The point is, if this were a wired network none of you would be arguing that getting on the network "somehow" would be morally wrong. Turn that network from wired to wireless and now it's perfectly okay to get on the network? Now I agree that there shouldn't be any repercussions for accidentally stumbling onto someone's network but if you find someone's network and THEN start using their bandwidth as if you were entitled to it all along is wrong, now isn't it?
If you accidentally get on someone's network, fine -- disconnect and try again... maybe you did something wrong. It's just like if I were to accidentally walk into the apartment next to mine... as soon as I realized the mistake I'd apologize and back away. I wouldn't just take the unlocked door and my perception that this is MY apartment to be an invitation to help myself to the neighbor's internet access.
Yes moderators, I'm obviously a troll. I write a well-stated argument without resorting to name-calling or annoying "internet slang" and I'm a troll. Way to go.
It seems that with every article posted on Slashdot I get a better picture of the lack of morals possessed by the average Slashdot reader.
They see no harm in taking goods and services that they did not pay for and are therefore not entitled to.
Now they see no problem with hijacking bandwidth someone else paid good money for simply because it's available over the airwaves and unsecured? Tell you what: let me know where you live so I can help myself to your water, electricity, and internet access if your door happens to be unlocked. It's not my fault if I sneak in, you were too stupid to secure your house!
Also, I don't really buy the whole "this is good, now we'll see some better security" argument. Right. You're telling me you'd like nothing better than to see ALL wireless networks secured so you can't go joyriding and stealing bandwidth? Right. A Slashdotter who doesn't want to get a free ride. Next thing you know you guys will be telling me that you'd be in favor of a foolproof scheme that protects your fair use rights for music and movies but prevents you from sharing with millions of random people.
This is really sad when you think about it. The prevailing morality among young people seems to be "screw everyone else, if it's not bolted down I'm taking it!" There used to be a time in this country when you could leave your doors unlocked because people were decent enough to respect each other's property. Not anymore, I guess.
The value of music has only devalued in the years since Napster not because we're looking at music in a different way but because we're able to copy music instantly and effortlessly. If the same were true of more tangible objects (cars, computer equipment, etc.) we'd be demanding that those items cost little more than nickels simply because we can duplicate them ourselves.
What is ALWAYS neglected by Slashdot geeks is that the cost of goods goes beyond mere duplication costs.
First of all, I said nothing about stealing, though I do consider illegally downloading MP3s to be stealing. You're most definitely a freeloader, though maybe not a "thief".
And you never answered my original question. Let's say I don't like the fact that my movie theater charges $6.00 for me to see a movie. I'd rather pay a nickel. Since they refuse to provide that service to me, does that mean I'm justified in sneaking in to the theater and sitting in the aisle to watch the movie? I didn't steal anything (they still have the movie and no seats are taken up), so that's okay, right?
No, it means you don't get to listen to the music if you don't buy. If I don't like the price the movie theater is charging, does that mean I get to sneak into the theater and sit in the aisle? After all, I wasn't going to buy the ticket anyway and I'm not "stealing" a seat, right?
Grow up, get a job, and buy your music if you enjoy it so much.
Wow, like I imagined, about 60% of the comments to this article are along the lines of "99 cents! What an amazingly large sum of money!" Come on geeks, here's your chance to put up or shut up. I can't count how many times I've heard someone say "if I could just buy two or three tracks instead of the whole album, I'd be there in a heartbeat." Well HERE IT IS! Go for it.
This article reminds me of a post I made a week or so ago... this quote sums up the geek mentality concerning online music services quite nicely:
"Well, IF they make available every song they've ever published and IF they make the songs available in mutiple MP3 bitrates and in OGG and in uncompressed PCM audio and in every other esoteric compression format I can think of and IF they can guarantee a full 10Mbps connection to me I *MIGHT* consider paying two dollars per month for the service. Until then, I'll continue to download music that I enjoy listening to but do not enjoying paying for."
"First off, you obviously have never tried to download an ISO image (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) just after a new release."
Actually, I have. You know what I decided to do? Wait a week for the excitement to die down. Seeing as how life will go on if I don't have the latest FreeBSD right now AND seeing as how it will still be around in a week (after all, it's not copyrighted material, no reason for someone to take it off their FTP site anytime soon!), I have no problem waiting.
"Secondly, your mp3.com example is way out of date. Since Universal bought them, they have gone downhill. Just try get them to publish more than 2 or 3 songs for free. You'll be ass-fisted."
