Why squabble over something that could potentially give us back a lot more than what we currently spend money on?
Maybe the government isn't interested. In which case, let the private sector go to town. Make it profitable. Trips for billionares or whatever you have to do. God, just somebody, please, please, for the love of all that matters, please get some people off of this rock!
Humanity progressed in so many directions for so long. Now we seem to be in a steady slow-down. Corporate interests and big-government is far more important that science, discovery, advancement, and other developmental ideas. I'm not saying to create advancement without reason. Question it all you want. But don't question it so long that you never do anything about it (as we have for the past few decades). Question it, make sure you can pull it off without hurting/destroying anything, make sure it doesn't cross any moral/ethical boundaries (while still ignoring the "god doesn't want us to" idiots), and then do it!
The question shouldn't be "why bother?" The question should be "Why the hell not?" What is everyone so afraid of?
As to the "We have messed up this planet bad enough" babblers, if you seriously believe that we are going to make a signifigant impact on the Universe in the next few centuries or even millineum, then you need to realize just how small we are. Make sure you stay clean, but don't be so obsessed with it that you lock yourself in a dark closet to avoid creating clutter in the Universe. And that's what humanity has done for the past couple of decades. It's time to change that.
Does it really surprise anyone that this went through? A deal like this is potentially way too profitable for any government agency to stand in the way (and by that I mean the profits that are poured directly into that agency's member's pockets). Not to mention the concept that with fewer media "outlets" it will be a lot easier to coordinate when there is a situation where the government wants to make sure that there is no media leakage (and if there would be just say, nudge, nudge, remember when we let you do this).
But the real story here is that the government lately is promoting bigger and bigger business entities. The reasoning probably goes along the lines of bigger business=bigger government. The bigger the businesses get, the more justified the government can feel when they say they need to create new laws and make themselves bigger. Bigger government means more power. God it's great to be an American! Next thing you know I'll be blocked from buying a guitar because I might "disrupt the flow of information" from the big media conglomerates.
The great thing here is that (if MS is not already involved in some way with this) Microsoft will bring this up left and right and say that everyone that bought Linux (carefully neglecting to mention VA and stock) should be seeking damages.
OK, enough of the conspiracy theory. It does however, really, really bother me that they chose to use Linux as an abreviation for VA (which is what most people use as an abbreviation for VA Linux). It really makes me wonder if there isn't an ulterior motive/motivator behind the scenes saying, "Hey, this would be some nice nasty press about Linux!" But, even if that isn't the case, it is something that I hope they have the decency to correct when the large number of slashdotters tell them (probably not so politely, but since when did law firms deserve to be addressed politely?) that Linux isn't actually a good abbreviation of VA. But if they insist that Linux is the proper abbreviation and get real belligerant about it, then I might think that my original conspiracy theory wasn't that far off the mark.
my speel gud. Gama god 2.
Me thinks it be time to shut down for the night.
Thank you for the compliment on the site. The gang will be proud to hear of it. Oh yeah, and if you've ever had a cat sit above you a thwack you with their tale, then the idea of nine cat tails *shudder*. Never mind, some things are best left unsaid.
Very well, which do you prefer, the wet noodle, or the cat of nine-tails?
Yes, I know that. I was responding to the statement that there should be a total media silence. I disagree. The more information people get the better in my opinion.
Ouch. I had one of those days myself today. We had a plant-wide meeting and I had to sit at the "executive" table. Of course, the only people that wouldn't sit there and shut up through the entire meeting was the rest of the idiots sitting at that table. What a bunch of babies. They all wanted to talk about shit that they felt was waaaaaay more important than the stuff the meeting was about (you know, quality control, getting communications better, things like that). They had to talk about their goddamned boats, a RVs and four wheelers and shit.
