Well, perhaps I'm not working at the right company then. At my company we have the system admins and a few programmers. Above that we have the project managers and other low level managers. Above that are directors, CIO, etc. In order to get from one step to the next, an MBA (or at least the experience required) is needed to advance. The MBA shaves off precious years.
What companies allow you to shift vertically? Do these new positions allow people to influence others, or are managers still the decision makers?
"None of the words were spelled wrong. When you use the wrong word: that is a grammar mistake. Not spelling."
Um, no. When you use words out of order, or have missing parts (no subject), etc. -- those are gramatical mistakes. If we really want to get technical, neither spelling nor grammar really fits my mistake.
Regardless, what does it matter? All the repliers are trying to do is derail the topic.
Also, one person has noted a single spelling mistake. "Could have" instead of "could of". Not grammar, but hey, if looking for faults floats your boat... *shrug*
Every person that I've ever met that has taken an MBA (only 80-120 people, so a small dataset) has done it for one of two reasons:
1. To make lots and lots of money
2. To advance in their career (not to do more interesting things, just to move up the ladder).
Out of curiousity, have you talked to these people -- or been managed by them? Did you talk to them in a classroom or business environment (business being one where they might not be totally honest about their motivation or aspirations)?
Among the many grammatical errors present, the biggest one here is "could of." See, you meant "could have,"
My apologies for mispelling one word. What are the rest of the errors?
P.s. If you're going to use the same Dilbert reference in 2 different replies (PHB), it helps to keep the same username. Going anonymous cowward in only one of the two doesn't really help.
If you had received a quality education, you could have figured out what was wrong with that statement.
Enlighten me. Keep in mind that I have done professional writing and have also been nationally published, so I'm a little skeptical an "anonymous coward" really knows how to edit.
While you believe you are a critical thinker, you actually lack critical thinking skills. Now, I know that sounds a bit harsh, and yes, it's a generalization. You probably do have critical thinking skills, but you were not using them when you read my post, nor when you replied.
Quite the contrary. I believe I do have critical thinking skills and I used them quite effectively to respond to your post.
Your entire argument was based on a very stereotypical view of MBAs. You gave no real justification for your arguments, beyond made-up numbers. You supported your opinion with a view that's shared by a majority of people that have no clue what a MBA is, or the real motivation for getting one.
Here's my generalization. You sound like you're just out of college, having to deal with your first bosses and disliking it. Or, perhaps, you've had a career going for some time and have never been seen fit to manage. You sound disgruntled. There's no need to be.
I use the word percentage, which you equate with statistics.
You use the words "1 or 2%". Where you get these numbers, I have no idea. How you would defend them, I have no clue. It really sounds like you're making them up on the spot.
I'll never make it as a PHB because the hallmark of a PHB is that he isn't aware; he thinks he is brilliant when clearly he is not.
Another baseless and frankly uninformed opinion. Do all MBAs become PHBs? Do you think all MBAs honestly think of themselves as "brilliant"? Again, from my own experience, quite the contrary -- most people in my classes are well aware of their faults. I'm sorry if your experience with MBAs has led you to believe they're selfish, snide bastards. Many aren't, and it's another gross generalization.
As for intelligence, I was Salutatorian in college -- a school focusing on Computer Science. I never took a business course up until my MBA, mostly taking Comp Sci and professional writing classes.
After years of doing systems administration, I've realized this career path is a deadend. IT is becoming a utility, and most of these positions (systems admin, database admin, programming, etc.) will become the gas station mechanic and plumber positions of tomorrow. I like this industry, however, and working towards management (which requires applying critical thinking) is the only real way have a safe, fulfilling position heading into the future.
I say this because you really need to put your MBA into perspective.
I do put it in perspective. All education is good education. If someone shows you how to bake a cake, that's life experience you can use later. If someone shows you how to get people to accept your position, and have direct reports work to their full potential (in an moral, ethical way), that's also life experience you can use later. Education is almost impossible to waste, no matter if you're going for an MBA, engineering or learning how to fix a car. The only way it can be wasted is if you're overly cynical about the process, to the point that you devalue it, as you seem to be.