I'm unaware of this new ass-fisting policy. Please elaborate.
"Geocities? Why would I let Yahoo fuck me more?"
Uh, what exactly have they done to you? All I've ever known Yahoo to do is provide free services. I like Yahoo. What have they done?
But, if Geocities isn't your cup of tea there are plenty of other free web hosts.
"If you think bandwidth is so cheap, why don't you just pay for the entire world?"
When did I say that? All I said was that there are places that will host your legal content for free. If anything, P2P folks think bandwidth is free, as they sit there saturating their pipes 24/7 downloading and uploading various copyrighted materials (excuse me, Linux ISOs).
"Maybe you have some guilt complex for all the illegal things you have done on the internet, so maybe you should be banned from it. You might be able to do something illegal with the telephone network too, so let's take it away. What about your computer? Your car? There are so many things--guess we'll just have to put you in jail. Better safe than sorry."
You're the kind of person I had in mind when I wrote my response. The whole point of the argument is that with technologies like cars, telephones, guns, knives, etc. we DON'T have 9 out of every 10 users committing crimes with them. If we did, there would be absolutely astronomical crime figures, seeing as how most everyone uses these items on a regular basis.
P2P clients, on the other hand... it's fairly obvious that the overwhelming majority of users are not on them to share materials in the public domain but rather copyrighted works. Quit fooling yourself. You know it, they know it, everyone knows it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't people using BitTorrent to download the ISO that was intended (at the time of that writing) to be download ONLY by people who paid a certain amount of money to have early access to it? It wasn't supposed to be released to the general public yet.
Sure, nothing illegal about that, but in that case P2P was used to bend the rules. If you could have waited a week or so it would've been available to you on FTP.
It seems like with every "RIAA blames file-sharing programs for piracy" article a boatload of geeks start making the absurd "well I guess knife manufacturers should be sued because people can use knifes to kill!" statements.
Here's my take on it:
With things like knives, crowbars, and other items that may be used to commit crimes, it's fairly obvious even to the common man that an overwhelming majority of people use these items in legal ways rather than illegal ways. After all, we all pretty much use knives every day (to eat with, cut various items, etc.), and there are only so many knife-related murders in a year. By simple logic we can be sure that knives are being used by the majority of people in ways that DON'T relate to hurting or killing other people, since there would be an astronomical number of knife crimes if that were the case.
Now as far as filesharing clients are concerned, it's pretty obvious to even the most technologically dense person that these programs are primarily used to illegally share materials. For one thing, if what you're sharing is legal, there's always some place you can host it: music can be freely hosted on MP3.com, text files/information on your free Geocities webpage, everything else on those Internet hard drive sites, and so on.
Yeah I know, there's going to be 100 replies to me saying "that's not true! I share Linux ISOs!" (as if you can't just download them from a host of mirror sites). Whatever. Collectively, it's pretty damn obvious that filesharing programs are being used to share things you can't share legally. They're just like head shops. Oh yeah, they sell "water pipes" for "smoking tobacco". Right. Cover your ass, I guess.
Either way, don't be surprised that the RIAA has gone after filesharing programs. Don't kid yourself. They're being used to trade copyrighted material. You know it. They know it. They don't like it, and honestly I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of what basically is a black market where their goods are exchanged freely and to millions of people.
You guys blew it. I remember years ago, before MP3s were ever popular. The RIAA probably knew about them, but didn't care. It was kept under control. Then Napster came along, and everyone and their brother was grabbing thousands of songs as fast as they could. I mean damn, it's gotten to the point where dumb fratboys who don't know squat about computers are able to get warez and MP3s easily, where it once took patience, IRC know-how, and knowing the right people. It's gone too far, and now the RIAA is getting pissed. You guys blew it, don't be surprised about what's happening.
Re:Improve upon our faults. OCing the Human Brain?
on
The Rights of GM Humans
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Perhaps you should sign up for a brain "enhancement". The guy who gets the most electoral college (not popular) votes gets to be the president.
It seems that every time there's an article on Slashdot about some new online music service "the geeks" blow it off immediately, citing concerns about it being too restrictive, too costly, low quality encodings, etc. This begs the question: what does a geek think constitutes a good online music service? The answer is usually something along the lines of:
"Well, IF they make available every song they've ever published and IF they make the songs available in mutiple MP3 bitrates and in OGG and in uncompressed PCM audio and in every other esoteric compression format I can think of and IF they can guarantee a full 10Mbps connection to me I *MIGHT* consider paying two dollars per month for the service. Until then, I'll continue to download music that I enjoy listening to but do not enjoying paying for."
