confused, lost, and unhappy. Kind of a blank stare, a frown, and a general depression. You could just tell they were very uncomfortable. The two that I'm thinking of both said that they had tried to stop taking it, but had been on it for a number of years and the effect it had on them had become "normal". Both were in the 18-24 demographic when I knew them.
There is (now third hand) anecdotal evidence of young children becoming suicidal after ceasing treatment. And yes, this is a scare tactic as blatant as thetruth.com commercials.
As much as I enjoy a good chemical brain bath from time to time, I draw the line at giving mind-altering drugs to pre-adolescents ESPECIALLY with the expressed desire of getting them to sit down and shut up. --
The copyright coalition was formed during the drafting of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, in which Congress updated copyright laws to make them more relevant to digital media.
shouldn't that read...
...in which Congress updated copyright laws to make them totally irrelevant to digital media. (i.e. treating digital recordings like physical recordings) --
For the most part, Ritalin is prescibed for the good of the parents and teachers, not the child.
and those are parents that both work, and teachers dealing with balooning class sizes. The drugs are yet another shortcut to the American Dream. For me, it's not as much a question of how my friends that use(d) Ritalin acted when they were on it, but how they acted when they tried to stop.
--
I still think Southpark had the best answer....
on
Video Games and ADD
·
· Score: 2
....it came from a doctor in Alaska(?)
Basically you have a bunch of kids sitting in desks flipping out. The doctor walks in, smacks the first kid upside the head and yells "Sit down, shut up, and study!!"
Same thing is done to the next kid. The third kid is already quiet (in shock of someone telling him what to do) and reading.
Discipline works a lot better drugs. Giving kids a free head and *expecting* them to want and sit quiet and learn is asking for anarchy. If you love your child enough to give them drugs, do you love them enough to smack 'em upside the head? --
I am a google affiliate. I just got this letter the other day from google. Time to grow up indeed...
Dear Google Affiliate,
Beginning September 1, 2000, Google will change the reimbursement
policy for our affiliate program. We will be offering one cent
instead of three cents for each search from your site to us. This
letter outlines the reasons for this change as well as some
enhancements we will be adding to the program.
Cutting that cost by 2/3 just might help a bit. I'm not complaining, just saying. And today I got laid off from work, so I guess the real world is calling to folks all over.:-)
--
Re:Yup, old media is becoming useless =)
on
The New Mediascape
·
· Score: 2
The one exception is the daily newspaper, as there isn't as much info about local news online
(like most of the other posters, I rarely watch TV news, it's too slow and linear for my tastes, and commercials are just damn annoying (additional sidelight, NBC just crossed the average threshhold of 15 minutes of commercials per hour, but at least profits are up))
I think the local news weakness of the Net will disappear as the overall penetration of Internet access increases. With only 10% of the population online, you might have enough traffic to make it worthwhile for a national news source, but the crowd disentegrates on the local level. With 50%+ penetration, it becomes viable to do more local content, and go after local advertising money.
And Jon had a good point (when he recused his own opinions in parentheses "The kids I encounter online devour enormous amounts of information on a daily basis. That makes sweeping descriptions of their information habits suspect") about the type of "news" that the younger crowd enjoys. We are information junkies, but the type of stuff that interests us is usually outside the boundaries of conventional media. It will interesting to see what happens when this type of media dissemination has a couple generations to evolve. --
Not making a profit is not something that the "revolution" is about (although that is a part of it). To me, it's about control of media, music being in the spotlight now, and creating with less centralized control and protection schemes. The copyright and IP stuff is about who owns and controls our culture, and can make bits of it disappear forever if they want.
it's not really the same as shareware, since that refers to software. This is where you get to the somewhat fuzzy tools vs art distinction for digital media. But even given that, I seem to keep seeing new versions of Winzip, Paint Shop Pro, xftp, game demos, etc., so the concept of shareware is very much alive and well, although the free software meme has recently blown it away from the spotlight.
Pretending there's no problem won't work, because the people on the other side are busy making laws so their problems become our problems. --
No messy encryption, tracking, IDs, whatever. Just be honest and fair. Sheesh.
sorry, but that won't ever work. You have to have the power of enforcement or rights will be abused. Personally I think it's very simple. Only people with the copyright may profit from protected materials (or licence to the copyrgiht). Others may traffic in those materials, but only at a net loss.
mp3.com wasn't about a revolution, but a domain squatter. I'm not sure how you think this legitimizes the SDMI, or how this particular event would convince consumers to adopt it.