You do realize nothing in that statemnt was incorrect, right?
"And if you have tried [for an MBA], and still knock it, well -- maybe you didn't get out of it as much as you could of."
In other words, "if you've tried for an MBA and still choose to deride it, perhaps you didn't get the positive results you might have if you took the program more seriously".
A very small percentage are interesting people who want to do interesting things in life, and they see their path as owning or running a business.
Yes, we know. And 78.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The vast majority of people earning or who have earned an MBA do it because it will lead to more money.
Do you honestly believe this?
In my classes, we've talked about this. It's the first question the professors ask: "Why are you here?" People are brutally honest. A few say they're in it for the money. A few say they like the idea of adding initials to their name. Some never went to college, so they're trying to wrap up undergrad and graduate school at the same time.
The vast majority, however (and no, I'm not going to quote statistics -- because I don't have any) say they're tired and bored with their jobs. They like where they work more or less, but their particular tasks are repetitive and dull. System admins, programmers, etc. They want to move up to a position where their decisions matter.
Years ago, you could climb the corporate ladder to become a manager/director/CTO/CIO. You can't do this anymore. Many positions are revolving doors, and it's almost impossible to make your mark in companies that are always in flux. Just like more decent businesses won't accept you unless you have a college degree (bare minimum), most businesses won't accept managers who haven't got an MBA. It's the current reality of business and you'll just have to get used to it.
Also, I would like to comment on the "interesting things in life, and they see their path as owning or running a business" bit. I don't see owning a business as a particularly interesting thing (at least not "more interesting" than managing in an established company). I know plenty of people with crappy small businesses that will never get off the ground -- I'm not sure how they could be interesting. Personally, I wouldn't even attach the word "interesting" to one's career choice -- what you do outside of work is really what defines you.
However, don't go over-inflating the worth of an MBA beyond its earning power.
And don't go listening to stereotypes. They're usually wrong.
I'm currently going for mine. This was on advice of mentors who worked with my father (he was a VP). My father was not an idiot -- neither are they. They told me getting an MBA is the next logical step in career progression (along with, of course, gaining more on-the-job experience). I believe them.
People who poo-poo MBAs don't really know what they are, or have had bad experience with coworkers who only had MBAs (and no work experience). To me, this small investment now should pay off big in the near future. If someone offered you a reasonable investment (education is ALWAYS valuable, no matter what the school), you'd take it, wouldn't you?
Do I think it'll cure all of society's ills? No. Am I learning about group interaction, the psychology involved in making decisions and the effects it has on people's psyches? Yes. Is that valuable? Undoubtedly.
In summary, don't knock it until you try it. And if you have tried it, and still knock it, well -- maybe you didn't get out of it as much as you could of.
I definitely saw the effects of the DS Lite stat. I purchased one about a week ago (even though I hate the GBA cartridge sticking out, I can't stand carrying this old brick in my pocket anymore). It has a flaw (the LCD is turned at a slight angle under the protective plastic). When I tried to return it, they had no machines to exchange with. I went online and EBGames/Gamestop were sold out. Ditto with local stores. Amazon is on 2-week backorder. Hard to get this thing anywhere.
We're actually dealing with this on a very large basis. We have about 1000 users, 400 Mac and 600 PC, accessing about 12 TB of data on a PC server. We need to use AFP because, even on OS X, the Macs store a lot of metadata crap (Adobe Photoshop, for example). Microsoft's Mac file server sucks, so we looked around for an alternate solution. We're testing with a program called "ExtremeZ-IP", which works fairly well. It doesn't read through indexes when starting up (which leads to faster boot times) and more importantly, it's clusterable (MS's solution isn't). However, we're still running into the same issues. Now, Mac users can save files that Windows users can't change or delete./groan
I wish Apple would just move the metadata crap out of AFP and into something universally accessible. I can't stand having to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a product just because Apple can't write well using SMB.