I mean really, geeks have expectations set way too high when it comes to what an online music service should have. Yes, good selection is one thing but don't think they're going to have their entire library available for download immediately. Nor can you expect all sorts of bitrates and OGG and whatnot. You need to give it time and (gasp) try actually putting your money where your mouth is. If you want online music services so badly, try subscribing to one! Prove that the business model would actually work. Prove that you're not just a freeloader, that you would actually pay for something that you can copy easily. Just a thought.
The point is, on Windows, if someone asks me "how do I install this font?", I can say with utmost confidence "copy it to c:\windows\fonts".
However...
On Linux, the dialog is more like this:
"How do I install this font?" "Well, if you have Redhat 8 you can do Z. If Redhat 9, do Y but only if you have the latest version of X installed. If not, you can do Z but you also have to type this other command. If you have Mandrake, copy them to (some folder) and run the (font config) command. That only applies if you have the latest Mandrake. If not, you have to do this other thing. You'll also need to edit (some obscure config file) first..."
See where this is going? Wouldn't it be nice if you could install fonts the same way, regardless of your Linux distribution? Why must something so simple become so complicated?
Slightly offtopic, but take a look at this (Taken from another thread in this article):
"mv *.ttf ~/.fonts" "Download fonts. Drop them onto desktop. Use KDE's font installer to add them to your list of fonts." "On most Gnome machines, you can just copy them to/usr/share/fonts" "On mandrake: Untar, run 'drakfont', click on the directory containing the unarchived fonts. Click install."
Do you guys realize that this means there are at least *FOUR* different ways to install fonts on Linux (five actually, if you're using an older version of X)? Ever wonder why some clamor for desktop/distribution consistency? At least in Windows and MacOS there's ONE way to do something this simple.
Sampling? Right. Like my old roommate who used to suck down MP3s ten at a time on Napster and had well over 3000 MP3s (which I'm sure he backed up from the roughly 15 CDs he owned) on his Winamp playlist. He's going to get around to buying all those CDs he's been sampling, sure.
But seriously, I think retail stores are going to make the "sampling" argument irrelevant. Just tonight I was at a music store called Coconuts and they have little devices set up where you scan a CD and -POOF- you can listen to snippets of every track on the CD. Seriously, it's not like you can only listen to top 40 albums, I mean every damn CD I picked up had its tracks available. What more do you want?* You can sample music and purchase right on the spot. As more and more stores latch on to this technology you're going to have less and less ways to rationalize your behavior.
* Inevitably, someone will point out that thirty second snippets of songs just aren't enough and therefore these kind of efforts by music stores are worthless.
... And by that last comment I meant that we'll start to think of programmers as mostly being women instead of men. Not likely, since reality says otherwise.
I'd mod you up if I had mod points at the moment. I've always hated this desire to tend towards "she" as a neutral pronoun in cases where it obviously does not apply in the general case. I guess the thinking is that if enough people see this usage we'll start to think of women as being programmers or something.
Oh, I know they're not the concern of of the "poor foreigners", seeing as how they benefit directly from these hiring practices. This _should_ be the concern of skilled American workers facing the prospect of being replaced by an Indian willing to work for unlivable wages.
Again, programmers are skilled laborers. Why should skilled laborers put up with poor foreigners driving the value of skilled labor down the point where it would make more sense to work at McDonalds than go to college to be a programmer?
Clearly you don't understand the situation. It's not like programmers are saying "boo-hoo, these damn Indians are willing to work for $60K/yr, I can't live like that!", they're saying "these damn Indians are willing to work for $6K/yr, there's no possible way I can live on that". Yes, there is exaggeration in those figures (but when it comes to outsourcing... not really), but it is NOT a matter of Indians working for just a little bit less than Americans are willing to work -- they're working for significantly less than we could comfortably live with. Programming is not akin to working at McDonalds -- it's skilled, technical work. Why should programmers have to settle for an unskilled laborer's wages simply because there are poor workers willing to work for unlivable wages?
