Presumably we will see similar things to Napster, where people can scan in printed articles and share them without paying for them. That is, assuming metallica fans like to read.
Da-da-dummy. Ta-ta-troll. So the public out there was waiting to see if major media companies would get away with ripping off freelancers before deciding whether to trade articles online? That's stretching things pretty far into stupid just to call a completely unrelated group of people illiterate. A better question would be how many major media execs can remember anything before 1995.
I won't even touch your Metallica comment (except to say that I am controlling your mind and smashing your dreams), but I can only guess it means you are one of those pretentious twits who listen to classical puke or jazz scrapings because it's supposed to be sophisticated, or you are one of those stunted literalists who think that written music represents actual music. Don't trip over your shoelaces trying to answer me.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Actually, I take an opposite tack as. As far as I can see, there is nothing about the brain that differentiates it from a computer in such a fundamental way that one can be intelligent and the other can't.
You're pretty close... If you continue your line of thought, it will appear that either you have to conclude that all things or conscious, no things are conscious, or only you are conscious and the rest of the world revolves around you. The only alternative is a completely untestable magical hand-waving "soul". You are entitled to that belief (I find it rather unsatisfying), but you shouldn't confuse it with actual theories.
But the whole line you are trying to draw between determinism and machine intelligence is a red herring; it ultimately rests on the *belief* that some magical element beyond analysis or observation distinguishes human intelligence.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
A lot of poeple are assed to pay someone to develop free software. And not half-assed, either. IBM, Yahoo, etc DO pay for Apache development. They pay for features they need. I bet some porn site operator paid for someone to develop mod_referer, which you can use to prevent deep-linking to your pics. And Linux andthe *BSDs had USB quite early on, and well supported.
What free software developers can't be assed to do is polish their software for use by mere mortals. Not many people have the motive to do it, because that last 25% of the work just doesn't look like it's there to a developer. And if you pay the developer, who cares about the documentation? You can save money and just ask the developer if you have questions.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
It does appear that building an app with GCC and distributing it under the GPL would conflict with the license for this SDK. Talk about viral - Microsoft is trying to proscribe limits on the license under which you distribute YOUR application!
If the self-contradiction weren't so laughable, it'd make me retch.
Particularly ridiculous is the mention of "non-production purposes". So you could prototype with gcc, but when it came to deploy the app on your OWN SERVERS, you'd have to use a different tool? Ha, ha, ha. This EULA is a piece of shit and wouldn't hold up for very long if tested, which it never will be.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
None of the contexts you mention have any impact on *sucks.com domains. The first example is just stupid; gee, now let's rationally discuss whether I can carve that statement in his chest. The second example is equally obvious; don't hack their websites and vandalize them. The third example is true only if you, Mr/Ms Context, ignore the fact that the context may be parody, in which case you are dead wrong. Bzzt. You lose for thrashing your own point (context). The fourth point is not trespassing unless they've asked you to leave.
Context is important. Duh. Using *sucks.com to make a statement of personal viewpoint - or even facts damaging to the trademark holder if you can support them with evidence - is EXTREMELY cut and dried. It's a textbook case for first amdendment freedoms. Now stop being a pedant.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
That's right, not all of them are scum-sucking leeches. Sure, many of them, but not all. That's one of the beauties of settling things without clubs, stones, pistols, and tactical nukes; reason has a chance of winning out.
There is also a long tradition in America - inherited from England - of people with lesser power making and enforcing the rule of law and reason on a rational basis. Not always, not in every case, but enough to make a difference. Sometimes. Which is better than many places can claim.
The UICTA is really, really bad law, and even the scum-sucking lawyers can see that it's a headache, and likely to lose in the end because it goes against the general principles of consumer-commercial interactions. Even ambulance-chasing types can see that there's more business in holding software manufacturers subject to the same liabilities as the rest of the known universe than in giving them a blank check to fuck everyone at anytime.