When I first visited Fairtunes (and submitted it a week or two back), their owners had posted a message on the Hole forum asking people if they thought it was a good idea...
hmm, can't find the thread..
Anyway, most of the teeny-boppers (and least that's what I hope they were) were scared about a scam, and arguing that they could just send the cash stright to the band if they wanted. The webmaster would offer a P.O. Box and poo-poo any other services. People are a bit worried about the new middleman, which is easy to understand. But they haven't grasped the usefulness of such a service.
Some type of media player plugin is almost essestial, IMHO, but the concept is here for a while. Good luck. Credibility is key.
sorry if that sounded a bit radical, but my point is that the concept of IP can be easily tainted by an unchecked profit motive, especially in a society where everyone can stand up to their leaders and ask for legislation. When the beneficiaries (sp) of the IP protection system lobby to extend their rights to fatten the bottom line, they do so by removing the natural rights of citizens. If the system isn't "tweaked" to check those abuses, it can easily become a negative force for both the market and society. The growing software patent issue is a great example of this. The music industry is another. --
They have found that its more profitable to take away peoples choices, than to produce good products.
IHMO, where capitalism fails (in the good society/market sense) is when you start getting to intellectual property. With a product that can be reproduced indefintitely, it becomes more important fiscally to restrict access than make a good product. Removing any type of competition is also important, since that might drive down the percieved value of your product. Then you just have to squeeze, baby! --
But then again, I guess studying why so many people are unhappy because they didn't get that big research grant would be counter-productive, no?
It would seem to me that the boost Free Software has gotten from the academic sector would also dry up, or would never have existed given this model of academic research. --
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see where the difference is, are you saying:
we should be able to transfer music digitally to our friends over icq
Yes, or any other form of digital sharing.
but not be able to copy tapes and give them to our friends in person?
No, you should be able to do so if you wish.
--
confused, lost, and unhappy. Kind of a blank stare, a frown, and a general depression. You could just tell they were very uncomfortable. The two that I'm thinking of both said that they had tried to stop taking it, but had been on it for a number of years and the effect it had on them had become "normal". Both were in the 18-24 demographic when I knew them.
There is (now third hand) anecdotal evidence of young children becoming suicidal after ceasing treatment. And yes, this is a scare tactic as blatant as thetruth.com commercials.
As much as I enjoy a good chemical brain bath from time to time, I draw the line at giving mind-altering drugs to pre-adolescents ESPECIALLY with the expressed desire of getting them to sit down and shut up.
--
The copyright coalition was formed during the drafting of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, in which Congress updated copyright laws to make them more relevant to digital media.
shouldn't that read...
...in which Congress updated copyright laws to make them totally irrelevant to digital media. (i.e. treating digital recordings like physical recordings)
--
For the most part, Ritalin is prescibed for the good of the parents and teachers, not the child.
and those are parents that both work, and teachers dealing with balooning class sizes. The drugs are yet another shortcut to the American Dream. For me, it's not as much a question of how my friends that use(d) Ritalin acted when they were on it, but how they acted when they tried to stop.
--
....it came from a doctor in Alaska(?)
Basically you have a bunch of kids sitting in desks flipping out. The doctor walks in, smacks the first kid upside the head and yells "Sit down, shut up, and study!!"
Same thing is done to the next kid. The third kid is already quiet (in shock of someone telling him what to do) and reading.
Discipline works a lot better drugs. Giving kids a free head and *expecting* them to want and sit quiet and learn is asking for anarchy. If you love your child enough to give them drugs, do you love them enough to smack 'em upside the head?
--
Cutting that cost by 2/3 just might help a bit. I'm not complaining, just saying. And today I got laid off from work, so I guess the real world is calling to folks all over.
--
The one exception is the daily newspaper, as there isn't as much info about local news online
(like most of the other posters, I rarely watch TV news, it's too slow and linear for my tastes, and commercials are just damn annoying (additional sidelight, NBC just crossed the average threshhold of 15 minutes of commercials per hour, but at least profits are up))
I think the local news weakness of the Net will disappear as the overall penetration of Internet access increases. With only 10% of the population online, you might have enough traffic to make it worthwhile for a national news source, but the crowd disentegrates on the local level. With 50%+ penetration, it becomes viable to do more local content, and go after local advertising money.
