Berke did a toon while in college -- this is where Steve Dallas, among others, first appeared -- called The Academia Waltz. He considers it to be a bit of a misadventure, a sort of "growing pains" thing, I think (though I cannot speak for the man) but DAMN it would be nice to see all of those released.
THIS IS A HINT, BERKE.
And while I hesitate to say this, lest the final remnants of the good ones get scooped up, I should mention that Berke gave 2 years worth of original toons to his mom to put up for sale.
We really need him to start drawing again. Our current presendent could supply him with material for years. Especially at the hands of Ronald-Ann [*cough] and Milo.
Cyclometh writes: "As some others have posted elsewhere, the 5/7/5 format is mostly a western convience. I've been given to understand that the real goal of a haiku is to use as few words as possible or in a "poetic" manner to convey the desired impression."
Fnkmaster writes: "Is there any centralized coordination? Isn't there a CEO of Sony corporate who keeps his divisions in line with the goals (i.e. bottom line interests) of the company as a whole?"
I think this is what is known as "hedging your bets."
Every time one of these "what do you Slashdotters think?" posts comes out I cringe. I cringe because the average Slashdotter's desire to state an ill-formed opinion is already well past Guassian proportions before it was invited.
I therefore declare that all such 'what do you Slashdotters think" be modded down ipso facto as redundant.
I have to think that this will lead to an ironic situation where someone has an account, writes a script that updates some blog, somewhere, and Slash (well, their parent co) goes after them with lawyers. How Microsoftian.
That aside, I think this is a pretty cool incentive to subscribe. I'm not against subscription models or for paying for things I use, so long as they're not absurdly priced. And yes, my attitude is that if I wasn't going to buy it anyway, nobody lost anything. No blood no foul.
From the article: "Computerworld also checked the price of the Men in Black DVD today and discovered that on Netscape the quoted price was $25.97, while it cost $23.97 on Internet Explorer. After completely clearing the cache and cookie files of the PC being used, the price remained $25.97 using the Netscape browser but had risen to $27.97 with Internet Explorer. Oddly enough, people using Lynx were simply given items gratis."
micq writes: "I fail to see how the diversity of the music on an album by an artist could have changed over time. As far as I can remember, artists have, and will, put music to their liking along with their required popular music... atleast if they want the album to sell."
When artists are given free reign, which is less and less the case these days, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I still maintain that albums today contain a higher percentage of material that is of a lower standard. To give a quick example:
Album A Person A: 90% good Person B: 80% good Person C: 70% good
Album B Person A: 10% good Person B: 20% good Person C: 100% good
Granted, Album B did have someone who found it to be positively brilliant but your average is still in the gutter. Yes, some people are going to feel that Milli Vanilli's debut was the decade's seminal contribution to dance music but that doesn't mean much. Pointing out the fact that somebody feels this way doesn't change the fact that the vast majority wouldn't listen to it if you threatened their only child with certain bodily harm otherwise.
But if you still disagree that material being put out is less filler than in the past then it really cannot be argued because it is obviously a matter of opinion, and thus not really prone to argument.
My tagline reads: "It's much easier to mod me down than to post an intelligent reply."
An AC (aren't they all?) replies: "Man, that sig is getting tired - If you were ever a moderator you'd know you cant post and moderate the same discussion. So, if I'm modding the channel I can't reply, and vice versa."
Of course I know this. It appears you're missing the point. Discussion is preferred to an add-nothing vote. I read Slashdot to see interesting commentary. Even crappy posts can get insightful replies, which are worth reading. I'm encouraging people to add to the signal, not the noise.
Unfortunately, people seem to think this is a not-too-subtle attempt to save my karma. To those people I'd suggest that they're way too interested in some fucking point system. Don't believe me?
GoatSe.cx. Moderators, please mod this post down. Everyone else...please don't click that link. =)
micq writes: "The difference between one of these CD's and one you purchase in a store is that the one you assemble would presumably not have any filler that you don't like. You would get 12 songs that you enjoy for $12 rather than having to buy approximately 6 discs at $12/each to get two good tracks off of each one... which is the better deal? The radio companies aren't stupid... they know they put out filler. Most people don't do the math and figure they just paid $12 for a CD for that ONE song that they liked... thus paying $12 for that ONE song..."
Well, you haven't blunted my argument so much as recognize a major industry shortcoming. I'm old enough -- barely -- to remember when albums weren't filler. Granted, there would be songs that were better than others but the record wasn't a carrier for one song. I don't, therefore, see buying a custom CD with 12 good songs as being any more than "par for the course."
