So how would you suggest that a small website that doesn't sell anything and doesn't want to go subscription based sell anything?
I don't block google ads.
They don't flash, they don't move, they don't make any sounds or prevent me from acessing the page I'm trying to get to, they don't slow down my machine with poitless flash nor do they get on TOP of the text I'm trying to read.
They do no evil, and they tend to be relevant to the content of the page, so I don't mind them, I sometimes click to go see what they're talking about, once I'm done with the page I initially wanted.
The problem is the ads who try to force you to pay attention to them. Those that try to stop me from reaching the page I was aiming for and to redirect me to their uninterresting crap. Those get blocked, and it's GOOD for them that I block them, before I had adblock I would boycott them. Now I don't get a very negative impression of their product and company.
But the movie took it from the POV of the liberated humans.
It was from the POV of one liberated human, Neo, and he gets access to higher knowledge during the course of the sequels. Unfortunatly, that "higher" knowledge turned out to involve, literally, a lot of hand waving.
The humans-as-a-powersource thing was something that was forgivable in the first movie, but to me at least, only in the first movie: back when they had a way out of that storytelling dead end.
Without a good relationship with the robot overminds, they couldn't know that the possibility exists that the robots built the matrix for the survival of the human race, that the machines were acting as a child might when a parent has violent schizophrenia.
Well, it didn't turn out to be that way either. Back when I was giving this story a lot of thought (I had a lot of fun with my sci-fi nerd buddies speculating about the possibilities), I had imagined that it could turn out that the machines were keeping humans in pods because humanity destroyed it's own world and this was the only way to keep the species alive. But it turned out that the machines destroyed humanity's civilisations and kept a zoo while they had free run of the real world... and that "our only weapon against the machines is the EMP" was a bold lie, since regular high-caliber guns work just as well... and they have mechas... and... well, you know the rest, it's depressing.
There is a major difference between going for a piss during an advert break, and actively removing every single advert.
You still have a full bladder in the later scenario.
Other than that... Fuck 'em, I don't want to see their ads for tampons: I'll never buy tampons in my LIFE, if I ever do, it will be a brand specified by the woman making me run errands, not a brand selected based on advertising.
I use the mute button or channel-surf when ads come on, I'm not watching ads on TV, I don't see ads on the net, I don't read the ads in the magazines, I don't listen to them on the radio, I don't owe anything to the advertisers.
They try to brainwash me into giving them money, I resist by ignoring them, changing channel, muting, adlocking, turning the page, or skipping to thwe end of the commercial break. It isn't wrong of me to do this, like it isn't wrong of them to spend money to get me to know their product exists.
Every time somebody says "Bit Torrent is just like a VCR" or "it's not stealing" or "I'm not doing anything wrong when I download," you make it just that much harder for Apple or anybody else to open such a store. Every time you say something like that, you push the date of our opening back by a month. If you won't buy a moral argument, will you at least buy that one?
Quick! Everybody clap your hands! It'll make the RIAA stop being callous assholes!
What's wrong with it is that the people aren't offering you a chance to try before you buy. In order to try before you buy, you have to steal a copy from the owners. It's kind of sad that you don't see anything wrong with that.
There is wrong in that: The owners are wrong.
If you wanted to turn this around into an argument that says, "Hey, content providers should offer this as a service," that would be fine. I'd be right there with you. But using it to say "It's okay to take things" just isn't right.
It's ok to borrow things, as long as you do it without causing the owner to be unable to use it if he wants to use it, and you don't dammage or wear it out in the process.
I can't believe we're still having the old and tired "copying/theft" argument: Unauthorised use, yes, but you don't take it away from them, therefore it isn't theft. I never bought as much music as I did during the napster haydays, I was sampling music, buying the ones I liked. They called me a thief for it! Now I want them bankrupt... corrupt bastards.
...is that it is mindnumbingly irrational. "I go to a convenience store and use my Star Trek Replication Device to copy a can of Diet Coke, without taking away the existing Diet Coke. I like it so much that the next day, I replicate a case. I tell my friend that I like Diet Coke, and he replicates his own case. Now none of us buy Diet Coke, and they go bankrupt. Noone will bother inventing new soft drinks anymore, since there's no profit to be made."
The whole "this is profitable" argument relies that a chain of events leading up to more sales (or other money-generating events like ad impressions).
If you have Star Trek Replication Technology. You also have the Star Trek Socialist Techno-Eutopia that goes with it, in which there is no money, and no RIAA. Q. E. D.
Profit is the goal and motive, control of the masses is just something they do in order to reach that goal.
But they act in a way that sacrifices short-term profit in order to reach that goal. So it leads some people to think that profit isn't what they really care about.
I think what they really want is power, and profit is one way of obtaining power.