This is a major blow. Maybe, one day, it might even be enough to make a convicted monopolist focus on fixing flaws instead of new ways to screw competitors with dirty tricks, using the consumer as cannon fodder. I saw an article on Tivo in the WSJ that ended up trashing Microsoft because they just pissed off yet another customer with their consumer-screwing practices. When columnists in the WSJ are spending 25% of their column space trashing you in an unrelated story, you've probably overspent your monopoly power.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
What kind of community, exactly, are you supposed to feel part of watching Pearl Harbor? Dead sailors? Sentimental idiots wishing they were in a world war so they could be cool, too?
The web is a better way of publishing zines. Zines and small publications are the way tastes outside the mainstream are solidified and built. Trends outside the mainstream are what drive the mainstream, which then pukes out tons of shoddy, pale imitations. Every now and then someone surfs the wave up and produces something truly amazing on the mainstream level.
What sucks is that the infrastructure and costs for subscription stuff is still expensive, difficult, and/or time-consuming, and subcription content is a hard sell until people understand how to sell it as "insider" community. You can't do that with 100 employees on staff, and you won't, ever.
There are plenty of us who realize that the Net is the future of underground COMMUNITY, and appreciate that for what it is. If a few of us make careers out of it, great. I don't see the immediate need for something on the order of major movie studios to come out of the way the 'net is changing our consumption and production of culture.
Many to many is SUPPOSED to create fewer blockbusters that everyone sees and more small content. All the pissing and moaning about content on the web is silly when you realize that it basically amounts to the breathless expectation that content will be produced "peer to peer" and then disappointment when that turns out to be true.
Fine with me, though I'm still certain that the bell hasn't even rung to START round 1 yet, so there's a lot of time to see what happens and what new empires arise. Suckdot was hilarious.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Me: You can pick them up between 8 am and 2 pm on Wednesday the 31st.
(Me goes to work on the 31st and he has to call me back to reschedule)
Seriously, if Verizon was getting so many bogus tickets, you'd think their dept would be happy to be able to resolve so many by just crossing them off and get a large increase in Productivity! Of course, the reason they didn't do this is that Verizon is just blowing smoke to cover for all the problems they intentionally caused to lasso Covad customers into their own arms...
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
If he was a strict constructionist jurist instead of a radical ideological conservative, the supreme court would not have stepped in there... But he's just a radical ideologue.
Gore's "unwillingness to admit defeat" is irrelevant. The Court is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of justice, not a big daddy to slap around kids for fighting in the back seat. Gore had the right to the recourse of the legal system, and just because Scalia got ticked doesn't give him the right to reinterpret jurisdictions ad hoc to support the result he wants to see.
Virtually nothing you've said makes any sense, but I won't go on.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I was going to object to this sort of practice, except that it occurred to me that I could care less how they try to target ads to me - I'm not going to be swayed by advertisements. Never have, never will. I doubt they'll even figure out much of a way to target me with things that interest me.
Which brings up a bigger question; after 100 years of modern advertising in America, why are so many still so gullible? It shocks me all the time.
I still think that targeted advertising is greatly misunderstood. The power of modern advertising is its vast scale - "As seen on TV". I don't think targeted ads are going to be much more effective. If your friend hasn't seen that ad where the woman farts in the car, chances are you won't talk about it over the water cooler. And, to really make targeted ads effective, you really have to understand your audience. That takes work, and means lots of extra effort to reach a smaller and smaller audience. The difficulty of that, which is great, may negate the increased effectiveness.
But what about a world where everyone is sophisticated enough to realize that Coke doesn't add life, that talking ducks don't solve your insurance needs, and that drinking Budweiser is unlikely to attract hordes of Bud-drinking hotties all wanting to meet you? Advertisers would be limited to conveying useful information (yes, "we can afford this expensive ad" is informative).
