Try being in a resturant during a power-outage or the ordering computer is down, and there's no calculator in the building. [...] As my Dad keeps telling me, the fine art of making change without a computer telling what the change is disappeared a long time ago.
That's the effect of technological convenience. We take our knowledge and put it into a machine, so we don't have to worry about it. People are inconsistant and they forget, and those tend to be liabilities in many cases.
There is only one thing the next generation has going for it; Capacity. In everything else, DVD has a distinct advantage. It's cheaper, it's entrenched and it's easier to work with.
I'm sure the same thing was said about DVDs, too. I know at least I looked at DVDs when they first came out out and went, "Meh."
yes, because at the end of the day the only thing that will make Sony/MS/whoever change is if people stop buying their products.
Where have you been? This whole DRM crap is because they believe that people who aren't buying their products are instead infringing. They can't conclusively prove it, but it hasn't stopped them from implementing ever more intrusive and potentially destructive means of protection.
A silent boycott won't be any different. It'll just give them more ammunition...
The next logical step being to not waste any time on Wikipedia and just go to some reliable sources.
A little difficult when you may not even be aware of what sources are available, or even reliable, don't you think?
Google could help you find sources, sure, but what if you just want a quick overview of the topic? Then, if you're interested in learning more, dive into the more detailed sources...
I don't normally disagree with what Tycho says (if I ever bother to read what he says at all), but I have to say, he's flat-out, fucking wrong about this; almost to the point of looking like a fool, despite the use of "fancy words" that he only seems to use when he needs to project an aura of elite intellectualism. I'm not saying he's not a smart guy, but... wow...
I wasn't aware they thought they were making a real encyclopedia for big people at the time...
That's half the damn problem right there. Sadly, he's not the only one to either look down and spit upon people who "think" they're doing something great, or to fail in taking Wikipedia seriously, either out of ignorance (Brian Chase) or... whatever... I don't know.
It's been said, but Wikipedia may not be "humanity's Greatest Working", but it is a "grand experiment."
What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist...
Except, you know, when it can be cross-referenced with other sources. Some people just don't seem willing to do that kind of work, though.
To be honest, this just sounds like so much sour grapes...
The article goes on to explain that Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-Christian sentiments around to people interested in the class, and was subsequently beaten for his troubles.
I thought stonings, persecution, and house arrests were the in thing...
"The key point to remember is that copyright infringement is a huge issue for the recording industry as a whole and that's where we came from originally," [Thomas Hesse] said.
Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still wrong. It shouldn't have taken them this long to figure that out. Although, if I may say, they already knew this. And, as others have said, they're only sorry they got caught.
In the previous story, they said this was done to prevent "illegal copying". Interesting... How is that they know that the copy a person is making is for themselves, or for someone else? They don't, which reduces their argument to nothing more than the idea that any copying is illegal, and they've obviously acted on that.
This isn't even a case of "too little, too late." It should've never happened in the first place...
Why do the keep emphasizing, "making illegal copies" when it is not illegal?
Isn't it obvious? They can't tell the difference between legal and illegal activities.
1) They literally have no way of knowing if you're making a backup copy, making a copy for your friend, or your friend is making a copy of your CD for himself. How can they can say this sort of crap is meant to stop "illegal copies", when they have no fucking clue if the copy being made is actually illegal?
2) Their actions in attempting to prevent copying (period) have shown that they don't have even a tenuous grasp on what is legal or illegal.
In my mind, Sony BMG has lost all credibility when speaking on legality.
... you *can* usually read the lyrics when you actually buy the CD, since most of the time it has a lyrics booklet included.
Keyword here being "usually". I have a handful of CDs without any included lyrics whatsoever. I even have at least one (probably more) where the included lyrics do not match the lyrics that are in the actual song. That's a real "WTF?!" moment...
Someone has to compensate for these blunders and we all know it's not going to be the industry itself.
The more popular songs shold get cheaper and the less popular more expensive.
Don't get me wrong; this isn't a bad idea, and it makes a certain amount of sense, but there's a big problem in my opinion.