The only way to properly run Windows games (unfortunately) is to dualboot. That's why I installed Bootcamp on my Mac. Parallels is nice, but you'll never get full fps on something like that.
While I won't even attempt to address specific numbers, the service life of a Mac is markedly longer. Five times as long? Frequently, yes.
Yes, but what are you doing with the box? Up until recently there have been very little titles on Mac that really push hardware sales: games. Any old computer can run Word/Outlook/etc. Now that Apple has Intel machines, there's a reason for more people to buy the hardware. There's a reason for people to upgrade the hardware more frequently.
Let's put it this way: at my last company they were running 7-9 year old PCs. Why? These ran Windows XP (albeit slowly), but all they were really using was Word/Outlook. If your needs don't demand top-of-the-line hardware, there's no reason to get new machines. Apple, up until this point, has had customers primarily focusing on stuff that didn't require up-to-date hardware. Outside a few people doing highend video, most could get away with older Macs.
This is all going to change in the next few years. Expect more people to upgrade and replace new Macs, quicker. A 6 year old Mac may make a fine Internet browsing/Word processor, but it isn't going to keep up with the gaming market, which Apple is actively trying to court.
That, of course, can't be true, because it is a violation of US monoply laws (it locks the use of MS Office to the use of Windows). Since it is ridiculous to presume that a company would so blatantly ignore laws, this cannot be the case.
Um, it isn't true because there's a whole separate program ("Office Genuine Advantage", or something like that). Knock it off with the FUD. Doesn't help our case.
So, either WGA is not needed to get download support for Microsoft Office, OR WGA disables Windows. One is illegal; and the other is silly.
Actually, if you've been following the "Genuine Advantage" crap for a few months, you realize it's not an all or nothing deal at the Download Center. MS can select (rather randomly) what requires verification and what doesn't. To date, I've never run into an Office download that required WINDOWS advantage.
WGA is a tool that simply boosts consumer awareness of bootleg Windows. And that I am completely supportive of.
Why? Because you can't pony up a couple hundred bucks for a software license? I love people who do this, then turn around and buy $1000-2000 worth of hardware.
Look, there ARE other choices out there. You don't need to buy a computer with Windows. You can buy a Mac, buy a Sun (*shudder*), buy from any number of Linux vendors, build your own.
The only thing you do by encouraging bootleg copies of Windows is putting more evidence in the "we need Microsoft" argument -- which is garbage. Really want to put a dent in their regime? Don't use their software at all.
I care about my right to property, and I have a moral objection to someone being able to arbitrarily take away my property as a matter of principle.
It isn't property. It's a license to use some arbitrary 1s and 0s that were copied from some other 1s and 0s. You don't own it.
But you should know this. You're on Slashdot. We make the argument all the time that we should be free to connect to torrents to download music and software, free to pass around information, because there is no property involved. There is no "theft".
We can't have it both ways, people. Either argue that bits on hard drive are ownable or not. Using both sides of the same argument just makes us look foolish.
Well, actually you're talking $250, $300, $400, $500 and #600, considering all the versions. Most people, when they try to justify a purchase, look at the base model, so really we're talking $250, $300 and $500. That's not a big difference between the Wii and the gimped Xbox 360. If the rumors are true, MS could easily drop the price $50 for the holidays and you'll have two systems at $250.
The problem is, these things are really sold on graphics. When people consider the purchase of a game, they look at paper/web reviews -- a 2D medium. Nintendo can try to put the controller into as many people's hands as it wants. Bottom line is that most people will prejudge based on screenshots before they ever get to the store.
The other issue is age. How will Wii's graphics look 2 years from now? 5 years from now? If you're not at the same level as the others in the current generation, the gap grows pretty wide towards the end of the consoles' lifespan.
Wii has an uphill battle, no matter what way you slice it.
If everyone were to copyright infringe, the creator would get $0. They would at least get something if people paid.
Therefore, at some level, it IS stealing. It's stealing the time, effort, etc. of the creator. If the creator says "you can't have my creation unless you pay for it", but you have it anyway without paying, it's stealing.