Wow, I can't believe all the wacky, tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theories I've heard just with this story ALONE. I guess there's a reason why Slashdot readers have the reputation they do. You conspiracy theory nuts sound like ten year old kids rambling on about all sorts of off-the-wall implications arising from Palladium and DRM:
"Yeah Microsoft, they have this thing called Play-de-um and it's real bad. They put this thing in your chip that makes it so you're a slave. Then, then they put these wires in your brain and if you don't pay five dollars to Microsoft every day you'll DIE."
I mean come on. Stop it already folks. Boycott the technology if it means that much to you. Don't just sit around in your basement typing out this meaningless garbage in the hopes that you'll be known on the internet as some sort of "technological visionary".
You don't have to miss out on this...
on
Arcade Meets LAN party
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just because you don't live in CA doesn't mean that you can't make it to a show like this. Somewhere near you there's _probably_ a pinball/arcade game trade show. No, not an industry trade show, but a gathering of folks with their own machines who are looking to buy or sell. Usually some giant warehouse is rented out for this event. Free play? You bet. Every machine that's in working order will be playable for free. Hell, you might even decide you want to buy a machine, if the price is right.
These shows are a _lot_ of fun and I highly encourage everyone who wish they could go to CA Extreme to look around and find one of these trade shows.
This argument doesn't work. Why? "Sucks" is very subjective. What sucks to you does not suck to someone else and vice-versa.
The reason record companies put out pop music is because -- NEWS FLASH -- lots of people like pop music! Teens and twenty-somethings like to party and dance, and they like upbeat pop music to dance to! Not everyone has the typical "geek" taste in music, i.e. Weird Al Yankovic, death metal, monotonous techno, and that weird Japanese pop shit.
You just have to accept the fact that mainstream America does not have the same taste in music as you do. The reason your favorite artists don't get paid well for their efforts is not because of some record company conspiracy but because they have NO mainstream appeal and thus will not push as many units as Britney or NSYNC. "But," you say, "that's not true! They make no money because the record companies don't give them a big enough cut on record sales!" Well, the artists who sell 7X platinum aren't complaining, I don't think. And before you assert that only the "fabricated" artists can sell millions of records, think again. Any artist with a couple of hits with crossover appeal can strike gold in the music industry. If you confine yourself to the "angst-filled goth" market, don't be surprised if you don't make big money.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, if this were a wired network none of you would be arguing that getting on the network "somehow" would be morally wrong. Turn that network from wired to wireless and now it's perfectly okay to get on the network? Now I agree that there shouldn't be any repercussions for accidentally stumbling onto someone's network but if you find someone's network and THEN start using their bandwidth as if you were entitled to it all along is wrong, now isn't it?
... maybe you did something wrong. It's just like if I were to accidentally walk into the apartment next to mine... as soon as I realized the mistake I'd apologize and back away. I wouldn't just take the unlocked door and my perception that this is MY apartment to be an invitation to help myself to the neighbor's internet access.
If you accidentally get on someone's network, fine -- disconnect and try again
Yes moderators, I'm obviously a troll. I write a well-stated argument without resorting to name-calling or annoying "internet slang" and I'm a troll. Way to go.
It seems that with every article posted on Slashdot I get a better picture of the lack of morals possessed by the average Slashdot reader.
They see no harm in taking goods and services that they did not pay for and are therefore not entitled to.
Now they see no problem with hijacking bandwidth someone else paid good money for simply because it's available over the airwaves and unsecured? Tell you what: let me know where you live so I can help myself to your water, electricity, and internet access if your door happens to be unlocked. It's not my fault if I sneak in, you were too stupid to secure your house!
Also, I don't really buy the whole "this is good, now we'll see some better security" argument. Right. You're telling me you'd like nothing better than to see ALL wireless networks secured so you can't go joyriding and stealing bandwidth? Right. A Slashdotter who doesn't want to get a free ride. Next thing you know you guys will be telling me that you'd be in favor of a foolproof scheme that protects your fair use rights for music and movies but prevents you from sharing with millions of random people.
This is really sad when you think about it. The prevailing morality among young people seems to be "screw everyone else, if it's not bolted down I'm taking it!" There used to be a time in this country when you could leave your doors unlocked because people were decent enough to respect each other's property. Not anymore, I guess.
The value of music has only devalued in the years since Napster not because we're looking at music in a different way but because we're able to copy music instantly and effortlessly. If the same were true of more tangible objects (cars, computer equipment, etc.) we'd be demanding that those items cost little more than nickels simply because we can duplicate them ourselves.