Here's a tip; don't be swayed by ads! If you buy a product you saw advertised, buy it because it's cheaper, or demonstrably better, or you have no choice. Change your product loyalties the second those things change. If you think "Nikes must be better than XYZ shoes because they are Nike" then you are still gullible. Now watch them twist in the wind trying to figure out how to get you to buy crap.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Only in "mangeral" speak could meetings generally be considered productive.
Hey, here's an idea, why not improve productivity by eliminating all bathroom breaks! Great idea. And let's charge employees for toilet paper, and dock their pay for sticky poop that leaves a mess on the side of the bowl! Why not? Hey, why shouldn't slavery be legal if the slave sells themselves? The answer to all of these is human dignity, apparently a concept unknown to you.
Only a simplistic idiot argues that everything you take away from employee freedom is a plus for productivity - except the kind of retards who aren't managers and are posting on company time - or else are in college and don't know a damn thing about work at all.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Geez, I'm not sure that warranted "Troll"... It is a valid question about the type of products this thing will be good for... They specifically mention targeting cell phones, PDAs, etc. It doesn't sound like the technology would admit a backlight, which those things need. However, a built in "side light" might work... Something that just scatters light through the plastic covering might generate acceptable luminosity.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I sincerely doubt that huge financial rewards imply quality music. Making music - and even recording it in a sensitive way - is not a science. That's why it's called "artistic". Throwing money at an artist does nothing to create great art. Zero. It might even hurt.
Real lovers of music recognize that many of their favorite records were made by those who continue to make music despite lack of commercial success. You may disagree, but then again, you probably like Steely Dan. None of my favorite bands now are making much money, nor are they ever likely to. It doesn't stop them.
Any musician with a good ear and enough dedication can learn to record their own music. Many do, although you dismiss them because they aren't paying your bills. That doesn't make them or their fans any less happy with the results. No doubt, really talented engineers will continue to reap big bucks, but honestly, mostly bullshit and hype and connections reap the big bucks, just like in every other profession.
But the real point is, that when the actual dollar cost of creating and distributing your music is so low, new musicians have a lot of motive to take advantage of this, even if the cost is learning to use their extremely inexpensive tools. I'll still buy their music - preferably at live performances where I know they'll get more from my purchase, and I'll probably listen to a lot for free, too. But the idea that their music will start sucking because no one will make Michael Jackson money anymore is stupid, when you look at it straight on.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
And, as Dan points out while talking about the liability aspects of releasing software - even software you refuse to stand behind, support, or worry about in any way - it may be better to either maintain total control, or else abandon control completely - totalitarianism or anarchy.
If you are worried about liability issues stemming from your software, the BSD license gets you to the total anarchy side, while the GPL leaves you stranded in the middle.
Lest the flames jump onto this thread, I will point out that the choice of license depends on your goals. If you are doing a contracting job and making some in-house software for a company, but you're afraid they'll try to hijack the software for a product, then maybe you need the GPL. But if you want to avoid complications and liabilities, you'll need to give up control. Such is the price of ownership.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Hey, there are meatheads in the world who don't know when to shut up and then there are those who don't know when to shut up and really make asses out of themselves, only they don't stop and it gets kind of funny actually, and they sense this, and go further, but now it's just clowning and pretty soon it won't be funny any more so they stop.
Well, I guess except for the funny part, maybe Ballmer is a John Madden.
The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies.
Uh... Riiiight. So, er, that's why we need to fund closed source work that's not available to anyone? Or else, you mean that you support government funding for the BSDs?
Seriously, the two-install thing is going to be a MAJOR hassle for a lot of folks. Sure rules out XP for scientists in Antarctica. "What do you mean you don't have a phone? Can't you go over to your friend's house?" As well as for students, people testing it, etc, etc, etc. Nice way to shoot yourselves in the foot, losers. I can't wait to answer the calls from relatives looking for computer support. "You can't? Twice? That's because they FUCKED you! What can you do? Throw it out."