I'm comparing apples to apples, if you'll excuse the double entendre. You're comparing apples to rotten apples. Just because the industry lowered their standards doesn't mean I did too.
discstickers writes "The San Jose Mercury News is running an article about an Apple music service that might be ready to launch next month. $.99 a song with the ability to burn to CD doesn't sound too bad."
You're right -- that doesn't sound too bad, it sounds terrible! The music industry has just eliminated all shipping, storage, storefronts and sales personnel and the price is still $12 for a 12-song CD?
There is a fundamental problem here, and that problem is marketing. I won't name names, but there are bands that the vast majority of people wouldn't listen to if they weren't beaten senseless with marketing and a lack of choices. That money has to come from someplace. If you eliminate marketing, then a much smaller number of people are going to be interested in [insert band here] on their merits alone. Ok, so we can't eliminate marketing.
So where else can we slash the price? The RIAA fat cats' wallet? Hehehe. Ooo. Good one. I made a funny.
The bottom line here is that the music industry influence is eroding. This is due to many factors including, but not limited to, piracy, the economy, the internet and the opportunity it offers to find new sounds without going through the "approved gatekeepers." But the music industry has a scapegoat and we all know what that scapegoat is. If they were to lower their expectations (read; bring them in-line with reality) then this would show that piracy really isn't the root of their problems, it would be their prodigious waistline (pardon the double entendre) and the corpulent approach to art.
Wow. I just went on a rant, didn't I? Oh well.
So...no. $12/CD does not sound like any progress whatsoever. Me? I'll sign on to such a service when:
(a) I can purchase songs at 30c/each AND;
(b) the ability to get a partial refund -- say, 90% -- for songs that I download but don't enjoy. So lets say that I download 200 songs in a given month and I decide a third of those (65) of those are worth keeping. I'd pay $19.50 for the ones I keep and another $4.95 for the ones I "returned." Frankly, I'm not going to bother spending 10 minutes of my life tracking down that song I just returned to them on Kazzaa to save 30c.
What does this mean from the RIAA's perspective?
* They have sold me roughly 5.5 CDs and they receive about $25 in return. About $5/ea.
* There is no need to purchase packaging or inserts, no need to store or ship or assemble the product, no need to have a storefront to sell the music and (this is the big one);
*...they do not need to market to me anymore. I have been given the ability to roam and find what suits me. In other words, I'm selling music to myself. The RIAA now has a dream database of who-likes-what. Rather than shoving a band down our throat they can just pimp the artists that people are gravitating toward. In other words, they can ride a wave naturally instead of buying a new wave machine every week.
I realize that last item might seem bonkers to an advertising exec but probably not to many slashdotters. We know what we like and even more importantly, we tend to realize that there is more out there to be liked. If the RIAA et al could just get their little pinheaded brains around the notion that humans actually enjoy music without the shoehorn, maybe this would look more rational to them.
Am I holding my breath? No. Do I think the RIAA doesn't have a choice in the matter? No. It will happen. The RIAA can come along willingly or it can get trampled under the tracks. I really don't care which.
AOL Member: My monitor seems to be smoking. Customer Support: Oh. Err... [looking at breakroom longingly] Is that an IBM monitor you have there, sir? AOL Member: Why yes, it is. Customer Support: Well, then that would be the new Smell-sation monitor feature, sir. It...uh...tells you, by olfactory cues, how fast your internet connection is. [co-workers dying of laughter in background, turning blue] We just upgraded our network, so that's probably what you're seei...er, smelling, sir. AOL Member: Oh, wonderful! Thank you! [click]
Yeah, I read the transcript. The part that stuck out in my mind was when Vallenti stated that fair use was preserved under the DMCA and he was asked (paraphrased) "how is fair use protected under the DMCA?" IIRC, he couldn't answer.
Deagol writes: "That is why we despise these people so much."
I didn't mean to imply that they shouldn't be hated. I'm just saying that time spent on them is wasted. They're figureheads. They're sort of like the street-corner crack dealer. You can be as pissed as you want but so long as the job pays $100k/yr to shill, somebody is going to shill.
Hate 'em. Just don't fight 'em. Because they're not the ones pulling the strings. You can't win that fight because you're punching a ghost.
This is one of the best breakdowns I have ever seen and it is the one that I point all of my friends to when they ask (along with Salon's Courney Love Does The Math).
But I don't understand why everyone gets so bent about Hillary Rosen and focuses all their attention on her. She's just a prostitute. The industry will ALWAYS have a prostitute. It almost seems like the Slashdot et al crowd is almost in collusion with the RIAA in this blatant misdirection. Is she scum? Yeah. But who cares? So is Valenti but he's a salesman, not the guy driving the vehicle.
zerosignal writes: "Most people's number skills are so poor that they probably won't understanding or trust it."
