Your analogy is wrong. The issue with "abandonware" is that the copyright is held by a corporation... not by a person... and the corporation goes out of business.
Technically, the material is still covered by copyright, but the copyright holder no longer exists.
In most cases, the copyright to a song is held by the person who wrote it, not by the record company. But, except for a couple of jerkwads like Metallica and Dr. Dre, no musicians have filed copyright complaints against file sharing services.
"The single common denominator I've seen so far is that all Windows users switching to Linux, expect Linux to _BE_ Windows. They want to right-click on the desktop and get "Properties","
What you have illustrated, is one of the reasons why Windows is superior to Linux for most users. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, and Windows has more than it's fair share of faults, but the simple fact is that Windows contains dozens of *USEFUL* features -- many of which are not found in Linux.
And that's the problem. Why do I want to use an OS that has *FEWER* features than what I'm currently using?
I haven't actually tried it yet, but I've downloaded the key generator and it's running now.
According to the (very brief) documentation with the program, it doesn't just generates keys -- it generates volume license keys, which means no further activation required once you enter a working key.
I apologize for referring to "Philip" Greenspun as "Richard". I must have been "multi-tasking" at the time.
Other than that, you accuse me of ignorance and of unfairly attacking people but offer no evidence that I am wrong and attack me simply for offering an observation as an outsider who can look at the situation objectively. The idea that I cannot, or should not, offer an opinion on this matter, simply because I'm not an insider who was intimately involved, is ignorance and arrogance on your part.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being rich or wanting to be rich. Without that incentive we wouldn't have the great country that we do. It's how you go about it that matters.
I never claimed that the people working at AD didn't do anything worthwhile. I'm sure they all worked very hard and were very decicated. That's not a troll -- I mean it seriously. And that's the real tragedy here -- like so many others, they got greedy and ended up throwing away all their hard work.
VC's aren't interested in making money slowly, they are only interested in making money quickly. That's why they do the things they do -- they want to get results quickly -- either hit the big jackpot or flop and move on. VC's are successful for the same reason that any other con-man is successful. Not because they are smart or skilled, but simply because there are plenty of suckers out there looking to get rich overnight and who will gladly risk everything, including a successful business that they spent years building.
I stand by my original observation. AD had built a successful business and had a good thing going, but like so many other failed dot-coms they got greedy and it blew up in their face. Do I think it sucks? Sure. Do I think it's a shame that a lot of good people ending up losing a job that they really liked and that they were really dedicated to? Absolutely. But, Eve Anderson's piece (as well as Philip Greenspun's) appears to me, as a neutral uninterested observer, as little more than a long list of excuses, with absolutely no attempt to look in the mirror and ask if maybe THAT person had something to do with creating the whole mess.
As someone who never even heard of Ars Digita until it was announced that they were going under, Eve Andersons's story contains a number of "red flags".
1. Several quotes from "www.fuckedcompany.com"
Yeah, there's a good reputable news source.
2. I't all the VC's fault.
If ArsDigita was as sucessful and profitable as claimed, why did they need VC's? Why? Because like all the other dot-commers who went bust, they wanted to get richer faster. All her talk about ethics and honesty is just so much hot air. Yes, VC's are evil crooks. But so are you if you get in bed with them.
3. "By the end of March 2000, we had 110 employees, 7 offices..."
Why does a company whose business is done solely over the Internet need 7 offices? Typical dot-com mentality. Too many people, too many offices. Appearance is more important than good business practices. It's much more pretigious and gratifying to the ego to be CEO of a 110 person/7 office company rather than a 10 person/1 office compnay. Even if the VC's hadn't killed ArsDigital, when the economy slowed down they would have collapsed under their own bloated weight, just like all the other failed dot-coms.
4. "Philip was quite happy to let a 'professional manager' step in and take over"
Sure, why not. Why not let somebody else run the compnay. As long as a big fat paycheck is still rolling in, who cares. If Richard Greenspun really cared about ArsDigita as much as he claims, he never would have done this. Just another example of the greedy "I want to get paid to do nothing" attitude that kills many businesses.