What is ALWAYS neglected by Slashdot geeks is that the cost of goods goes beyond mere duplication costs.
First of all, I said nothing about stealing, though I do consider illegally downloading MP3s to be stealing. You're most definitely a freeloader, though maybe not a "thief".
And you never answered my original question. Let's say I don't like the fact that my movie theater charges $6.00 for me to see a movie. I'd rather pay a nickel. Since they refuse to provide that service to me, does that mean I'm justified in sneaking in to the theater and sitting in the aisle to watch the movie? I didn't steal anything (they still have the movie and no seats are taken up), so that's okay, right?
No, it means you don't get to listen to the music if you don't buy. If I don't like the price the movie theater is charging, does that mean I get to sneak into the theater and sit in the aisle? After all, I wasn't going to buy the ticket anyway and I'm not "stealing" a seat, right?
Grow up, get a job, and buy your music if you enjoy it so much.
Wow, like I imagined, about 60% of the comments to this article are along the lines of "99 cents! What an amazingly large sum of money!" Come on geeks, here's your chance to put up or shut up. I can't count how many times I've heard someone say "if I could just buy two or three tracks instead of the whole album, I'd be there in a heartbeat." Well HERE IT IS! Go for it.
This article reminds me of a post I made a week or so ago... this quote sums up the geek mentality concerning online music services quite nicely:
"Well, IF they make available every song they've ever published and IF they make the songs available in mutiple MP3 bitrates and in OGG and in uncompressed PCM audio and in every other esoteric compression format I can think of and IF they can guarantee a full 10Mbps connection to me I *MIGHT* consider paying two dollars per month for the service. Until then, I'll continue to download music that I enjoy listening to but do not enjoying paying for."
Well then I guess you have to go without listening to music, don't you? If you don't like the price you don't get the goods. Simple enough.
"First off, you obviously have never tried to download an ISO image (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) just after a new release."
Actually, I have. You know what I decided to do? Wait a week for the excitement to die down. Seeing as how life will go on if I don't have the latest FreeBSD right now AND seeing as how it will still be around in a week (after all, it's not copyrighted material, no reason for someone to take it off their FTP site anytime soon!), I have no problem waiting.
"Secondly, your mp3.com example is way out of date. Since Universal bought them, they have gone downhill. Just try get them to publish more than 2 or 3 songs for free. You'll be ass-fisted."
I'm unaware of this new ass-fisting policy. Please elaborate.
"Geocities? Why would I let Yahoo fuck me more?"
Uh, what exactly have they done to you? All I've ever known Yahoo to do is provide free services. I like Yahoo. What have they done?
But, if Geocities isn't your cup of tea there are plenty of other free web hosts.
"If you think bandwidth is so cheap, why don't you just pay for the entire world?"
When did I say that? All I said was that there are places that will host your legal content for free. If anything, P2P folks think bandwidth is free, as they sit there saturating their pipes 24/7 downloading and uploading various copyrighted materials (excuse me, Linux ISOs).
"Maybe you have some guilt complex for all the illegal things you have done on the internet, so maybe you should be banned from it. You might be able to do something illegal with the telephone network too, so let's take it away. What about your computer? Your car? There are so many things--guess we'll just have to put you in jail. Better safe than sorry."
You're the kind of person I had in mind when I wrote my response. The whole point of the argument is that with technologies like cars, telephones, guns, knives, etc. we DON'T have 9 out of every 10 users committing crimes with them. If we did, there would be absolutely astronomical crime figures, seeing as how most everyone uses these items on a regular basis.
P2P clients, on the other hand... it's fairly obvious that the overwhelming majority of users are not on them to share materials in the public domain but rather copyrighted works. Quit fooling yourself. You know it, they know it, everyone knows it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't people using BitTorrent to download the ISO that was intended (at the time of that writing) to be download ONLY by people who paid a certain amount of money to have early access to it? It wasn't supposed to be released to the general public yet.
Sure, nothing illegal about that, but in that case P2P was used to bend the rules. If you could have waited a week or so it would've been available to you on FTP.
It seems like with every "RIAA blames file-sharing programs for piracy" article a boatload of geeks start making the absurd "well I guess knife manufacturers should be sued because people can use knifes to kill!" statements.