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
This is casuistry, but casuistry is what lawyers do for living. At bottom, the complexity of the world makes sures that any position on the issue can be argued in a principled way. The winning argument is the argument that has either more money, or more people ready to raise hell.
In other words, the human race will be no more than a bunch of gibbering savages until we invent replicators and limitless energy, thus ushering in the post-scarcity economy and releasing us from the "useful" demands of money. Then, the winning argument will be limited to the number of people ready to raise hell.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
If you can't beat 'em, sue! Now that's capitalism! I'm sure you're very proud.
BTW, California has a larger economy that the Netherlands OR Russia, largely because of geeks with business plans.
I'm sure somehwere there IS a business plan for paying artists, but no one part of the RIAA has it. Their plans only include selling them into slavery. Funny, the recording budget for a major RIAA-type release is up to $100,000. Dave Grohl built his own fucking studio for that much and can record all the records he wants without paying the labels a cent. Now THAT'S capitalism.
Skip the RIAA, boys and girls, it's DIY or get screwed! Sure, their racket (and I use the word advisedly) on distribution channels means you'll have to pay a little "protection money" sooner or later, but it's better to negotiate with them AFTER you have enough of a following to drive something like a fair bargain. Those extra years of being a "starving artist" will be major street cred once you Get There. Look how long those millionaires called Metallica have milked it!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I'm not so hot on the value of the statistics, either, but they at least reveal
And I think your criticism goes to far.
In the first case, I certainly don't buy 100% of the albums from which I download tracks. Of course, many of them aren't available on any album, or any that I can find. Others, I decide after a couple listens I wasn't into it, and usually end up deleting the file to make room, or else JUST NOT LISTENING TO IT. Of course, I could always change my mind later and decide I liked it, in which case I probably would buy it. And frankly, since I think most industry product blows goats, and nothing I like is on the radio, because all radio sucks these days (except WFMU), Napster is (or was) the easiest way for me to check out bands I've heard about from friends. Whenever the music industry is firmly in control of the music scene as a whole, music stinks. 1989 > 1999, in this case. Anyone see the 2001 music awards thing on ABC the other night? Forget Napster, let's just murder the music execs for crimes against humanity. I need Napster, because the industry does a terrible job of connecting me with music I like.
In the second case, I think it's a sad admission if the RIAA labels are hurt in any measurable way by users who decide not to purchase music after hearing it and deciding it's shit. If your customers that unhappy with their purchases, you've got a problem bigger than Napster.
Finally, Napster's changed my buying habits in one important way; I can't think of anything I bought in the last year that I didn't first download from Napster, and buy once it became part of my regular listening. And most of the music that did become part of my regular listening, I eventually bought on CD. Sure, not all, but the only thing Napster's really done is become a more convenient replacement for taping stuff from friends while trying to find a place I can actually buy it or deciding whether its worth buying.
But all in all, you're overlooking the real meaning of this statistic; the vast majority of people do not view mp3s they get from Napster as a replacement for music purchases. Read that 10 times aloud, and tell me that statistic doesn't mean anything to the debate. It's disingenous to claim that they must all be lying.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Apparently it DOES take a scientist to see that the "effects" aren't there.
Maudlin parents have been moaning for generations that those kids today are just crazy, and yet we've still - most of us - clawed civilization out of the muck of crucifixion, boiling lead, sacking, pillaging, and raping cities, public hangings, lynchings, religious persecution, etc. Yeah, it's so much worse now. In the past decade, youth violence has gone down. And yet you're whining about a video game.
Here's another one for you; instead of "keeping tabs" on kids, how about raising them with standards and values and then trusting your kids (until they do otherwise) to do the right thing.
Anyone who thinks that video games turn kids violent doesn't know a thing about raising boys, that's for sure. Even the "good" ones who don't fight or use violence still enjoy play with violent themes. If they are playing with a short stick, it becomes a gun or dagger. If it's a long stick, it becomes a sword or rifle. If it's a thick and long stick, it's a bazooka. What are you gonna do next, pass a law against sticks?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You should of course also change passwords for any account you might have ssh'd to from one of the compromised servers...