Oh, sorry, I guess ranting is contagious.;-)
I don't think a media silence would improve a situation like that. A media silence (at least in the case of a NASA driven thing) would create an information vacum that would create more a desire for information that would cause more pressure to open up. In my mind, if more information is readily available to the public, you are far less likely to have to deal with us pesky "public" people and more likely to be able to get on with doing your jobs because we are getting the information we desire.
In any event, I think cutting people off from things like this is never a good thing. If NASA wants to keep people interested in the space program, or even get them excited with it again, there is going to have to be some information dispersal. Telling people, "There's a thing up there." and 'cutting off' all coverage will not exactly get people excited about the possibilities.
But, that's just my opinion.
Woah, I don't know if I agree with the Robert Jordan assesment. I couldn't even get through the first book in that series.
I love Margaret Weis's work, even her sci-fi isn't bad, and her colaborations are wonderful. I kind of dig the sci-fi-ish fantasy/horror type work by Dan Simmons (but that's not your standard fantasy stuff, and his Hyperion/Endymion books are the best of all time in my opinion). And probably more authors than I could remember that I read in my youth.
Definitely sounds like my ex-boss (I left that place for the sake of my sanity). And that girl definitely sounds like the women I was talking about too.
I've never been much of a school person myself either. But I've probably got as much overall knowledge, and way more practical (as in usuable) knowledge than most of the college going bookworm types. Of course, I'm just a regular bookworm type.
BTW, nice rant. Doesn't it feel good to vent?
On the other hand, orchestras rarely have the big-time corporate support that pop-rock bands get.
And assuming that a member of an orchestra is as real as musicians get is kind of going overboard on generalizations. I've been in a few orchestras, and let me tell you, some of those people are nothing more than elitist scum. They know all the chords, they know all the notes, they play technically brilliant and know it. But they have absolutely no heart whatsoever. They don't pour their soul into their music. And to me, that is what makes a real musician.
Of course, this is a touchy subject to me so I'll leave it at that.
Here's an idea that they haven't mentioned. Check out this article and then think about the possibilities.
All they are able to do is detect a large gavitational fluctuation, right? So, maybe that large graviational fluctuation is really just a large mass of dark matter? Or perhaps an entire "small dark galaxy" that has somehow been captured in an orbit of a regular star?
I'm not really a scientist, and don't know if any of these possibilities are realistic. But I think at the very least it could be an interesting theory for the scientists to think about if it was possible. But, maybe I'm totally off-base. I just like thinking of things that are way out there. And this seemed like the perfect opportunity.
Most real musicians have gone underground.
If you see a commercial for an album on TV before it comes out, especially during prime time, that is not a band of musicians.
I especially love the bands that try to portray themselves as the poor repressed youth that aren't understood by anyone, yet are obviously paid for all the way by corporate rock. (Godsmack and A Perfect Circle come to mind.)
Oh, I'm sorry, what was the subject again?
In my opinion you should read Tolkien after you have read a number of other fantasy works so that you can appreciate the master at the time you read it. I read it after reading quite a large number of other fantasy books and found the difference between Tolkien and other authors to be extremely fascinating.
Of course, there are those that are stupid enough to think that since they read Tolkien after reading some author that obviously ripped him off that Tokien is a copy cat. To those people I say:
1. Engage brain.
2. Check original publishing dates.
3. Feel ashamed.
But, my point was that it is tough to truly appreciate Tolkien if you don't read some other fantasy work first, and it is really tough to appreciate other fantasy work if you don't read it before Tolkien.
Does her head bounce back and forth as she talks too? Sounds like a couple of women (and I use that term very loosely, insert loose joke here) I know too.
Not to be harsh, but the people that think they are going to get rich just because they have a "COMPUTER DEGREE" from some community college are precisely the people that aren't going to make any money. There are a lot of those 'degrees' that can be earned without learning anything more about computers than how to market speak computer jargon. I had a boss that was that way. Head of IT, yet he couldn't figure out the simplest of computer concepts without at least two of the help desk people there to tell him how to do it. But he had a DEGREE in computers, so he had to know what he was doing!