In conclusion, it's quite obvious that the founders of AD screwed up and are now trying to pin the blame on someone else. They're like a guy who blows his entire paycheck on lottery tickets and when he doesn't win anything, wants to blame the people running the lottery. The truth is, they gambled and lost. They got in bed with crooks and agreed to play their crooked game. They turned over control of the company to someone else because they thought it would make them richer, faster while doing less work.
I so sick of hearing this crap from these greedy morons.
The entertainment industry is so consumed with greed, so blinded with an unquenchable lust for more and more money that they are unable to think straight. As soon as they hear that someone somewhere is "swapping files" their brains immediately cloud over in a greed induced panic, and they immediately launch another "search and destroy" campaign -- oblivious not only to the fair use rights of consumers but oblivious to the fact that their actions are hurting them more than helping them. It is truly ironic that the entertainment industry's greed is blinding them to simple economic realities.
On the surface, the "Napsterization" of songs, TV shows and movies seems like a bad thing. At first glance it appears that "pirates" are "stealing" from the entertainment industry. However, this is not true. In the long run, the trading of various media creates a greater demand for more and more new material.
In 1981 the RIAA was making the same claims that they make today. They claimed that they were the victims of "piracy" that was costing them huge amounts of money. In those days, CDs hadn't been invented yet and personal computers and the internet didn't exist (as we know them today). The villian, according to the RIAA, was high quality home stero equipment -- specifically cassette decks. According to the RIAA, people were swapping albums with their friends and making cassette copies of the music, thereby depriving the music industry of large sums of money.
Unfortunately (for the RIAA) they commissioned a study. The results of which they hoped to take to congress and convince them that something needed to be done about this terrible problem. However, the study was quickly shelved and the whole matter abandoned when it was revealed that people who owned sophisticated home recording equipment spent 75% more money on albums, compared to people who didn't own such equipment. A number of similar, although less thorough, studies were done when the whole Napster controvesy was at it's peak and similar results were found. People who used Napster tended to spend more money on CDs -- not less. In fact during the couple of years that Napster was in full operation, CD sales went up, not down. Another fact that the entertainment industry continues to ignore.
And if you think about it, it makes sense. If you've got a tape recorder, you need something to record. If you want to swap songs on Napster/Kaaza/Morpheus/Whatever, you need something to swap. The fact is -- the fact that the entertainment industry can't bring themself to admit -- all of this file swapping creates a demand for new material to swap. It creates an increased demand for their products -- not decreased.
There are many other issues as well. The most important one being that the trading of files is not "piracy" or "theft" as the entertainment industry is trying to claim. It is merely people doing what they have done since the being of time -- exchanging their personal propery with others. The entertainment industry is in fact engaged in an all out battle to destroy the most basic tenet of a free economy -- the private ownership of property. But that's another rant.
Every day, people walk into stores and shell out lots of money for software. So the problem is not that people are unwilling to pay.
The problem is with Shareware, which is nothing more than an attempt (by programmers) to get something for nothing. No marketing, no advertising, no promoting your product. Just throw it out into cyberspace and then sit back and do nothing and wait for the money to roll in. And when it doesn't, whine about "piracy".
Here's the reality -- there's nothing wrong with wanting to make a living as a programmer, but, if you want to get paid then don't make your product available for free. I can't get a car, TV or computer for free. If I want them, I have to go to a store and pay for them.
As for the claim that shareware programmers are being deprived of the ability to make a living -- this is equally absurd. Trying to make a living solely by selling shareware is like trying to support yourself solely by selling crap on Ebay. Maybe you need to consider getting a real job.
Many people are making the argument "if you don't want to pay, then use Free software". This is nonsense. Just exactly how is using Free software any less 'harmful'?
If I use pirated copies of Photoshop and Windows, Adobe and Microsoft get $0. If I use The Gimp and Linux instead, Adobe and Microsoft get $0.
If you accept the claim that people using "pirated" copies of software is hurting companies because it deprives them of revenue, then you must also accept the idea that the availability of Free software is hurting those same companies.
Science Fiction has clouded our vision of reality. Consider:
Nearest star is just over 3 light years away, so, traveling at 1/10 the speed of light, it would take you 30 years to get there.