Here's my take on it:
With things like knives, crowbars, and other items that may be used to commit crimes, it's fairly obvious even to the common man that an overwhelming majority of people use these items in legal ways rather than illegal ways. After all, we all pretty much use knives every day (to eat with, cut various items, etc.), and there are only so many knife-related murders in a year. By simple logic we can be sure that knives are being used by the majority of people in ways that DON'T relate to hurting or killing other people, since there would be an astronomical number of knife crimes if that were the case.
Now as far as filesharing clients are concerned, it's pretty obvious to even the most technologically dense person that these programs are primarily used to illegally share materials. For one thing, if what you're sharing is legal, there's always some place you can host it: music can be freely hosted on MP3.com, text files/information on your free Geocities webpage, everything else on those Internet hard drive sites, and so on.
Yeah I know, there's going to be 100 replies to me saying "that's not true! I share Linux ISOs!" (as if you can't just download them from a host of mirror sites). Whatever. Collectively, it's pretty damn obvious that filesharing programs are being used to share things you can't share legally. They're just like head shops. Oh yeah, they sell "water pipes" for "smoking tobacco". Right. Cover your ass, I guess.
Either way, don't be surprised that the RIAA has gone after filesharing programs. Don't kid yourself. They're being used to trade copyrighted material. You know it. They know it. They don't like it, and honestly I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of what basically is a black market where their goods are exchanged freely and to millions of people.
You guys blew it. I remember years ago, before MP3s were ever popular. The RIAA probably knew about them, but didn't care. It was kept under control. Then Napster came along, and everyone and their brother was grabbing thousands of songs as fast as they could. I mean damn, it's gotten to the point where dumb fratboys who don't know squat about computers are able to get warez and MP3s easily, where it once took patience, IRC know-how, and knowing the right people. It's gone too far, and now the RIAA is getting pissed. You guys blew it, don't be surprised about what's happening.
Perhaps you should sign up for a brain "enhancement". The guy who gets the most electoral college (not popular) votes gets to be the president.
It seems that every time there's an article on Slashdot about some new online music service "the geeks" blow it off immediately, citing concerns about it being too restrictive, too costly, low quality encodings, etc. This begs the question: what does a geek think constitutes a good online music service? The answer is usually something along the lines of:
"Well, IF they make available every song they've ever published and IF they make the songs available in mutiple MP3 bitrates and in OGG and in uncompressed PCM audio and in every other esoteric compression format I can think of and IF they can guarantee a full 10Mbps connection to me I *MIGHT* consider paying two dollars per month for the service. Until then, I'll continue to download music that I enjoy listening to but do not enjoying paying for."
I mean really, geeks have expectations set way too high when it comes to what an online music service should have. Yes, good selection is one thing but don't think they're going to have their entire library available for download immediately. Nor can you expect all sorts of bitrates and OGG and whatnot. You need to give it time and (gasp) try actually putting your money where your mouth is. If you want online music services so badly, try subscribing to one! Prove that the business model would actually work. Prove that you're not just a freeloader, that you would actually pay for something that you can copy easily. Just a thought.
You're confusing the issue.
The point is, on Windows, if someone asks me "how do I install this font?", I can say with utmost confidence "copy it to c:\windows\fonts".
However...
On Linux, the dialog is more like this:
"How do I install this font?"
"Well, if you have Redhat 8 you can do Z. If Redhat 9, do Y but only if you have the latest version of X installed. If not, you can do Z but you also have to type this other command. If you have Mandrake, copy them to (some folder) and run the (font config) command. That only applies if you have the latest Mandrake. If not, you have to do this other thing. You'll also need to edit (some obscure config file) first..."
See where this is going? Wouldn't it be nice if you could install fonts the same way, regardless of your Linux distribution? Why must something so simple become so complicated?
Slightly offtopic, but take a look at this (Taken from another thread in this article):
/usr/share/fonts"
"mv *.ttf ~/.fonts"
"Download fonts. Drop them onto desktop. Use KDE's font installer to add them to your list of fonts."
"On most Gnome machines, you can just copy them to
"On mandrake: Untar, run 'drakfont', click on the directory containing the unarchived fonts. Click install."
Do you guys realize that this means there are at least *FOUR* different ways to install fonts on Linux (five actually, if you're using an older version of X)? Ever wonder why some clamor for desktop/distribution consistency? At least in Windows and MacOS there's ONE way to do something this simple.
I was already happy to have my tax dollars be used to bomb the shit out of Iraq and now that I learn about this... what a great deal!