And Jon had a good point (when he recused his own opinions in parentheses "The kids I encounter online devour enormous amounts of information on a daily basis. That makes sweeping descriptions of their information habits suspect") about the type of "news" that the younger crowd enjoys. We are information junkies, but the type of stuff that interests us is usually outside the boundaries of conventional media. It will interesting to see what happens when this type of media dissemination has a couple generations to evolve.
--
no kiddin', that was some pretty good tv.
Now they just need to lose those commentators, and go get Madden. He wouldn't know the difference.
--
Not making a profit is not something that the "revolution" is about (although that is a part of it). To me, it's about control of media, music being in the spotlight now, and creating with less centralized control and protection schemes. The copyright and IP stuff is about who owns and controls our culture, and can make bits of it disappear forever if they want.
--
it's not really the same as shareware, since that refers to software. This is where you get to the somewhat fuzzy tools vs art distinction for digital media. But even given that, I seem to keep seeing new versions of Winzip, Paint Shop Pro, xftp, game demos, etc., so the concept of shareware is very much alive and well, although the free software meme has recently blown it away from the spotlight.
Pretending there's no problem won't work, because the people on the other side are busy making laws so their problems become our problems.
--
yup.
the guy just bought a good domain, he is not in it for the revolution, just the pay-off.
--
No messy encryption, tracking, IDs, whatever. Just be honest and fair. Sheesh.
sorry, but that won't ever work. You have to have the power of enforcement or rights will be abused. Personally I think it's very simple. Only people with the copyright may profit from protected materials (or licence to the copyrgiht). Others may traffic in those materials, but only at a net loss.
--
mp3.com wasn't about a revolution, but a domain squatter. I'm not sure how you think this legitimizes the SDMI, or how this particular event would convince consumers to adopt it.
--
When I first visited Fairtunes (and submitted it a week or two back), their owners had posted a message on the Hole forum asking people if they thought it was a good idea...
hmm, can't find the thread..
Anyway, most of the teeny-boppers (and least that's what I hope they were) were scared about a scam, and arguing that they could just send the cash stright to the band if they wanted. The webmaster would offer a P.O. Box and poo-poo any other services. People are a bit worried about the new middleman, which is easy to understand. But they haven't grasped the usefulness of such a service.
Some type of media player plugin is almost essestial, IMHO, but the concept is here for a while. Good luck. Credibility is key.
--
Teen Pirate Radio is hilarious. That's some good shit, man.
Which only provides more ammo for my theory...Canadians are funny. (which is why we keep them around)
--
Just to add a bit to this. One of the few artists who has spoken out against Napster, is not doing so as an artist, but as a label owner.
--
--
sorry if that sounded a bit radical, but my point is that the concept of IP can be easily tainted by an unchecked profit motive, especially in a society where everyone can stand up to their leaders and ask for legislation. When the beneficiaries (sp) of the IP protection system lobby to extend their rights to fatten the bottom line, they do so by removing the natural rights of citizens. If the system isn't "tweaked" to check those abuses, it can easily become a negative force for both the market and society. The growing software patent issue is a great example of this. The music industry is another.
--
still feelin' good, eh Phil?
Frankly, it's dull. It's boring. It's the same crap every week.
yea, I get sick of the Katz bashing too. (unless I'm doing it, of course)
--
Also, corporations pay taxes too.
Not as much as they used to.
--
They have found that its more profitable to take away peoples choices, than to produce good products.
IHMO, where capitalism fails (in the good society/market sense) is when you start getting to intellectual property. With a product that can be reproduced indefintitely, it becomes more important fiscally to restrict access than make a good product. Removing any type of competition is also important, since that might drive down the percieved value of your product. Then you just have to squeeze, baby!
--
but this leads down the road of...
profitable research = good.
non-profitable research = bad.
i.e. social research = bad.
technical research = good.
But then again, I guess studying why so many people are unhappy because they didn't get that big research grant would be counter-productive, no?
It would seem to me that the boost Free Software has gotten from the academic sector would also dry up, or would never have existed given this model of academic research.
--
yea, but I have it on official word that they are evil, but they have lots of market potential, so they aren't. hmmm, maybe I haven't heard of China.
--
exactly, and this is why corporatism is like the the AIDS virus.
It destroys the will to fight in exchange for cheap sex.
--
yea, I'm feelin' good too, Phil Linngood.
'twas a good try though. You got food.
--