We are said to be crazy lunatics who, given the chance, might decide to shoot up our school because of the games we play.
We are? As far as I can tell, the media has taken to media and entertainment pretty well. I even saw CNN report on Doom 3 at E3, showing everything. Kill Bill has been well-liked.
I see no gamer-disdain among the majority of media outlets. What's the problem? Most everyone plays games these days, even some women (The Sims).
Again, Slashdot, in a tact of classic propoganda, latches onto a few examples. A 12 year old girl! A 66 year old man!
You do know they just sent out notices to a whole bunch of people they saw sharing illegally, right? Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?
Get over yourselves...they're within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works. I don't get why Slashdot advocates the piracy of music while in general decrying, say, software piracy. Actually, I do--one is just more convenient than the other, so they're used to it to the point where it's been justified in their minds so that they don't feel guilty. I think that explains the passionately reactive nature of a lot of people's opinions on the matter--it's all self-justification to avoid guilt.
Your entire post was a justification for the horrible resource issues of the software. People are just supposed to ignore it because they happen to use older computers in some instances? What do you think happens when they try to use OpenOffice on those old machines?
In every single LOTR article, someone makes the "I hear there are books out that contain all the spoilers!" joke as if it's funny, original, and clever. And every time, people mod them up!
Everyone--this joke is old and been done countless times before. It's like copying and pasting a +5 post from before and sticking it here just to trick you.
I love the hypocrisy of all the Slashdotters crying foul over some moron trying to change the way people talk in this instance.
Yet yesterday on Slashdot, another "hacker" versus "cracker" article was posted, and everyone very carefully detailed the artificially created differences between the two. After all, they didn't want to be "labelled."
If you read the article, nothing was "banned" at all.
Someone complained to the board, and they are required to issue a statement. They sent a generic letter out to companies who had registered with the county.
The only people complaining are a very select few elitist computer users. In other words, the entire rest of the world uses the word "hacker" to describe a certain thing, and a tiny, core group of elitists thinks everyone else is wrong just because they've decided to go against the grain for whatever reason. As if it matters what word people use--"cracker" or "hacker."
It's something only a computer geek would get hung up on, and it amuses me to no end.
Re:I've got an idea....
on
DVD-Rs go 8x
·
· Score: 1
Because we're fixing everything at the same time.
Just because people are working on your "idea" doesn't mean we halt all technological progress on speed as well. Let's improve everything.
Firmware upgrades
on
DVD-Rs go 8x
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Not only have they been announced (I've heard dates as early as April 2004), but some burners apparently will only require a firmware upgrade to burn them correctly.
I guess if it's reading DVD9s with its laser, it can burn them too...it just needs to know how.
To truly predict the success of popular music, you'd have to predict and simulate society. You can't do that.
Would this software have been able to predict the advent of new wave in the 80s? What about the shift to grunge in the 90s? Or the rise of rap and dance music?
Things change, and there are reactive cycles in pop culture that can't be predicted.
For that algorithm to be accurate, you'd have to take groupthink into account.
I've said perfectly valid things before and had them modded down, and as a result people saw it as a negative comment and didn't mod it back up. The negative mod it already had made people perceive it negatively whether they realized it or not as they read it. I've even written obvious sarcastic jokes that were modded as trolls and therefore viewed as trolls from then on. If that first mod on it had been "Funny," it would have been the other way around.
It's interesting how a single word of "Troll," "Funny," "Flamebait," or whatever can affect how everyone else reads into the tone of your post. Nobody is objective but are instead victims of groupthink, which is why the moderation system sometimes appears broken.
There are a lot of very, very stupid moderators who visit Slashdot, I'm sorry to say. Instead of replying in disagreement, they just mod you down.
You talk with *astericks* a *lot* and try to drive the point that people knows OSS is imperfect...do you even visit Slashdot?
This place is nothing but a haven for anti-Microsoft bias. It's not pro-Linux.
Linux zealots are only a small minority of the community.
Yet they are the most vocal.
If you think they represent the entire community then you're wrong, just like so many people out there.
Let's face it, Linux and its community of developers will never be accepted professionally beause of their unprofessional attitudes. This extends to the ugly GUIs to the bizarre, "cute," in-joke acronym project names, to the anti-Microsoft hatred that drives everything.
BSD is the real professional, secure community around here. Linux feels like it's fueled by Microsoft hatred.
Uhm no. You're wrong. If this is MS the world would just try to justify by saying things "it's the administrator's fault" and "security depends on the user". Previous articles have proven time after time that most people try to justify MS's security flaws rather than flame them down.