First, this is not intended as a flame.
But what people accept these days (Microsoft code and our current president come to mind) dwarfs this idea spectacularly. 999 of 1,000 people won't even bother trying to learn how it works much less chafe at its complexity.
And I'm sure that the Peppercoin people aren't going to make you take a test before you use their service. Smiling faces on a brochure go a long way.
a8f11t18 writes: "I mean, with 50++ NEW anime series a year, and a dozen new movies and OVAs, who can either afford the time or money to watch it all."
Do you have the same complaint about video games, television, movies or food, for that matter? What makes you think you must consume every last bit to enjoy a bite?
I swear to god, every time I read something like this I have a flashback of being a kid and watching a cartoon character trying to plug up a leaking dam with his finger, then the other, then a toe, then the other toe...
Valenti does look a lot like Droopy, you have to admit.
It is amusing that the ultimate policymakers (read; politicans) are trying to justify witholding information from the very people who were apparently wise enough to put them there in the first place.
The fundamental point here is that they do not have the right to withold the foreknowledge of the death of me, my family, my friends, my country, my planet. It isn't their property to withold and it is morally irresponsible to do so.
Really getting sick of those we install in power insisting they're brighter than us and we must be protected from ourselves. Right this minute the entire PLANET is giving George the big middle finger but is there anyone who thinks he's listening?
DaHat writes: "While it is a crash investigation and it is illegal to withhold what you know, if this top secret piece of decryption hardware fell on your lawn, you legal own it as it is on your property and you have salvaged it."
I cringe when I consider the fact that this guy gets just as many votes as everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn. How did I miss that?? THANKS!
Berke did a toon while in college -- this is where Steve Dallas, among others, first appeared -- called The Academia Waltz . He considers it to be a bit of a misadventure, a sort of "growing pains" thing, I think (though I cannot speak for the man) but DAMN it would be nice to see all of those released.
THIS IS A HINT, BERKE.
And while I hesitate to say this, lest the final remnants of the good ones get scooped up, I should mention that Berke gave 2 years worth of original toons to his mom to put up for sale.
We really need him to start drawing again. Our current presendent could supply him with material for years. Especially at the hands of Ronald-Ann [*cough] and Milo.
Cyclometh writes:
"As some others have posted elsewhere, the 5/7/5 format is mostly a western convience. I've been given to understand that the real goal of a haiku is to use as few words as possible or in a "poetic" manner to convey the desired impression."
Oh, cool. I didn't know that.
Thanks for the info.
The helium entry reads (formatting theirs):
lighter than dream
flight between worlds
Deja Thoris
serial rescues in
afternoon sun
Haiku is a 5 sylable, 7 sylable, 5 sylable structure. Am I just daffy or does this not even come close?
Fnkmaster writes:
"Is there any centralized coordination? Isn't there a CEO of Sony corporate who keeps his divisions in line with the goals (i.e. bottom line interests) of the company as a whole?"
I think this is what is known as "hedging your bets."
Whatsthiswhatsthis writes:
"As soon as it stops spam and terrorism, I'm ready to invest."
I'm not buying it until it supports the Ogg format.
Every time one of these "what do you Slashdotters think?" posts comes out I cringe. I cringe because the average Slashdotter's desire to state an ill-formed opinion is already well past Guassian proportions before it was invited.
I therefore declare that all such 'what do you Slashdotters think" be modded down ipso facto as redundant.
Even better -- it was later modded down as redundant. =)
I have to think that this will lead to an ironic situation where someone has an account, writes a script that updates some blog, somewhere, and Slash (well, their parent co) goes after them with lawyers. How Microsoftian.
That aside, I think this is a pretty cool incentive to subscribe. I'm not against subscription models or for paying for things I use, so long as they're not absurdly priced. And yes, my attitude is that if I wasn't going to buy it anyway, nobody lost anything. No blood no foul.
IsoRashi writes: :P"
"I dunno what's funnier--the post or that it got modded +1 Interesting
I couldn't believe it myself. I saw it, said "...I know someone didn't mod it up as "'interesting'...," yet lo!, there it was.
Made my whole day. =)
From the article:
"Computerworld also checked the price of the Men in Black DVD today and discovered that on Netscape the quoted price was $25.97, while it cost $23.97 on Internet Explorer. After completely clearing the cache and cookie files of the PC being used, the price remained $25.97 using the Netscape browser but had risen to $27.97 with Internet Explorer. Oddly enough, people using Lynx were simply given items gratis."
micq writes:
"I fail to see how the diversity of the music on an album by an artist could have changed over time. As far as I can remember, artists have, and will, put music to their liking along with their required popular music... atleast if they want the album to sell."