1/10 speed of light = 66.9 Million Miles per Hour
Therefore, the problem becomes:
You must somehow build a spacecraft that can travel at 66.9 Million Miles per hour, non-stop for 30 years, and can accomodate a crew for that same 30 years.
"He's posted Bernie's home address, phone number,"
Unless I have signed a non-disclosure agreement, I have the right to publicly discuss anything that I want. It's called freedom of speech. Don't want your home address and phone number broadcast publicly? Then don't send it to me.
"If Bernie Shifman were to commit suicide tomorrow, how would Neil Schwartzman and everyone else who took part in making this guy's life hell feel?"
If Bernie had made even the slightest attempt at acting like a human being. If he admitted that he had done something wrong, apologized for it, said he would stop doing it, and then later felt so terrible that he committed suicide, then yes, I would feel bad. However, that's not what happened.
Not only did he spam countless numbers of people, but he repeatedly lied about it (i.e., denied that he was spamming), lied about it some more (claiming that he only sent resumes to specific people when in fact he spammed random e-mail addresses) and repeatedly threatened to sue anybody who complained about receiving his spam.
In short, Bernie is an arrogant asshole and vile, wretched excuse for a human being who deserves every bit of abuse he has received so far. And more.
Pricewatch is a good idea, in theory, but too many online stores are using it for bait and switch.
They quote a phoney low price to Pricewatch, so that they show up on the first page of a Pricewatch search, but when you go to their website the price is often much higher.
Some of them say "price for phone orders only". What the F**k is up with that? What's the point of buying online if I have to call them on the phone?
A couple of years ago, I was wanting to buy a copy of Windows 98, which at the time was selling for around $85 at Best Buy. I was absolutely amazed at the number of people bidding $90 to $100 on Ebay. Yes, there really is a sucker born every minute.
Real life example: I have an item that I really don't want to sell for less than $100 so I list it with a starting price of $100. I get no bids.
I re-list the item, starting at $10. I get 10 bids but the final selling price is $45. So what did I accomplish? All I did was attract a bunch of cheapskates looking for a rock bottom deal.
"Some auctions get bid above retail price, but it isn't very common"
Huh? Where the heck have you been? Back when I first discovered Ebay in January of 1998, I was able to find tons of great deals. But those days all but disappeared over 2 years ago.
The 3 biggest problems on Ebay today (and for the past couple of years) are:
1. Morons. Bidding $100 or more for an item that can be bought new in a store for $90.
2. Morons. Who can't seem to figure out that bidding early gives others the chance to outbid you and drive the price up, while waiting till the last minute to bid prevents others from do so.
3. Sellers looking to take advantage of the morons.
I've been in the market for a new CD Burner. But after spending the past 3 months watching Ebay for a deal, I've given up. So far, in at least 90% of the auctions I've looked at, the *STARTING* price is the same or higher than what I would pay from any number of internet stores. In the few rare instances where a seller actually started out at a low price, the bidding quickly got out of hand and went way above the retail price.
"File sharing is not what most groups like the MPAA and RIAA are against.
Its the piracy thats associated with it."
WRONG! The MPAA and RIAA are against file sharing.
There is no piracy involved with the various file sharing programs. It's not piracy -- it's file sharing. It's people doing what they have done since the beginning of time -- trading and sharing their personal property with others.
The MPAA and RIAA want to eliminate fair use and most importantly eliminate the private ownership of property.
"They are dividing society into two classes, the Digirati, who can understand Computers running super complicated, unintuitive OS's like OS X and Windows, and the disposessed, who just don't understand and never will."
There is no "Digerati" - some sort of elite upper class who automatically understand complicated things (such as computers). This is pure bullshit. All human beings are born with the same basic level of intelligence. The difference is how it is used. Some of us choose to better ourselves, and so we work a little harder and try to learn things. Others... your so called "dispossed"... prefer to remain stupid because they are too lazy to put out any effort toward learning.
I think space exploration is really neat and I've followed all the various space programs closely since I was a kid. But, when you step back and look at things with reality and pragmatism, you're hit with a major reality check.