Sounds like the "fingers in your ears, screaming LA-LA-LA" defense personally.
To be honest, most of the people I've seen support them this way are teenagers our young adult males who simply don't (or can't, because they can't work a decent job) pay for what they're downloading. I used to be one of these -- then I got a job. It isn't really the media companies' fault that you can't get decent work (or that you have no skills and no one wants to pay you). *shrug*
While I think the copyright system is flawed, I think there are some fundamentals that are beneficial. Namely, copyright awards money to the people who are actually talented, and prevent others from leeching off them.
Ever hear the phrase "starving artist"? It's not just a cliche. Some of the greatest art mankind has ever made was done by artists who couldn't even afford food or pay the rent.
Biologically, we're born competitive. What copyright does is ensures the best, most creative minds actually get rewarded. Without copyright law, the "no-talents" would be paid the same as the "talents" (and it was this way for many years). Personally, I'd rather have the no talents die out.
"What about movies that are currently in the theatre and I want to know if it's worth paying the 25+ bucks to see it on the big screen (I always go with my roomate and girlfriend). I see movies all the time at movie theaters, or more aptly, theatre."
1.) Critic reviews. 2.) Web previews (Yahoo Movies, official site, etc). 3.) Television previews (HBO has these, like, way too much).
"Ummm no. I have the amenities want at my house. Nor do I have many friends, as I'm a recent implant of Austin."
Bravo for admitting you have few friends. Most do, however. Word of mouth is one of the best ways to discover stuff you'll like, because people tend to keep friends that share the same interests.
"30 secs in the middle of the song, chosen out of the best 30 secs mind you, does not a good representation make. Especially for any song over 2 minutes. I have a favorite band, they have music on iTunes. I listened to the previews, they were good so I decided to buy the CD. The CD sucked, and I couldn't get my money back."
First off, you can often listen to the entire song (streaming) on different services like Napster.
As for buying a crappy CD, corry, but them's the breaks. Like I said, for hundreds of years this was the case.
In a way it actually benefits you, as you're far less likely to contribute money to the band in the future. It also helps others, as the band is less likely to be funded and produce crappy music that they have to listen to.
"Broadcast Radio does not play the songs I like. Now if your talking internet radio it normally takes (even the big guns in my genre) 4-6 weeks for them to get it in the stream, and I can only listen to internet radio streams a) when I'm online, b) when I'm not doing something else online, c) when I feel like it. Kinda hard to stream an mp3 stream to my car (I know I could pay upwards of $60+/month for a highspeed cell connection, but up yours if you expect me to do that."
I've had this discussion with many friends with eclectic tastes. "Broadcast radio doesn't play what I like, Clearchannel owns everything, blah blah blah". I make them a wager: tell me a band you don't think gets any air time and I'll find you a channel that plays them. Sure enough, I ALWAYS find a channel in the area. It may be an obscure college radio station or something on AM, but I ALWAYS find one. I've made a ton of money on these bets.
As for your "I'm not spending the money" spiel again, tough. Entertainment is costly (more because the stars demand such a premium. If you think it's too costly, you don't need to partake in it.
"Tell me a place where you can rent a PC video game, an obscure industrial audio CD, or even a buy either one of them and return for my money back when I don't like it, I'll love you forever."
Do a Google for "rent PC games", you'll find a ton of services. As for industrial audio, a lot of these smaller bands will send you out a promo CD if you ask, free of charge. They're just happy to get the music out there.
"If a majority do it and put thier will to their representatives it _CAN_ be legal, morality is based on ethics which changes over time, and there is no such thing as "right". "
I mentioned this in another reply. The people making these laws, in the US, are voted in by the majority. Whether they take bribes from the MPAA or not (and if they are they should be immediately voted down next election) the bottom line is WE'RE responsible for the laws. That includes copyright.
That means, ultimately, the group responsible for the quagmire of copyright today is the us. Either a) enough people actually agree with these laws that they should stand or b) we should vote different people in next election.