What Slashdot are you reading? Most people would write "+5 Funny" trolls and "I told you so" heresy. Anybody pointing out the obvious--that the flaws were patched already a month before, that it's a result of users running the attachment, whatever else--gets modded down, because this site is not pro-Linux but anti-Microsoft.
On the other hand, when there's an article about a security bug in Linux, people will massively mod Linux down for being insecure and insult the entire community for being zealots.
Not what's going on here. People, as usual when this sort of thing happens, are making excuses and trying to point out silver linings. I wish more people possessed the ability to look at themselves.
You summed up all the posts I've read so far in this article. Nice job.
"Wow, Debian is so great because they're openly saying that the compromise happened! I'm so proud of Debian for its honesty, as other companies wouldn't have done the same. Wait, we were discussing the compromise itself? No, I don't want to think about it..."
You say "everyone gets compromised once in a while." Is that really your views when a Linux server gets compromised? I hate to say it, but Microsoft's haven't been compromised, and they're the bigger target.
Everyone here knows if windowsupdate.microsoft.com had been compromised, people would be droning on about how it's some sort of illustration of Microsoft's security. All the "+5 Funny" trolls would be out in full force, and everyone would try to act like some sort of security expert.
Here, we have another OSS break-in (remember GNU?), and people can only offer excuses and justifications. It's a double standard I can't not notice. Sorry to spoil it, but there is nothing wrong with pointing out that this has yet to happen to Microsoft's server. And you know people try harder against them!
Security to you apparently means "everyone gets compromised once in a while." Wow. If that's the security mentality going around in the Linux community, expect more compromises as Linux grows more popular, and expect more excuses as people try desperately to avoid the "haha, told you so" laughs from people who have pointed out all along that nothing is 100% secure, and that all operating systems--especially Linux--have flaws, holes, buffer overflows, and so forth.
This mantra is starting to disturb me. In my opinion any law that allows corporations to sue perfectly normal teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars is wrong and needs to be changed.
Even if those "perfectly normal" teenagers were illegaly distributing copyrighted works knowing full well it is illegal? I still do not understand the leniency around here with regards to just grabbing music without paying for it. I have yet to read a single valid argument for it.
I think it's good to protect ownership of creative content but protecting the right of a company to make a profit by distributing music made by someone else has little to do with any issue of creativity or authorship.
It has to do with ownership. Those companies own the recordings to distribute. That's how they make their money. You seem to be implying it's a-okay to just take copies and not pay for it, for no reason. Would you say the same for warez? How about movies?
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
Actually, that point is extremely weak. For one, most active musicians do not make that much more money touring live than they do from album sales. Second, you are still hurting the artist--that is still money you are not giving them. Third, if an album doesn't sell well and makes no profit for the label, what do you think happens to that artist? Now you get it.
Record companies made their money by distributing music to consumers more cheaply than any alternative means. The cost of buying a CD is factors of magnitude less than the cost of hiring your favorite band.
This argument has been shot down countless times. The cost of a CD includes the marketing, distribution, recording costs, and tons of other expenses. It's not like the label is supposed to just take the expenses for getting those sales in the first place. They make it up in the sales, as does the band.
In an age where the distribution of recorded music was difficult this made sense. It no longer makes sense. Most of the cost of recorded music goes to promotion and distribution, but the internet has made promotion and distribution cheap and easy.
Then why is it not working? The only instance I've seen is iTunes, and even that is dwindling out. The answer is--free piracy. Advocated by places like Slashdot for some inexplicable reason. Honestly, nobody has ever actually given a morally or legally sound reason. It's always half-baked "culture movement" lectures or other similar excuses.
It's time for a new business model.
People love to say that. "It's time for a new business model. That means I get to take their copyrighted works!"
Perhaps less music will be recorded if there isn't a profit to be made anymore, but maybe more people will be involved in the creative process.
How could more people be involved if less people are recording?
Of course. Minors can commit crimes under the law. This was illegal distribution of copyrighted works. Disagree with the actions of the RIAA, but it's still within their legal right.
The girl was illegally sharing copyrighted materials. She was one of many who have been contacted.
Slashdot, in a typical tactic of propoganda latches onto one example and drives it home. A 12 year old! A 15 year old!
Meanwhile, no matter how you shake it, they're still doing the legal thing--protecting their copyrighted works! Even Jamie of Slashdot knows what that is about--threatening the daily Slashdot summary site because they are "illegal."
Slashdot Mirror
We are said to be crazy lunatics who, given the chance, might decide to shoot up our school because of the games we play.
We are? As far as I can tell, the media has taken to media and entertainment pretty well. I even saw CNN report on Doom 3 at E3, showing everything. Kill Bill has been well-liked.