Once you get past the novelty of "wow a guy is walking on the moon" or "wow we're looking at live pictures from Mars", space exploration isn't all that terribly exiting to the average person. After 50 years of science fiction, people have discovered that space exploration isn't anything at all like what you see on TV.
In your typical scifi (including Clarke and Kubrick), people build enormous , complex and fantastic machines, with absolutely no explanation of how they paid for it all.
In real-life, space exploration costs huge amounts of money that comes directly out of Joe-Taxpayer's pocket.
In scifi, people travel in space ships that can fly all over the universe in a few days, and explore worlds full of strange new beings and beautiful exotic scenery.
In real-life, it takes 6 months just to get to a barren planet with nothing but rocks and red dirt. And a couple of years to get to other lifeless planets that have even less to look at.
Even *IF* we could somehow travel at twice the speed of light, you're looking at 18 months to the nearest star. Even at 30 - 40 times the speed of light (not technologically possible), you're looking at *YEARS* to reach other stars/solar systems.
In 1968 it may have been "natural to predict that mankind would be traveling to Jupiter by 2001" but only because people were so caught up in the exitement of the "space race" that nobody bothered to stop and ask "why" -- Why do we want to spend billions of dollars on a two year journey to a frozen ball of gas.
Going through the archives is certainly interesting (and embarrassing) but I was disappointed to discover that you can't go into a specific newsgroup and browse all the way back to the beginning.
If you want to find old posts (other than the 'milestones' Google has selected) you have to search for them. That's great if you know what you're searching for. Unfortunately, most of my old stuff was under a variety of pseudonyms that my alzheimers won't let me remember.
I think it would be cool to see all the messages in a group, in order, and browse through them.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy is wrong. The issue with "abandonware" is that the copyright is held by a corporation ... not by a person ... and the corporation goes out of business.
Technically, the material is still covered by copyright, but the copyright holder no longer exists.
In most cases, the copyright to a song is held by the person who wrote it, not by the record company. But, except for a couple of jerkwads like Metallica and Dr. Dre, no musicians have filed copyright complaints against file sharing services.
"The single common denominator I've seen so far is that all Windows users switching to Linux, expect Linux to _BE_ Windows. They want to right-click on the desktop and get "Properties","
What you have illustrated, is one of the reasons why Windows is superior to Linux for most users. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, and Windows has more than it's fair share of faults, but the simple fact is that Windows contains dozens of *USEFUL* features -- many of which are not found in Linux.
And that's the problem. Why do I want to use an OS that has *FEWER* features than what I'm currently using?
I haven't actually tried it yet, but I've downloaded the key generator and it's running now.
According to the (very brief) documentation with the program, it doesn't just generates keys -- it generates volume license keys, which means no further activation required once you enter a working key.
I apologize for referring to "Philip" Greenspun as "Richard". I must have been "multi-tasking" at the time.
Other than that, you accuse me of ignorance and of unfairly attacking people but offer no evidence that I am wrong and attack me simply for offering an observation as an outsider who can look at the situation objectively. The idea that I cannot, or should not, offer an opinion on this matter, simply because I'm not an insider who was intimately involved, is ignorance and arrogance on your part.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being rich or wanting to be rich. Without that incentive we wouldn't have the great country that we do. It's how you go about it that matters.
I never claimed that the people working at AD didn't do anything worthwhile. I'm sure they all worked very hard and were very decicated. That's not a troll -- I mean it seriously. And that's the real tragedy here -- like so many others, they got greedy and ended up throwing away all their hard work.
VC's aren't interested in making money slowly, they are only interested in making money quickly. That's why they do the things they do -- they want to get results quickly -- either hit the big jackpot or flop and move on. VC's are successful for the same reason that any other con-man is successful. Not because they are smart or skilled, but simply because there are plenty of suckers out there looking to get rich overnight and who will gladly risk everything, including a successful business that they spent years building.
I stand by my original observation. AD had built a successful business and had a good thing going, but like so many other failed dot-coms they got greedy and it blew up in their face. Do I think it sucks? Sure. Do I think it's a shame that a lot of good people ending up losing a job that they really liked and that they were really dedicated to? Absolutely. But, Eve Anderson's piece (as well as Philip Greenspun's) appears to me, as a neutral uninterested observer, as little more than a long list of excuses, with absolutely no attempt to look in the mirror and ask if maybe THAT person had something to do with creating the whole mess.