Ignorning or going directly against the law rarely works (and weakens the case). The best solution, if you want change, is to vote people in that can champion those changes for you.
I asked "why support the Pirate Bay?" Everything you mentioned is a commentary on Swedish government and law, not the site itself. The boneheaded government, the MPAA, etc. is all ancillary to whether or not what the Pirate Bay does is right.
Personally, I see the effects on friends in the software and entertainment industries. Slashdot posters can finagle the facts all they want -- piracy does have a measurable effect on keeping people employed in the US. As far as I'm concerned, that's much more important than people wanting to get stuff for free (the core issue here).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, perhaps I'm not working at the right company then. At my company we have the system admins and a few programmers. Above that we have the project managers and other low level managers. Above that are directors, CIO, etc. In order to get from one step to the next, an MBA (or at least the experience required) is needed to advance. The MBA shaves off precious years.
What companies allow you to shift vertically? Do these new positions allow people to influence others, or are managers still the decision makers?
"None of the words were spelled wrong. When you use the wrong word: that is a grammar mistake. Not spelling."
Um, no. When you use words out of order, or have missing parts (no subject), etc. -- those are gramatical mistakes. If we really want to get technical, neither spelling nor grammar really fits my mistake.
Regardless, what does it matter? All the repliers are trying to do is derail the topic.
Also, one person has noted a single spelling mistake. "Could have" instead of "could of". Not grammar, but hey, if looking for faults floats your boat... *shrug*
Out of curiousity, have you talked to these people -- or been managed by them? Did you talk to them in a classroom or business environment (business being one where they might not be totally honest about their motivation or aspirations)?
My apologies for mispelling one word. What are the rest of the errors?
P.s. If you're going to use the same Dilbert reference in 2 different replies (PHB), it helps to keep the same username. Going anonymous cowward in only one of the two doesn't really help.
Enlighten me. Keep in mind that I have done professional writing and have also been nationally published, so I'm a little skeptical an "anonymous coward" really knows how to edit.
Quite the contrary. I believe I do have critical thinking skills and I used them quite effectively to respond to your post.
Your entire argument was based on a very stereotypical view of MBAs. You gave no real justification for your arguments, beyond made-up numbers. You supported your opinion with a view that's shared by a majority of people that have no clue what a MBA is, or the real motivation for getting one.
Here's my generalization. You sound like you're just out of college, having to deal with your first bosses and disliking it. Or, perhaps, you've had a career going for some time and have never been seen fit to manage. You sound disgruntled. There's no need to be.
You use the words "1 or 2%". Where you get these numbers, I have no idea. How you would defend them, I have no clue. It really sounds like you're making them up on the spot.
Another baseless and frankly uninformed opinion. Do all MBAs become PHBs? Do you think all MBAs honestly think of themselves as "brilliant"? Again, from my own experience, quite the contrary -- most people in my classes are well aware of their faults. I'm sorry if your experience with MBAs has led you to believe they're selfish, snide bastards. Many aren't, and it's another gross generalization.
As for intelligence, I was Salutatorian in college -- a school focusing on Computer Science. I never took a business course up until my MBA, mostly taking Comp Sci and professional writing classes.
After years of doing systems administration, I've realized this career path is a deadend. IT is becoming a utility, and most of these positions (systems admin, database admin, programming, etc.) will become the gas station mechanic and plumber positions of tomorrow. I like this industry, however, and working towards management (which requires applying critical thinking) is the only real way have a safe, fulfilling position heading into the future.
I do put it in perspective. All education is good education. If someone shows you how to bake a cake, that's life experience you can use later. If someone shows you how to get people to accept your position, and have direct reports work to their full potential (in an moral, ethical way), that's also life experience you can use later. Education is almost impossible to waste, no matter if you're going for an MBA, engineering or learning how to fix a car. The only way it can be wasted is if you're overly cynical about the process, to the point that you devalue it, as you seem to be.
Except there's no grammatical mistake anywhere in the statement. I already responded to this. Read my response.