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:Nits too big to ignore
on
Flatterland
·
· Score: 2
Time as the fourth dimension doesn't make any sense. It's usually explained in a Flatland-like manner; space-time is like a loaf of bread, we travel through and experience once "slice" at a time.
While this might be reassuring to determinists, it's also plain wrong. If we are moving through the loaf of bread, experiencing once slice at a time, then time is not a dimension of the bread, because time is still external to the bread (and you looking at the bread). I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to determine *what*, in this metaphor, is supposed to be moving through the bread.
Think about it. And please stop that "time is the fourth dimension" thing.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I think the idea of wresting control from ICANN is great... Permitting new TLDs would be a great idea, and the new TLDs could be run by anyone, as long as they can prove they meet certain criteria. In this way, no collisions are necessary. It would, however, create a legal nightmare as players scrambled to open new TLDs and new rounds of squatting began. But ICANN refuses to be open about their process, so we'll never *really* know what standards are being met.
But collision of domains would be disastrous. It amounts to taking control of the internet from ICANN and giving it to AOL. AOL could easily decide to point microsoft.com somewhere else. Stink.
Just because there are shades of gray, it doesn't mean we can't tell black from white
But it can keep you from getting the web sites you want. If there were a second slashdot.org that pointed to microsoft's site, how would you get the slashdot you wanted? DNS would be worthless.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Da-da-dummy. Ta-ta-troll. So the public out there was waiting to see if major media companies would get away with ripping off freelancers before deciding whether to trade articles online? That's stretching things pretty far into stupid just to call a completely unrelated group of people illiterate. A better question would be how many major media execs can remember anything before 1995.
I won't even touch your Metallica comment (except to say that I am controlling your mind and smashing your dreams), but I can only guess it means you are one of those pretentious twits who listen to classical puke or jazz scrapings because it's supposed to be sophisticated, or you are one of those stunted literalists who think that written music represents actual music. Don't trip over your shoelaces trying to answer me.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You're pretty close... If you continue your line of thought, it will appear that either you have to conclude that all things or conscious, no things are conscious, or only you are conscious and the rest of the world revolves around you. The only alternative is a completely untestable magical hand-waving "soul". You are entitled to that belief (I find it rather unsatisfying), but you shouldn't confuse it with actual theories.
But the whole line you are trying to draw between determinism and machine intelligence is a red herring; it ultimately rests on the *belief* that some magical element beyond analysis or observation distinguishes human intelligence.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
What free software developers can't be assed to do is polish their software for use by mere mortals. Not many people have the motive to do it, because that last 25% of the work just doesn't look like it's there to a developer. And if you pay the developer, who cares about the documentation? You can save money and just ask the developer if you have questions.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
If the self-contradiction weren't so laughable, it'd make me retch.
Particularly ridiculous is the mention of "non-production purposes". So you could prototype with gcc, but when it came to deploy the app on your OWN SERVERS, you'd have to use a different tool? Ha, ha, ha. This EULA is a piece of shit and wouldn't hold up for very long if tested, which it never will be.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Context is important. Duh. Using *sucks.com to make a statement of personal viewpoint - or even facts damaging to the trademark holder if you can support them with evidence - is EXTREMELY cut and dried. It's a textbook case for first amdendment freedoms. Now stop being a pedant.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
There is also a long tradition in America - inherited from England - of people with lesser power making and enforcing the rule of law and reason on a rational basis. Not always, not in every case, but enough to make a difference. Sometimes. Which is better than many places can claim.
The UICTA is really, really bad law, and even the scum-sucking lawyers can see that it's a headache, and likely to lose in the end because it goes against the general principles of consumer-commercial interactions. Even ambulance-chasing types can see that there's more business in holding software manufacturers subject to the same liabilities as the rest of the known universe than in giving them a blank check to fuck everyone at anytime.