I see no gamer-disdain among the majority of media outlets. What's the problem? Most everyone plays games these days, even some women (The Sims).
Again, Slashdot, in a tact of classic propoganda, latches onto a few examples. A 12 year old girl! A 66 year old man!
You do know they just sent out notices to a whole bunch of people they saw sharing illegally, right? Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?
Get over yourselves...they're within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works. I don't get why Slashdot advocates the piracy of music while in general decrying, say, software piracy. Actually, I do--one is just more convenient than the other, so they're used to it to the point where it's been justified in their minds so that they don't feel guilty. I think that explains the passionately reactive nature of a lot of people's opinions on the matter--it's all self-justification to avoid guilt.
Well, the attitude of most Slashdotters who complain is, "Well, let's see your code then!"
So don't blast them for doing the same thing.
Your entire post was a justification for the horrible resource issues of the software. People are just supposed to ignore it because they happen to use older computers in some instances? What do you think happens when they try to use OpenOffice on those old machines?
Get real.
Actually, the complete opposite is happening. New Line is pushing this as an actors' movie so they can win Academy Awards.
In every single LOTR article, someone makes the "I hear there are books out that contain all the spoilers!" joke as if it's funny, original, and clever. And every time, people mod them up!
Everyone--this joke is old and been done countless times before. It's like copying and pasting a +5 post from before and sticking it here just to trick you.
I love the hypocrisy of all the Slashdotters crying foul over some moron trying to change the way people talk in this instance.
Yet yesterday on Slashdot, another "hacker" versus "cracker" article was posted, and everyone very carefully detailed the artificially created differences between the two. After all, they didn't want to be "labelled."
Huh?
If you read the article, nothing was "banned" at all.
Someone complained to the board, and they are required to issue a statement. They sent a generic letter out to companies who had registered with the county.
I hightly doubt many if any will comply.
The only people complaining are a very select few elitist computer users. In other words, the entire rest of the world uses the word "hacker" to describe a certain thing, and a tiny, core group of elitists thinks everyone else is wrong just because they've decided to go against the grain for whatever reason. As if it matters what word people use--"cracker" or "hacker."
It's something only a computer geek would get hung up on, and it amuses me to no end.
Because we're fixing everything at the same time.
Just because people are working on your "idea" doesn't mean we halt all technological progress on speed as well. Let's improve everything.
Not only have they been announced (I've heard dates as early as April 2004), but some burners apparently will only require a firmware upgrade to burn them correctly.
I guess if it's reading DVD9s with its laser, it can burn them too...it just needs to know how.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/26/205122 1&mode=thread&tid=141&tid=188
To truly predict the success of popular music, you'd have to predict and simulate society. You can't do that.
Would this software have been able to predict the advent of new wave in the 80s? What about the shift to grunge in the 90s? Or the rise of rap and dance music?
Things change, and there are reactive cycles in pop culture that can't be predicted.
For that algorithm to be accurate, you'd have to take groupthink into account.
I've said perfectly valid things before and had them modded down, and as a result people saw it as a negative comment and didn't mod it back up. The negative mod it already had made people perceive it negatively whether they realized it or not as they read it. I've even written obvious sarcastic jokes that were modded as trolls and therefore viewed as trolls from then on. If that first mod on it had been "Funny," it would have been the other way around.
It's interesting how a single word of "Troll," "Funny," "Flamebait," or whatever can affect how everyone else reads into the tone of your post. Nobody is objective but are instead victims of groupthink, which is why the moderation system sometimes appears broken.
There are a lot of very, very stupid moderators who visit Slashdot, I'm sorry to say. Instead of replying in disagreement, they just mod you down.
It's the same statement that would be made for any operating system.
This article is a veritable cornucopia for all bad Slashdot comedians and their inevitable +5 Funnies. Come one, come all!
Here they come...
You talk with *astericks* a *lot* and try to drive the point that people knows OSS is imperfect...do you even visit Slashdot?
This place is nothing but a haven for anti-Microsoft bias. It's not pro-Linux.
Linux zealots are only a small minority of the community.
Yet they are the most vocal.
If you think they represent the entire community then you're wrong, just like so many people out there.
Let's face it, Linux and its community of developers will never be accepted professionally beause of their unprofessional attitudes. This extends to the ugly GUIs to the bizarre, "cute," in-joke acronym project names, to the anti-Microsoft hatred that drives everything.
BSD is the real professional, secure community around here. Linux feels like it's fueled by Microsoft hatred.
Uhm no. You're wrong. If this is MS the world would just try to justify by saying things "it's the administrator's fault" and "security depends on the user". Previous articles have proven time after time that most people try to justify MS's security flaws rather than flame them down.