You do realize nothing in that statemnt was incorrect, right?
"And if you have tried [for an MBA], and still knock it, well -- maybe you didn't get out of it as much as you could of."
In other words, "if you've tried for an MBA and still choose to deride it, perhaps you didn't get the positive results you might have if you took the program more seriously".
Learn2parsestatements.
Yes, we know. And 78.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Do you honestly believe this?
In my classes, we've talked about this. It's the first question the professors ask: "Why are you here?" People are brutally honest. A few say they're in it for the money. A few say they like the idea of adding initials to their name. Some never went to college, so they're trying to wrap up undergrad and graduate school at the same time.
The vast majority, however (and no, I'm not going to quote statistics -- because I don't have any) say they're tired and bored with their jobs. They like where they work more or less, but their particular tasks are repetitive and dull. System admins, programmers, etc. They want to move up to a position where their decisions matter.
Years ago, you could climb the corporate ladder to become a manager/director/CTO/CIO. You can't do this anymore. Many positions are revolving doors, and it's almost impossible to make your mark in companies that are always in flux. Just like more decent businesses won't accept you unless you have a college degree (bare minimum), most businesses won't accept managers who haven't got an MBA. It's the current reality of business and you'll just have to get used to it.
Also, I would like to comment on the "interesting things in life, and they see their path as owning or running a business" bit. I don't see owning a business as a particularly interesting thing (at least not "more interesting" than managing in an established company). I know plenty of people with crappy small businesses that will never get off the ground -- I'm not sure how they could be interesting. Personally, I wouldn't even attach the word "interesting" to one's career choice -- what you do outside of work is really what defines you.
However, don't go over-inflating the worth of an MBA beyond its earning power.
And don't go listening to stereotypes. They're usually wrong.
Sounds like you never went for an MBA...
I'm currently going for mine. This was on advice of mentors who worked with my father (he was a VP). My father was not an idiot -- neither are they. They told me getting an MBA is the next logical step in career progression (along with, of course, gaining more on-the-job experience). I believe them.
People who poo-poo MBAs don't really know what they are, or have had bad experience with coworkers who only had MBAs (and no work experience). To me, this small investment now should pay off big in the near future. If someone offered you a reasonable investment (education is ALWAYS valuable, no matter what the school), you'd take it, wouldn't you?
Do I think it'll cure all of society's ills? No. Am I learning about group interaction, the psychology involved in making decisions and the effects it has on people's psyches? Yes. Is that valuable? Undoubtedly.
In summary, don't knock it until you try it. And if you have tried it, and still knock it, well -- maybe you didn't get out of it as much as you could of.
I definitely saw the effects of the DS Lite stat. I purchased one about a week ago (even though I hate the GBA cartridge sticking out, I can't stand carrying this old brick in my pocket anymore). It has a flaw (the LCD is turned at a slight angle under the protective plastic). When I tried to return it, they had no machines to exchange with. I went online and EBGames/Gamestop were sold out. Ditto with local stores. Amazon is on 2-week backorder. Hard to get this thing anywhere.
We're actually dealing with this on a very large basis. We have about 1000 users, 400 Mac and 600 PC, accessing about 12 TB of data on a PC server. We need to use AFP because, even on OS X, the Macs store a lot of metadata crap (Adobe Photoshop, for example). Microsoft's Mac file server sucks, so we looked around for an alternate solution. We're testing with a program called "ExtremeZ-IP", which works fairly well. It doesn't read through indexes when starting up (which leads to faster boot times) and more importantly, it's clusterable (MS's solution isn't). However, we're still running into the same issues. Now, Mac users can save files that Windows users can't change or delete. /groan
I wish Apple would just move the metadata crap out of AFP and into something universally accessible. I can't stand having to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a product just because Apple can't write well using SMB.
It really doesn't compare... at all.
The only way to properly run Windows games (unfortunately) is to dualboot. That's why I installed Bootcamp on my Mac. Parallels is nice, but you'll never get full fps on something like that.