When artists are given free reign, which is less and less the case these days, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I still maintain that albums today contain a higher percentage of material that is of a lower standard. To give a quick example:
Album A
Person A: 90% good
Person B: 80% good
Person C: 70% good
Album B
Person A: 10% good
Person B: 20% good
Person C: 100% good
Granted, Album B did have someone who found it to be positively brilliant but your average is still in the gutter. Yes, some people are going to feel that Milli Vanilli's debut was the decade's seminal contribution to dance music but that doesn't mean much. Pointing out the fact that somebody feels this way doesn't change the fact that the vast majority wouldn't listen to it if you threatened their only child with certain bodily harm otherwise.
But if you still disagree that material being put out is less filler than in the past then it really cannot be argued because it is obviously a matter of opinion, and thus not really prone to argument.
My tagline reads:
...please don't click that link. =)
"It's much easier to mod me down than to post an intelligent reply."
An AC (aren't they all?) replies:
"Man, that sig is getting tired - If you were ever a moderator you'd know you cant post and moderate the same discussion. So, if I'm modding the channel I can't reply, and vice versa."
Of course I know this. It appears you're missing the point. Discussion is preferred to an add-nothing vote. I read Slashdot to see interesting commentary. Even crappy posts can get insightful replies, which are worth reading. I'm encouraging people to add to the signal, not the noise.
Unfortunately, people seem to think this is a not-too-subtle attempt to save my karma. To those people I'd suggest that they're way too interested in some fucking point system. Don't believe me?
GoatSe.cx. Moderators, please mod this post down. Everyone else
micq writes:
"The difference between one of these CD's and one you purchase in a store is that the one you assemble would presumably not have any filler that you don't like. You would get 12 songs that you enjoy for $12 rather than having to buy approximately 6 discs at $12/each to get two good tracks off of each one... which is the better deal? The radio companies aren't stupid... they know they put out filler. Most people don't do the math and figure they just paid $12 for a CD for that ONE song that they liked... thus paying $12 for that ONE song..."
Well, you haven't blunted my argument so much as recognize a major industry shortcoming. I'm old enough -- barely -- to remember when albums weren't filler. Granted, there would be songs that were better than others but the record wasn't a carrier for one song. I don't, therefore, see buying a custom CD with 12 good songs as being any more than "par for the course."
I'm comparing apples to apples, if you'll excuse the double entendre. You're comparing apples to rotten apples. Just because the industry lowered their standards doesn't mean I did too.
discstickers writes
...no. $12/CD does not sound like any progress whatsoever. Me? I'll sign on to such a service when:
...they do not need to market to me anymore. I have been given the ability to roam and find what suits me. In other words, I'm selling music to myself. The RIAA now has a dream database of who-likes-what. Rather than shoving a band down our throat they can just pimp the artists that people are gravitating toward. In other words, they can ride a wave naturally instead of buying a new wave machine every week.
"The San Jose Mercury News is running an article about an Apple music service that might be ready to launch next month. $.99 a song with the ability to burn to CD doesn't sound too bad."
You're right -- that doesn't sound too bad, it sounds terrible! The music industry has just eliminated all shipping, storage, storefronts and sales personnel and the price is still $12 for a 12-song CD?
There is a fundamental problem here, and that problem is marketing. I won't name names, but there are bands that the vast majority of people wouldn't listen to if they weren't beaten senseless with marketing and a lack of choices. That money has to come from someplace. If you eliminate marketing, then a much smaller number of people are going to be interested in [insert band here] on their merits alone. Ok, so we can't eliminate marketing.
So where else can we slash the price? The RIAA fat cats' wallet? Hehehe. Ooo. Good one. I made a funny.
The bottom line here is that the music industry influence is eroding. This is due to many factors including, but not limited to, piracy, the economy, the internet and the opportunity it offers to find new sounds without going through the "approved gatekeepers." But the music industry has a scapegoat and we all know what that scapegoat is. If they were to lower their expectations (read; bring them in-line with reality) then this would show that piracy really isn't the root of their problems, it would be their prodigious waistline (pardon the double entendre) and the corpulent approach to art.
Wow. I just went on a rant, didn't I? Oh well.