As someone who never even heard of Ars Digita until it was announced that they were going under, Eve Andersons's story contains a number of "red flags".
..."
1. Several quotes from "www.fuckedcompany.com"
Yeah, there's a good reputable news source.
2. I't all the VC's fault.
If ArsDigita was as sucessful and profitable as claimed, why did they need VC's? Why? Because like all the other dot-commers who went bust, they wanted to get richer faster. All her talk about ethics and honesty is just so much hot air. Yes, VC's are evil crooks. But so are you if you get in bed with them.
3. "By the end of March 2000, we had 110 employees, 7 offices
Why does a company whose business is done solely over the Internet need 7 offices? Typical dot-com mentality. Too many people, too many offices. Appearance is more important than good business practices. It's much more pretigious and gratifying to the ego to be CEO of a 110 person/7 office company rather than a 10 person/1 office compnay. Even if the VC's hadn't killed ArsDigital, when the economy slowed down they would have collapsed under their own bloated weight, just like all the other failed dot-coms.
4. "Philip was quite happy to let a 'professional manager' step in and take over"
Sure, why not. Why not let somebody else run the compnay. As long as a big fat paycheck is still rolling in, who cares. If Richard Greenspun really cared about ArsDigita as much as he claims, he never would have done this. Just another example of the greedy "I want to get paid to do nothing" attitude that kills many businesses.
In conclusion, it's quite obvious that the founders of AD screwed up and are now trying to pin the blame on someone else. They're like a guy who blows his entire paycheck on lottery tickets and when he doesn't win anything, wants to blame the people running the lottery. The truth is, they gambled and lost. They got in bed with crooks and agreed to play their crooked game. They turned over control of the company to someone else because they thought it would make them richer, faster while doing less work.
I so sick of hearing this crap from these greedy morons.
The entertainment industry is so consumed with greed, so blinded with an unquenchable lust for more and more money that they are unable to think straight. As soon as they hear that someone somewhere is "swapping files" their brains immediately cloud over in a greed induced panic, and they immediately launch another "search and destroy" campaign -- oblivious not only to the fair use rights of consumers but oblivious to the fact that their actions are hurting them more than helping them. It is truly ironic that the entertainment industry's greed is blinding them to simple economic realities.
On the surface, the "Napsterization" of songs, TV shows and movies seems like a bad thing. At first glance it appears that "pirates" are "stealing" from the entertainment industry. However, this is not true. In the long run, the trading of various media creates a greater demand for more and more new material.
In 1981 the RIAA was making the same claims that they make today. They claimed that they were the victims of "piracy" that was costing them huge amounts of money. In those days, CDs hadn't been invented yet and personal computers and the internet didn't exist (as we know them today). The villian, according to the RIAA, was high quality home stero equipment -- specifically cassette decks. According to the RIAA, people were swapping albums with their friends and making cassette copies of the music, thereby depriving the music industry of large sums of money.
Unfortunately (for the RIAA) they commissioned a study. The results of which they hoped to take to congress and convince them that something needed to be done about this terrible problem. However, the study was quickly shelved and the whole matter abandoned when it was revealed that people who owned sophisticated home recording equipment spent 75% more money on albums, compared to people who didn't own such equipment. A number of similar, although less thorough, studies were done when the whole Napster controvesy was at it's peak and similar results were found. People who used Napster tended to spend more money on CDs -- not less. In fact during the couple of years that Napster was in full operation, CD sales went up, not down. Another fact that the entertainment industry continues to ignore.
And if you think about it, it makes sense. If you've got a tape recorder, you need something to record. If you want to swap songs on Napster/Kaaza/Morpheus/Whatever, you need something to swap. The fact is -- the fact that the entertainment industry can't bring themself to admit -- all of this file swapping creates a demand for new material to swap. It creates an increased demand for their products -- not decreased.