Yes, but what are you doing with the box? Up until recently there have been very little titles on Mac that really push hardware sales: games. Any old computer can run Word/Outlook/etc. Now that Apple has Intel machines, there's a reason for more people to buy the hardware. There's a reason for people to upgrade the hardware more frequently.
Let's put it this way: at my last company they were running 7-9 year old PCs. Why? These ran Windows XP (albeit slowly), but all they were really using was Word/Outlook. If your needs don't demand top-of-the-line hardware, there's no reason to get new machines. Apple, up until this point, has had customers primarily focusing on stuff that didn't require up-to-date hardware. Outside a few people doing highend video, most could get away with older Macs.
This is all going to change in the next few years. Expect more people to upgrade and replace new Macs, quicker. A 6 year old Mac may make a fine Internet browsing/Word processor, but it isn't going to keep up with the gaming market, which Apple is actively trying to court.
Um, it isn't true because there's a whole separate program ("Office Genuine Advantage", or something like that). Knock it off with the FUD. Doesn't help our case.
Actually, if you've been following the "Genuine Advantage" crap for a few months, you realize it's not an all or nothing deal at the Download Center. MS can select (rather randomly) what requires verification and what doesn't. To date, I've never run into an Office download that required WINDOWS advantage.
Why? Because you can't pony up a couple hundred bucks for a software license? I love people who do this, then turn around and buy $1000-2000 worth of hardware.
Look, there ARE other choices out there. You don't need to buy a computer with Windows. You can buy a Mac, buy a Sun (*shudder*), buy from any number of Linux vendors, build your own.
The only thing you do by encouraging bootleg copies of Windows is putting more evidence in the "we need Microsoft" argument -- which is garbage. Really want to put a dent in their regime? Don't use their software at all.
It isn't property. It's a license to use some arbitrary 1s and 0s that were copied from some other 1s and 0s. You don't own it.
But you should know this. You're on Slashdot. We make the argument all the time that we should be free to connect to torrents to download music and software, free to pass around information, because there is no property involved. There is no "theft".
We can't have it both ways, people. Either argue that bits on hard drive are ownable or not. Using both sides of the same argument just makes us look foolish.
Not under SOX it isn't. Unless it wants to be dead in the water.
Well, actually you're talking $250, $300, $400, $500 and #600, considering all the versions. Most people, when they try to justify a purchase, look at the base model, so really we're talking $250, $300 and $500. That's not a big difference between the Wii and the gimped Xbox 360. If the rumors are true, MS could easily drop the price $50 for the holidays and you'll have two systems at $250.
The problem is, these things are really sold on graphics. When people consider the purchase of a game, they look at paper/web reviews -- a 2D medium. Nintendo can try to put the controller into as many people's hands as it wants. Bottom line is that most people will prejudge based on screenshots before they ever get to the store.
The other issue is age. How will Wii's graphics look 2 years from now? 5 years from now? If you're not at the same level as the others in the current generation, the gap grows pretty wide towards the end of the consoles' lifespan.
Wii has an uphill battle, no matter what way you slice it.
If everyone were to copyright infringe, the creator would get $0. They would at least get something if people paid.
Therefore, at some level, it IS stealing. It's stealing the time, effort, etc. of the creator. If the creator says "you can't have my creation unless you pay for it", but you have it anyway without paying, it's stealing.
Sounds like the "fingers in your ears, screaming LA-LA-LA" defense personally.
To be honest, most of the people I've seen support them this way are teenagers our young adult males who simply don't (or can't, because they can't work a decent job) pay for what they're downloading. I used to be one of these -- then I got a job. It isn't really the media companies' fault that you can't get decent work (or that you have no skills and no one wants to pay you). *shrug*
I live near NYC. We have a lot of back alleys and everyone drives 3 MPH.
While I think the copyright system is flawed, I think there are some fundamentals that are beneficial. Namely, copyright awards money to the people who are actually talented, and prevent others from leeching off them.