So
(a) I can purchase songs at 30c/each AND;
(b) the ability to get a partial refund -- say, 90% -- for songs that I download but don't enjoy. So lets say that I download 200 songs in a given month and I decide a third of those (65) of those are worth keeping. I'd pay $19.50 for the ones I keep and another $4.95 for the ones I "returned." Frankly, I'm not going to bother spending 10 minutes of my life tracking down that song I just returned to them on Kazzaa to save 30c.
What does this mean from the RIAA's perspective?
* They have sold me roughly 5.5 CDs and they receive about $25 in return. About $5/ea.
* There is no need to purchase packaging or inserts, no need to store or ship or assemble the product, no need to have a storefront to sell the music and (this is the big one);
*
I realize that last item might seem bonkers to an advertising exec but probably not to many slashdotters. We know what we like and even more importantly, we tend to realize that there is more out there to be liked. If the RIAA et al could just get their little pinheaded brains around the notion that humans actually enjoy music without the shoehorn, maybe this would look more rational to them.
Am I holding my breath? No. Do I think the RIAA doesn't have a choice in the matter? No. It will happen. The RIAA can come along willingly or it can get trampled under the tracks. I really don't care which.
AOL Member: My monitor seems to be smoking. ...uh ...tells you, by olfactory cues, how fast your internet connection is. [co-workers dying of laughter in background, turning blue] We just upgraded our network, so that's probably what you're seei ...er, smelling, sir.
Customer Support: Oh. Err... [looking at breakroom longingly] Is that an IBM monitor you have there, sir?
AOL Member: Why yes, it is.
Customer Support: Well, then that would be the new Smell-sation monitor feature, sir. It
AOL Member: Oh, wonderful! Thank you! [click]
Yeah, I read the transcript. The part that stuck out in my mind was when Vallenti stated that fair use was preserved under the DMCA and he was asked (paraphrased) "how is fair use protected under the DMCA?" IIRC, he couldn't answer.
Deagol writes:
"That is why we despise these people so much."
I didn't mean to imply that they shouldn't be hated. I'm just saying that time spent on them is wasted. They're figureheads. They're sort of like the street-corner crack dealer. You can be as pissed as you want but so long as the job pays $100k/yr to shill, somebody is going to shill.
Hate 'em. Just don't fight 'em. Because they're not the ones pulling the strings. You can't win that fight because you're punching a ghost.
This is one of the best breakdowns I have ever seen and it is the one that I point all of my friends to when they ask (along with Salon's Courney Love Does The Math).
But I don't understand why everyone gets so bent about Hillary Rosen and focuses all their attention on her. She's just a prostitute. The industry will ALWAYS have a prostitute. It almost seems like the Slashdot et al crowd is almost in collusion with the RIAA in this blatant misdirection. Is she scum? Yeah. But who cares? So is Valenti but he's a salesman, not the guy driving the vehicle.
It isn't anything you said, I'm just ranting.
I have a crisp ten dollar bill that says the reply letter contains the words "and the horse you rode in on," verbatim.
zerosignal writes:
"Most people's number skills are so poor that they probably won't understanding or trust it."
First, this is not intended as a flame.
But what people accept these days (Microsoft code and our current president come to mind) dwarfs this idea spectacularly. 999 of 1,000 people won't even bother trying to learn how it works much less chafe at its complexity.
And I'm sure that the Peppercoin people aren't going to make you take a test before you use their service. Smiling faces on a brochure go a long way.
[-site:fas.org "chemical weapons"]
*sigh
a8f11t18 writes:
"I mean, with 50++ NEW anime series a year, and a dozen new movies and OVAs, who can either afford the time or money to watch it all."
Do you have the same complaint about video games, television, movies or food, for that matter? What makes you think you must consume every last bit to enjoy a bite?
I swear to god, every time I read something like this I have a flashback of being a kid and watching a cartoon character trying to plug up a leaking dam with his finger, then the other, then a toe, then the other toe...
Valenti does look a lot like Droopy, you have to admit.
Valenti
Droopy
Or if we're going for apropos over strict resemblance...
It is amusing that the ultimate policymakers (read; politicans) are trying to justify witholding information from the very people who were apparently wise enough to put them there in the first place.
The fundamental point here is that they do not have the right to withold the foreknowledge of the death of me, my family, my friends, my country, my planet. It isn't their property to withold and it is morally irresponsible to do so.
Really getting sick of those we install in power insisting they're brighter than us and we must be protected from ourselves. Right this minute the entire PLANET is giving George the big middle finger but is there anyone who thinks he's listening?
DaHat writes:
"While it is a crash investigation and it is illegal to withhold what you know, if this top secret piece of decryption hardware fell on your lawn, you legal own it as it is on your property and you have salvaged it."
I cringe when I consider the fact that this guy gets just as many votes as everyone else.