This is a major blow. Maybe, one day, it might even be enough to make a convicted monopolist focus on fixing flaws instead of new ways to screw competitors with dirty tricks, using the consumer as cannon fodder. I saw an article on Tivo in the WSJ that ended up trashing Microsoft because they just pissed off yet another customer with their consumer-screwing practices. When columnists in the WSJ are spending 25% of their column space trashing you in an unrelated story, you've probably overspent your monopoly power.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The web is a better way of publishing zines. Zines and small publications are the way tastes outside the mainstream are solidified and built. Trends outside the mainstream are what drive the mainstream, which then pukes out tons of shoddy, pale imitations. Every now and then someone surfs the wave up and produces something truly amazing on the mainstream level.
What sucks is that the infrastructure and costs for subscription stuff is still expensive, difficult, and/or time-consuming, and subcription content is a hard sell until people understand how to sell it as "insider" community. You can't do that with 100 employees on staff, and you won't, ever.
There are plenty of us who realize that the Net is the future of underground COMMUNITY, and appreciate that for what it is. If a few of us make careers out of it, great. I don't see the immediate need for something on the order of major movie studios to come out of the way the 'net is changing our consumption and production of culture.
Many to many is SUPPOSED to create fewer blockbusters that everyone sees and more small content. All the pissing and moaning about content on the web is silly when you realize that it basically amounts to the breathless expectation that content will be produced "peer to peer" and then disappointment when that turns out to be true.
Fine with me, though I'm still certain that the bell hasn't even rung to START round 1 yet, so there's a lot of time to see what happens and what new empires arise. Suckdot was hilarious.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
He: I left my tools at your house. Give'em back.
Me: You can pick them up between 8 am and 2 pm on Wednesday the 31st.
(Me goes to work on the 31st and he has to call me back to reschedule)
Seriously, if Verizon was getting so many bogus tickets, you'd think their dept would be happy to be able to resolve so many by just crossing them off and get a large increase in Productivity! Of course, the reason they didn't do this is that Verizon is just blowing smoke to cover for all the problems they intentionally caused to lasso Covad customers into their own arms...
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Gore's "unwillingness to admit defeat" is irrelevant. The Court is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of justice, not a big daddy to slap around kids for fighting in the back seat. Gore had the right to the recourse of the legal system, and just because Scalia got ticked doesn't give him the right to reinterpret jurisdictions ad hoc to support the result he wants to see.
Virtually nothing you've said makes any sense, but I won't go on.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Which brings up a bigger question; after 100 years of modern advertising in America, why are so many still so gullible? It shocks me all the time.
I still think that targeted advertising is greatly misunderstood. The power of modern advertising is its vast scale - "As seen on TV". I don't think targeted ads are going to be much more effective. If your friend hasn't seen that ad where the woman farts in the car, chances are you won't talk about it over the water cooler. And, to really make targeted ads effective, you really have to understand your audience. That takes work, and means lots of extra effort to reach a smaller and smaller audience. The difficulty of that, which is great, may negate the increased effectiveness.
But what about a world where everyone is sophisticated enough to realize that Coke doesn't add life, that talking ducks don't solve your insurance needs, and that drinking Budweiser is unlikely to attract hordes of Bud-drinking hotties all wanting to meet you? Advertisers would be limited to conveying useful information (yes, "we can afford this expensive ad" is informative).
Here's a tip; don't be swayed by ads! If you buy a product you saw advertised, buy it because it's cheaper, or demonstrably better, or you have no choice. Change your product loyalties the second those things change. If you think "Nikes must be better than XYZ shoes because they are Nike" then you are still gullible. Now watch them twist in the wind trying to figure out how to get you to buy crap.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Hey, here's an idea, why not improve productivity by eliminating all bathroom breaks! Great idea. And let's charge employees for toilet paper, and dock their pay for sticky poop that leaves a mess on the side of the bowl! Why not? Hey, why shouldn't slavery be legal if the slave sells themselves? The answer to all of these is human dignity, apparently a concept unknown to you.