Ever hear the phrase "starving artist"? It's not just a cliche. Some of the greatest art mankind has ever made was done by artists who couldn't even afford food or pay the rent.
Biologically, we're born competitive. What copyright does is ensures the best, most creative minds actually get rewarded. Without copyright law, the "no-talents" would be paid the same as the "talents" (and it was this way for many years). Personally, I'd rather have the no talents die out.
"What about movies that are currently in the theatre and I want to know if it's worth paying the 25+ bucks to see it on the big screen (I always go with my roomate and girlfriend). I see movies all the time at movie theaters, or more aptly, theatre."
1.) Critic reviews.
2.) Web previews (Yahoo Movies, official site, etc).
3.) Television previews (HBO has these, like, way too much).
"Ummm no. I have the amenities want at my house. Nor do I have many friends, as I'm a recent implant of Austin."
Bravo for admitting you have few friends. Most do, however. Word of mouth is one of the best ways to discover stuff you'll like, because people tend to keep friends that share the same interests.
"30 secs in the middle of the song, chosen out of the best 30 secs mind you, does not a good representation make. Especially for any song over 2 minutes. I have a favorite band, they have music on iTunes. I listened to the previews, they were good so I decided to buy the CD. The CD sucked, and I couldn't get my money back."
First off, you can often listen to the entire song (streaming) on different services like Napster.
As for buying a crappy CD, corry, but them's the breaks. Like I said, for hundreds of years this was the case.
In a way it actually benefits you, as you're far less likely to contribute money to the band in the future. It also helps others, as the band is less likely to be funded and produce crappy music that they have to listen to.
"Broadcast Radio does not play the songs I like. Now if your talking internet radio it normally takes (even the big guns in my genre) 4-6 weeks for them to get it in the stream, and I can only listen to internet radio streams a) when I'm online, b) when I'm not doing something else online, c) when I feel like it. Kinda hard to stream an mp3 stream to my car (I know I could pay upwards of $60+/month for a highspeed cell connection, but up yours if you expect me to do that."
I've had this discussion with many friends with eclectic tastes. "Broadcast radio doesn't play what I like, Clearchannel owns everything, blah blah blah". I make them a wager: tell me a band you don't think gets any air time and I'll find you a channel that plays them. Sure enough, I ALWAYS find a channel in the area. It may be an obscure college radio station or something on AM, but I ALWAYS find one. I've made a ton of money on these bets.
As for your "I'm not spending the money" spiel again, tough. Entertainment is costly (more because the stars demand such a premium. If you think it's too costly, you don't need to partake in it.
"Tell me a place where you can rent a PC video game, an obscure industrial audio CD, or even a buy either one of them and return for my money back when I don't like it, I'll love you forever."
Do a Google for "rent PC games", you'll find a ton of services. As for industrial audio, a lot of these smaller bands will send you out a promo CD if you ask, free of charge. They're just happy to get the music out there.
"If a majority do it and put thier will to their representatives it _CAN_ be legal, morality is based on ethics which changes over time, and there is no such thing as "right". "
I mentioned this in another reply. The people making these laws, in the US, are voted in by the majority. Whether they take bribes from the MPAA or not (and if they are they should be immediately voted down next election) the bottom line is WE'RE responsible for the laws. That includes copyright.
That means, ultimately, the group responsible for the quagmire of copyright today is the us. Either a) enough people actually agree with these laws that they should stand or b) we should vote different people in next election.
Ignorning or going directly against the law rarely works (and weakens the case). The best solution, if you want change, is to vote people in that can champion those changes for you.
I asked "why support the Pirate Bay?" Everything you mentioned is a commentary on Swedish government and law, not the site itself. The boneheaded government, the MPAA, etc. is all ancillary to whether or not what the Pirate Bay does is right.
Personally, I see the effects on friends in the software and entertainment industries. Slashdot posters can finagle the facts all they want -- piracy does have a measurable effect on keeping people employed in the US. As far as I'm concerned, that's much more important than people wanting to get stuff for free (the core issue here).