Sampling? Right. Like my old roommate who used to suck down MP3s ten at a time on Napster and had well over 3000 MP3s (which I'm sure he backed up from the roughly 15 CDs he owned) on his Winamp playlist. He's going to get around to buying all those CDs he's been sampling, sure.
But seriously, I think retail stores are going to make the "sampling" argument irrelevant. Just tonight I was at a music store called Coconuts and they have little devices set up where you scan a CD and -POOF- you can listen to snippets of every track on the CD. Seriously, it's not like you can only listen to top 40 albums, I mean every damn CD I picked up had its tracks available. What more do you want?* You can sample music and purchase right on the spot. As more and more stores latch on to this technology you're going to have less and less ways to rationalize your behavior.
* Inevitably, someone will point out that thirty second snippets of songs just aren't enough and therefore these kind of efforts by music stores are worthless.
... And by that last comment I meant that we'll start to think of programmers as mostly being women instead of men. Not likely, since reality says otherwise.
I'd mod you up if I had mod points at the moment. I've always hated this desire to tend towards "she" as a neutral pronoun in cases where it obviously does not apply in the general case. I guess the thinking is that if enough people see this usage we'll start to think of women as being programmers or something.
Oh, I know they're not the concern of of the "poor foreigners", seeing as how they benefit directly from these hiring practices. This _should_ be the concern of skilled American workers facing the prospect of being replaced by an Indian willing to work for unlivable wages.
Again, programmers are skilled laborers. Why should skilled laborers put up with poor foreigners driving the value of skilled labor down the point where it would make more sense to work at McDonalds than go to college to be a programmer?
Clearly you don't understand the situation. It's not like programmers are saying "boo-hoo, these damn Indians are willing to work for $60K/yr, I can't live like that!", they're saying "these damn Indians are willing to work for $6K/yr, there's no possible way I can live on that". Yes, there is exaggeration in those figures (but when it comes to outsourcing... not really), but it is NOT a matter of Indians working for just a little bit less than Americans are willing to work -- they're working for significantly less than we could comfortably live with. Programming is not akin to working at McDonalds -- it's skilled, technical work. Why should programmers have to settle for an unskilled laborer's wages simply because there are poor workers willing to work for unlivable wages?
Wow, I can't believe all the wacky, tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theories I've heard just with this story ALONE. I guess there's a reason why Slashdot readers have the reputation they do. You conspiracy theory nuts sound like ten year old kids rambling on about all sorts of off-the-wall implications arising from Palladium and DRM:
"Yeah Microsoft, they have this thing called Play-de-um and it's real bad. They put this thing in your chip that makes it so you're a slave. Then, then they put these wires in your brain and if you don't pay five dollars to Microsoft every day you'll DIE."
I mean come on. Stop it already folks. Boycott the technology if it means that much to you. Don't just sit around in your basement typing out this meaningless garbage in the hopes that you'll be known on the internet as some sort of "technological visionary".
Just because you don't live in CA doesn't mean that you can't make it to a show like this. Somewhere near you there's _probably_ a pinball/arcade game trade show. No, not an industry trade show, but a gathering of folks with their own machines who are looking to buy or sell. Usually some giant warehouse is rented out for this event. Free play? You bet. Every machine that's in working order will be playable for free. Hell, you might even decide you want to buy a machine, if the price is right.
These shows are a _lot_ of fun and I highly encourage everyone who wish they could go to CA Extreme to look around and find one of these trade shows.
This argument doesn't work. Why? "Sucks" is very subjective. What sucks to you does not suck to someone else and vice-versa.
The reason record companies put out pop music is because -- NEWS FLASH -- lots of people like pop music! Teens and twenty-somethings like to party and dance, and they like upbeat pop music to dance to! Not everyone has the typical "geek" taste in music, i.e. Weird Al Yankovic, death metal, monotonous techno, and that weird Japanese pop shit.
You just have to accept the fact that mainstream America does not have the same taste in music as you do. The reason your favorite artists don't get paid well for their efforts is not because of some record company conspiracy but because they have NO mainstream appeal and thus will not push as many units as Britney or NSYNC. "But," you say, "that's not true! They make no money because the record companies don't give them a big enough cut on record sales!" Well, the artists who sell 7X platinum aren't complaining, I don't think. And before you assert that only the "fabricated" artists can sell millions of records, think again. Any artist with a couple of hits with crossover appeal can strike gold in the music industry. If you confine yourself to the "angst-filled goth" market, don't be surprised if you don't make big money.