Once a song is downloaded enough to drop in price, it automatically becomes more attractive to others seeking to spend as little money as possible in search of music. They purchase the song and it's price drops some more, in turn attracting more people looking for cheap, "hopefully" good music. As more and more people gravitate toward these songs, checking them out because of their price, the price gets lower and lower, regarldess of their actual quality, while good yet obscure songs are doomed to obsurity because of their price.
Remember the industry we're talking about here: Britney Spears isn't popular because she makes good music.
On the other hand, there's something about her songs being $.25 each that makes me think, "Yeah, that's about right..."
The university's response may have been 100% legal, but I would not call it 100% correct. I find their response to be as immature and overbearing as the issue they say they're addressing.
I don't know where you get this idea that not shrugging something off, or not punishing an individual for breaches of civility is itself immature. I think you have a very, very twisted and self-serving definition of "immature".
What would you have the university do; nothing? That'd be a great world, wouldn't it? A bunch of immature folks running around shouting obscenities about anything and everything, and everyone would be too afraid to put up a defense for fear of being labelled "immature" themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to pass this one off on the folks over at the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum: Nemesis: BS or what?
This theory has been in the BS category for quite a while. Leave it to Slashdot, though...
Regardless, the DVD format is far from dead.
Duh?
A silent boycott won't be any different. It'll just give them more ammunition...
Wtf?! I feel sorry for the kids who have to learn about magnetism from these two.
I'm going to go wash out my eyes with chlorine now...
Google could help you find sources, sure, but what if you just want a quick overview of the topic? Then, if you're interested in learning more, dive into the more detailed sources...
That's half the damn problem right there. Sadly, he's not the only one to either look down and spit upon people who "think" they're doing something great, or to fail in taking Wikipedia seriously, either out of ignorance (Brian Chase) or... whatever... I don't know.
It's been said, but Wikipedia may not be "humanity's Greatest Working", but it is a "grand experiment."
Except, you know, when it can be cross-referenced with other sources. Some people just don't seem willing to do that kind of work, though.
To be honest, this just sounds like so much sour grapes...
Ok, so... at what point did people stop reading the summaries, too?
In the previous story, they said this was done to prevent "illegal copying". Interesting... How is that they know that the copy a person is making is for themselves, or for someone else? They don't, which reduces their argument to nothing more than the idea that any copying is illegal, and they've obviously acted on that.
This isn't even a case of "too little, too late." It should've never happened in the first place...
And here I thought it was our precious bodily fluids they were trying to steal...
1) They literally have no way of knowing if you're making a backup copy, making a copy for your friend, or your friend is making a copy of your CD for himself. How can they can say this sort of crap is meant to stop "illegal copies", when they have no fucking clue if the copy being made is actually illegal?
2) Their actions in attempting to prevent copying (period) have shown that they don't have even a tenuous grasp on what is legal or illegal.
In my mind, Sony BMG has lost all credibility when speaking on legality.
Someone has to compensate for these blunders and we all know it's not going to be the industry itself.
Don't get me wrong; this isn't a bad idea, and it makes a certain amount of sense, but there's a big problem in my opinion.
Once a song is downloaded enough to drop in price, it automatically becomes more attractive to others seeking to spend as little money as possible in search of music. They purchase the song and it's price drops some more, in turn attracting more people looking for cheap, "hopefully" good music. As more and more people gravitate toward these songs, checking them out because of their price, the price gets lower and lower, regarldess of their actual quality, while good yet obscure songs are doomed to obsurity because of their price.
Remember the industry we're talking about here: Britney Spears isn't popular because she makes good music.
On the other hand, there's something about her songs being $.25 each that makes me think, "Yeah, that's about right..."
I don't know where you get this idea that not shrugging something off, or not punishing an individual for breaches of civility is itself immature. I think you have a very, very twisted and self-serving definition of "immature".
What would you have the university do; nothing? That'd be a great world, wouldn't it? A bunch of immature folks running around shouting obscenities about anything and everything, and everyone would be too afraid to put up a defense for fear of being labelled "immature" themselves.
Also...
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978
"wut R u ^ 2 OMGLOLz!"