Only a simplistic idiot argues that everything you take away from employee freedom is a plus for productivity - except the kind of retards who aren't managers and are posting on company time - or else are in college and don't know a damn thing about work at all.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Geez, I'm not sure that warranted "Troll"... It is a valid question about the type of products this thing will be good for... They specifically mention targeting cell phones, PDAs, etc. It doesn't sound like the technology would admit a backlight, which those things need. However, a built in "side light" might work... Something that just scatters light through the plastic covering might generate acceptable luminosity.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Real lovers of music recognize that many of their favorite records were made by those who continue to make music despite lack of commercial success. You may disagree, but then again, you probably like Steely Dan. None of my favorite bands now are making much money, nor are they ever likely to. It doesn't stop them.
Any musician with a good ear and enough dedication can learn to record their own music. Many do, although you dismiss them because they aren't paying your bills. That doesn't make them or their fans any less happy with the results. No doubt, really talented engineers will continue to reap big bucks, but honestly, mostly bullshit and hype and connections reap the big bucks, just like in every other profession.
But the real point is, that when the actual dollar cost of creating and distributing your music is so low, new musicians have a lot of motive to take advantage of this, even if the cost is learning to use their extremely inexpensive tools. I'll still buy their music - preferably at live performances where I know they'll get more from my purchase, and I'll probably listen to a lot for free, too. But the idea that their music will start sucking because no one will make Michael Jackson money anymore is stupid, when you look at it straight on.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
If you are worried about liability issues stemming from your software, the BSD license gets you to the total anarchy side, while the GPL leaves you stranded in the middle.
Lest the flames jump onto this thread, I will point out that the choice of license depends on your goals. If you are doing a contracting job and making some in-house software for a company, but you're afraid they'll try to hijack the software for a product, then maybe you need the GPL. But if you want to avoid complications and liabilities, you'll need to give up control. Such is the price of ownership.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Well, I guess except for the funny part, maybe Ballmer is a John Madden.
The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies.
Uh... Riiiight. So, er, that's why we need to fund closed source work that's not available to anyone? Or else, you mean that you support government funding for the BSDs?
Seriously, the two-install thing is going to be a MAJOR hassle for a lot of folks. Sure rules out XP for scientists in Antarctica. "What do you mean you don't have a phone? Can't you go over to your friend's house?" As well as for students, people testing it, etc, etc, etc. Nice way to shoot yourselves in the foot, losers. I can't wait to answer the calls from relatives looking for computer support. "You can't? Twice? That's because they FUCKED you! What can you do? Throw it out."
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
In other words, the human race will be no more than a bunch of gibbering savages until we invent replicators and limitless energy, thus ushering in the post-scarcity economy and releasing us from the "useful" demands of money. Then, the winning argument will be limited to the number of people ready to raise hell.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
BTW, California has a larger economy that the Netherlands OR Russia, largely because of geeks with business plans.
I'm sure somehwere there IS a business plan for paying artists, but no one part of the RIAA has it. Their plans only include selling them into slavery. Funny, the recording budget for a major RIAA-type release is up to $100,000. Dave Grohl built his own fucking studio for that much and can record all the records he wants without paying the labels a cent. Now THAT'S capitalism.
Skip the RIAA, boys and girls, it's DIY or get screwed! Sure, their racket (and I use the word advisedly) on distribution channels means you'll have to pay a little "protection money" sooner or later, but it's better to negotiate with them AFTER you have enough of a following to drive something like a fair bargain. Those extra years of being a "starving artist" will be major street cred once you Get There. Look how long those millionaires called Metallica have milked it!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Hmmm... Try:
http://www.discover.com/june_01/
Someone left "Options Indexes" on.