What Slashdot are you reading? Most people would write "+5 Funny" trolls and "I told you so" heresy. Anybody pointing out the obvious--that the flaws were patched already a month before, that it's a result of users running the attachment, whatever else--gets modded down, because this site is not pro-Linux but anti-Microsoft.
On the other hand, when there's an article about a security bug in Linux, people will massively mod Linux down for being insecure and insult the entire community for being zealots.
Not what's going on here. People, as usual when this sort of thing happens, are making excuses and trying to point out silver linings. I wish more people possessed the ability to look at themselves.
You summed up all the posts I've read so far in this article. Nice job.
"Wow, Debian is so great because they're openly saying that the compromise happened! I'm so proud of Debian for its honesty, as other companies wouldn't have done the same. Wait, we were discussing the compromise itself? No, I don't want to think about it..."
Slashdot ran an article a while back linking to a study that showed that Linux is the most compromised operating system on the Internet.
Just saying, even Slashdot reported on it.
You say "everyone gets compromised once in a while." Is that really your views when a Linux server gets compromised? I hate to say it, but Microsoft's haven't been compromised, and they're the bigger target.
Everyone here knows if windowsupdate.microsoft.com had been compromised, people would be droning on about how it's some sort of illustration of Microsoft's security. All the "+5 Funny" trolls would be out in full force, and everyone would try to act like some sort of security expert.
Here, we have another OSS break-in (remember GNU?), and people can only offer excuses and justifications. It's a double standard I can't not notice. Sorry to spoil it, but there is nothing wrong with pointing out that this has yet to happen to Microsoft's server. And you know people try harder against them!
Security to you apparently means "everyone gets compromised once in a while." Wow. If that's the security mentality going around in the Linux community, expect more compromises as Linux grows more popular, and expect more excuses as people try desperately to avoid the "haha, told you so" laughs from people who have pointed out all along that nothing is 100% secure, and that all operating systems--especially Linux--have flaws, holes, buffer overflows, and so forth.
Your entire argument was weak.
This mantra is starting to disturb me. In my opinion any law that allows corporations to sue perfectly normal teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars is wrong and needs to be changed.
Even if those "perfectly normal" teenagers were illegaly distributing copyrighted works knowing full well it is illegal? I still do not understand the leniency around here with regards to just grabbing music without paying for it. I have yet to read a single valid argument for it.
I think it's good to protect ownership of creative content but protecting the right of a company to make a profit by distributing music made by someone else has little to do with any issue of creativity or authorship.
It has to do with ownership. Those companies own the recordings to distribute. That's how they make their money. You seem to be implying it's a-okay to just take copies and not pay for it, for no reason. Would you say the same for warez? How about movies?
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
Actually, that point is extremely weak. For one, most active musicians do not make that much more money touring live than they do from album sales. Second, you are still hurting the artist--that is still money you are not giving them. Third, if an album doesn't sell well and makes no profit for the label, what do you think happens to that artist? Now you get it.
Record companies made their money by distributing music to consumers more cheaply than any alternative means. The cost of buying a CD is factors of magnitude less than the cost of hiring your favorite band.
This argument has been shot down countless times. The cost of a CD includes the marketing, distribution, recording costs, and tons of other expenses. It's not like the label is supposed to just take the expenses for getting those sales in the first place. They make it up in the sales, as does the band.
In an age where the distribution of recorded music was difficult this made sense. It no longer makes sense. Most of the cost of recorded music goes to promotion and distribution, but the internet has made promotion and distribution cheap and easy.
Then why is it not working? The only instance I've seen is iTunes, and even that is dwindling out. The answer is--free piracy. Advocated by places like Slashdot for some inexplicable reason. Honestly, nobody has ever actually given a morally or legally sound reason. It's always half-baked "culture movement" lectures or other similar excuses.
It's time for a new business model.
People love to say that. "It's time for a new business model. That means I get to take their copyrighted works!"
Perhaps less music will be recorded if there isn't a profit to be made anymore, but maybe more people will be involved in the creative process.
How could more people be involved if less people are recording?
Of course. Minors can commit crimes under the law. This was illegal distribution of copyrighted works. Disagree with the actions of the RIAA, but it's still within their legal right.
You get modded down instead of someone responding to you with their opposing opinion.
I don't get people around here.
The girl was illegally sharing copyrighted materials. She was one of many who have been contacted.
Slashdot, in a typical tactic of propoganda latches onto one example and drives it home. A 12 year old! A 15 year old!
Meanwhile, no matter how you shake it, they're still doing the legal thing--protecting their copyrighted works! Even Jamie of Slashdot knows what that is about--threatening the daily Slashdot summary site because they are "illegal."