There are many other issues as well. The most important one being that the trading of files is not "piracy" or "theft" as the entertainment industry is trying to claim. It is merely people doing what they have done since the being of time -- exchanging their personal propery with others. The entertainment industry is in fact engaged in an all out battle to destroy the most basic tenet of a free economy -- the private ownership of property. But that's another rant.
Every day, people walk into stores and shell out lots of money for software. So the problem is not that people are unwilling to pay.
The problem is with Shareware, which is nothing more than an attempt (by programmers) to get something for nothing. No marketing, no advertising, no promoting your product. Just throw it out into cyberspace and then sit back and do nothing and wait for the money to roll in. And when it doesn't, whine about "piracy".
Here's the reality -- there's nothing wrong with wanting to make a living as a programmer, but, if you want to get paid then don't make your product available for free. I can't get a car, TV or computer for free. If I want them, I have to go to a store and pay for them.
As for the claim that shareware programmers are being deprived of the ability to make a living -- this is equally absurd. Trying to make a living solely by selling shareware is like trying to support yourself solely by selling crap on Ebay. Maybe you need to consider getting a real job.
Many people are making the argument "if you don't want to pay, then use Free software". This is nonsense. Just exactly how is using Free software any less 'harmful'?
If I use pirated copies of Photoshop and Windows, Adobe and Microsoft get $0. If I use The Gimp and Linux instead, Adobe and Microsoft get $0.
If you accept the claim that people using "pirated" copies of software is hurting companies because it deprives them of revenue, then you must also accept the idea that the availability of Free software is hurting those same companies.
Science Fiction has clouded our vision of reality. Consider:
Nearest star is just over 3 light years away, so, traveling at 1/10 the speed of light, it would take you 30 years to get there.
1/10 speed of light = 66.9 Million Miles per Hour
Therefore, the problem becomes:
You must somehow build a spacecraft that can travel at 66.9 Million Miles per hour, non-stop for 30 years, and can accomodate a crew for that same 30 years.
"He's posted Bernie's home address, phone number,"
Unless I have signed a non-disclosure agreement, I have the right to publicly discuss anything that I want. It's called freedom of speech. Don't want your home address and phone number broadcast publicly? Then don't send it to me.
"If Bernie Shifman were to commit suicide tomorrow, how would Neil Schwartzman and everyone else who took part in making this guy's life hell feel?"
If Bernie had made even the slightest attempt at acting like a human being. If he admitted that he had done something wrong, apologized for it, said he would stop doing it, and then later felt so terrible that he committed suicide, then yes, I would feel bad. However, that's not what happened.
Not only did he spam countless numbers of people, but he repeatedly lied about it (i.e., denied that he was spamming), lied about it some more (claiming that he only sent resumes to specific people when in fact he spammed random e-mail addresses) and repeatedly threatened to sue anybody who complained about receiving his spam.
In short, Bernie is an arrogant asshole and vile, wretched excuse for a human being who deserves every bit of abuse he has received so far. And more.
Neil's website is not character assassination. Bernie's character committed suicide.
"DoS attacks from large numbers of insecure Microsoft clients captured by attacker".
The clients were not captured because they were 'insecure'. They were captured because the person is an idiot.
Person receives stupid e-mail, clicks on attachment, gets taken over by trojan that launches DoS attack.
MS sucks. But look what Netscape did. No major new release of their browser for 3 years and then they release Netscape 6 -- a steaming pile of shite.
The current 6.2 is much better, but it's a classic case of 'too little too late'.
Pricewatch is a good idea, in theory, but too many online stores are using it for bait and switch.
They quote a phoney low price to Pricewatch, so that they show up on the first page of a Pricewatch search, but when you go to their website the price is often much higher.
Some of them say "price for phone orders only". What the F**k is up with that? What's the point of buying online if I have to call them on the phone?
A couple of years ago, I was wanting to buy a copy of Windows 98, which at the time was selling for around $85 at Best Buy. I was absolutely amazed at the number of people bidding $90 to $100 on Ebay. Yes, there really is a sucker born every minute.
The fallacy of the low starting price.
Real life example: I have an item that I really don't want to sell for less than $100 so I list it with a starting price of $100. I get no bids.
I re-list the item, starting at $10. I get 10 bids but the final selling price is $45. So what did I accomplish? All I did was attract a bunch of cheapskates looking for a rock bottom deal.