Too bad, nothing interesting hiding around in those directories. Checked older issues, only a backup file or two at most.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Discover Current Issue
l e=featsave.html
in getURLparam:
location.href = http://www.discover.com/june_01/gthere.html?artic
name = article
name.length = 7
pos = 43
param = featsave.html
Hmm. That's no good. Check the software via 'lynx -mime_header'. The server is Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) PHP/4.0.3pl1. Interesting. Something is borked.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I'm not so hot on the value of the statistics, either, but they at least reveal
And I think your criticism goes to far.
In the first case, I certainly don't buy 100% of the albums from which I download tracks. Of course, many of them aren't available on any album, or any that I can find. Others, I decide after a couple listens I wasn't into it, and usually end up deleting the file to make room, or else JUST NOT LISTENING TO IT. Of course, I could always change my mind later and decide I liked it, in which case I probably would buy it. And frankly, since I think most industry product blows goats, and nothing I like is on the radio, because all radio sucks these days (except WFMU), Napster is (or was) the easiest way for me to check out bands I've heard about from friends. Whenever the music industry is firmly in control of the music scene as a whole, music stinks. 1989 > 1999, in this case. Anyone see the 2001 music awards thing on ABC the other night? Forget Napster, let's just murder the music execs for crimes against humanity. I need Napster, because the industry does a terrible job of connecting me with music I like.
In the second case, I think it's a sad admission if the RIAA labels are hurt in any measurable way by users who decide not to purchase music after hearing it and deciding it's shit. If your customers that unhappy with their purchases, you've got a problem bigger than Napster.
Finally, Napster's changed my buying habits in one important way; I can't think of anything I bought in the last year that I didn't first download from Napster, and buy once it became part of my regular listening. And most of the music that did become part of my regular listening, I eventually bought on CD. Sure, not all, but the only thing Napster's really done is become a more convenient replacement for taping stuff from friends while trying to find a place I can actually buy it or deciding whether its worth buying.
But all in all, you're overlooking the real meaning of this statistic; the vast majority of people do not view mp3s they get from Napster as a replacement for music purchases. Read that 10 times aloud, and tell me that statistic doesn't mean anything to the debate. It's disingenous to claim that they must all be lying.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I never heard of MediaBay and considering the size of their niche market, it's astounding that they would even have stock to ail.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Maudlin parents have been moaning for generations that those kids today are just crazy, and yet we've still - most of us - clawed civilization out of the muck of crucifixion, boiling lead, sacking, pillaging, and raping cities, public hangings, lynchings, religious persecution, etc. Yeah, it's so much worse now. In the past decade, youth violence has gone down. And yet you're whining about a video game.
Here's another one for you; instead of "keeping tabs" on kids, how about raising them with standards and values and then trusting your kids (until they do otherwise) to do the right thing.
Anyone who thinks that video games turn kids violent doesn't know a thing about raising boys, that's for sure. Even the "good" ones who don't fight or use violence still enjoy play with violent themes. If they are playing with a short stick, it becomes a gun or dagger. If it's a long stick, it becomes a sword or rifle. If it's a thick and long stick, it's a bazooka. What are you gonna do next, pass a law against sticks?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
You should of course also change passwords for any account you might have ssh'd to from one of the compromised servers...
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
While this might be reassuring to determinists, it's also plain wrong. If we are moving through the loaf of bread, experiencing once slice at a time, then time is not a dimension of the bread, because time is still external to the bread (and you looking at the bread). I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to determine *what*, in this metaphor, is supposed to be moving through the bread.
Think about it. And please stop that "time is the fourth dimension" thing.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
But collision of domains would be disastrous. It amounts to taking control of the internet from ICANN and giving it to AOL. AOL could easily decide to point microsoft.com somewhere else. Stink.
Just because there are shades of gray, it doesn't mean we can't tell black from white
But it can keep you from getting the web sites you want. If there were a second slashdot.org that pointed to microsoft's site, how would you get the slashdot you wanted? DNS would be worthless.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.