"Some auctions get bid above retail price, but it isn't very common"
Huh? Where the heck have you been? Back when I first discovered Ebay in January of 1998, I was able to find tons of great deals. But those days all but disappeared over 2 years ago.
The 3 biggest problems on Ebay today (and for the past couple of years) are:
1. Morons. Bidding $100 or more for an item that can be bought new in a store for $90.
2. Morons. Who can't seem to figure out that bidding early gives others the chance to outbid you and drive the price up, while waiting till the last minute to bid prevents others from do so.
3. Sellers looking to take advantage of the morons.
I've been in the market for a new CD Burner. But after spending the past 3 months watching Ebay for a deal, I've given up. So far, in at least 90% of the auctions I've looked at, the *STARTING* price is the same or higher than what I would pay from any number of internet stores. In the few rare instances where a seller actually started out at a low price, the bidding quickly got out of hand and went way above the retail price.
"They break the CD-DA standard and therefore are not allowed to use the logo. "
So they release copy-protected CDs with no CD-DA logo. 99.99999999% of all consumers wouldn't even notice.
"File sharing is not what most groups like the MPAA and RIAA are against.
Its the piracy thats associated with it."
WRONG! The MPAA and RIAA are against file sharing.
There is no piracy involved with the various file sharing programs. It's not piracy -- it's file sharing. It's people doing what they have done since the beginning of time -- trading and sharing their personal property with others.
The MPAA and RIAA want to eliminate fair use and most importantly eliminate the private ownership of property.
"IE doesn't allow you to add those sites as exceptions to a proxy server unless there is an address configured for the proxy server. "
Only idiots use IE.
"They are dividing society into two classes, the Digirati, who can understand Computers running super complicated, unintuitive OS's like OS X and Windows, and the disposessed, who just don't understand and never will."
... your so called "dispossed" ... prefer to remain stupid because they are too lazy to put out any effort toward learning.
There is no "Digerati" - some sort of elite upper class who automatically understand complicated things (such as computers). This is pure bullshit. All human beings are born with the same basic level of intelligence. The difference is how it is used. Some of us choose to better ourselves, and so we work a little harder and try to learn things. Others
Even worse than the 5% that is unreachable is the 90 percent that is unusable.
I think space exploration is really neat and I've followed all the various space programs closely since I was a kid. But, when you step back and look at things with reality and pragmatism, you're hit with a major reality check.
Once you get past the novelty of "wow a guy is walking on the moon" or "wow we're looking at live pictures from Mars", space exploration isn't all that terribly exiting to the average person. After 50 years of science fiction, people have discovered that space exploration isn't anything at all like what you see on TV.
In your typical scifi (including Clarke and Kubrick), people build enormous , complex and fantastic machines, with absolutely no explanation of how they paid for it all.
In real-life, space exploration costs huge amounts of money that comes directly out of Joe-Taxpayer's pocket.
In scifi, people travel in space ships that can fly all over the universe in a few days, and explore worlds full of strange new beings and beautiful exotic scenery.
In real-life, it takes 6 months just to get to a barren planet with nothing but rocks and red dirt. And a couple of years to get to other lifeless planets that have even less to look at.
Even *IF* we could somehow travel at twice the speed of light, you're looking at 18 months to the nearest star. Even at 30 - 40 times the speed of light (not technologically possible), you're looking at *YEARS* to reach other stars/solar systems.
In 1968 it may have been "natural to predict that mankind would be traveling to Jupiter by 2001" but only because people were so caught up in the exitement of the "space race" that nobody bothered to stop and ask "why" -- Why do we want to spend billions of dollars on a two year journey to a frozen ball of gas.
Going through the archives is certainly interesting (and embarrassing) but I was disappointed to discover that you can't go into a specific newsgroup and browse all the way back to the beginning.
If you want to find old posts (other than the 'milestones' Google has selected) you have to search for them. That's great if you know what you're searching for. Unfortunately, most of my old stuff was under a variety of pseudonyms that my alzheimers won't let me remember.
I think it would be cool to see all the messages in a group, in order, and browse through them.