Once upon a time, long, long ago, a neurologist said (approx) "We only know what 20% of the brain is used for." A reporter translated this into "We only use 20% of our brain".
I always hear "10%", this is the first time I've seen 20...
And I thought the whole thing was a misinterpretation of the fact that the myelin covered axons only use about 10% or their length to transmit a signal, since the covered parts are "skipped", thus resulting in faster signal transmission. At least, that's what they told me in biology class.
Think of this the next time you read a news story.
I once saw a reporter call that british fraud "the first cyborg"... and I KNOW the same reporter did a piece on cochlear implants before that. It baffles me that people can be that dumb.
probably cause when you hold up a Duracell battery, everyone knows what it is. try that with a processor, even an Intel one.
I didn't mind that in that sense, since Morpheus flat out tells Neo he doesn't really know what the hell is going on, the coppertop jokes were in line with what the Zion people believed, it was part of their post-apocalytic ignorance.
But it doesn't make sense when you think about it, and they had a better explanation (from an agent of the matrix, who DOES know what's going on, unlike the free humans) on their web site when the movie came out... it's even on the DVD's computer-accessible extras, but they decided to ignore it and roll with the power supply explanation, and, well, that was just one of the many ways in which the sequels sucked.
Am I the only one that was disapointed that they acted as if humans were less dependant on solar energy (hello, plants!) than machines (fossil fuels, nuclear energy, etc)?
And further disapointed when in the Animatrix they took "scorched the sky" to the absurd by having it be be a set of planes releasing black smoke instead of the nuclear winter it could so simply and logically have been?
bubblegum crisis. 2 fembots powered by blood comes to earth in one episode of the OVA series.
Wait, was that the episode where they fight them on top of a space elevator guarded by robot sabre-toothed tigers... Or cyber-toothed tigers, if you will?
When Morpheus said they believe the Matrix uses people as a power source for the machines, I thought "Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!", but on their web site I found a more coherant explanation, written by Neil Gaiman.
Unfortunatly, they discarded the better writer's explanation and went ahead with their sillyness in the sequels. But you can still read the short story (it's on the first DVD, too).
If the tables were turned, I'm sure apple would do the same thing to tiger direct. Apple has quite a colorful litigeous history.
Big businesses hire lawyers. Lawyers that just sit around the office all day, looking for someone to sue. You either sick 'em on outsiders or they start looking fo a reason to sue their coworkers;-)
Slashdot Mirror
So how would you suggest that a small website that doesn't sell anything and doesn't want to go subscription based sell anything?
I don't block google ads.
They don't flash, they don't move, they don't make any sounds or prevent me from acessing the page I'm trying to get to, they don't slow down my machine with poitless flash nor do they get on TOP of the text I'm trying to read.
They do no evil, and they tend to be relevant to the content of the page, so I don't mind them, I sometimes click to go see what they're talking about, once I'm done with the page I initially wanted.
The problem is the ads who try to force you to pay attention to them. Those that try to stop me from reaching the page I was aiming for and to redirect me to their uninterresting crap. Those get blocked, and it's GOOD for them that I block them, before I had adblock I would boycott them. Now I don't get a very negative impression of their product and company.
Too bad OSTG doesn't have crime statstics for Slashdot readers :)
Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything!
But the movie took it from the POV of the liberated humans.
It was from the POV of one liberated human, Neo, and he gets access to higher knowledge during the course of the sequels.
Unfortunatly, that "higher" knowledge turned out to involve, literally, a lot of hand waving.
The humans-as-a-powersource thing was something that was forgivable in the first movie, but to me at least, only in the first movie: back when they had a way out of that storytelling dead end.
Without a good relationship with the robot overminds, they couldn't know that the possibility exists that the robots built the matrix for the survival of the human race, that the machines were acting as a child might when a parent has violent schizophrenia.
Well, it didn't turn out to be that way either. Back when I was giving this story a lot of thought (I had a lot of fun with my sci-fi nerd buddies speculating about the possibilities), I had imagined that it could turn out that the machines were keeping humans in pods because humanity destroyed it's own world and this was the only way to keep the species alive. But it turned out that the machines destroyed humanity's civilisations and kept a zoo while they had free run of the real world... and that "our only weapon against the machines is the EMP" was a bold lie, since regular high-caliber guns work just as well... and they have mechas... and... well, you know the rest, it's depressing.
The advertisers see you as an untapped market.
lol! "Also good for nosebleeds!"
technically, that wasn't legal either.
It is legal to make a copy for private use.
The **AAs fought to make it illegal, but fortunatly, they didn't win.
But no doubt you're the first to complain when things on the internet become subscription based?
And somehow wind up with MORE ads? Yeah, I do.
There is a major difference between going for a piss during an advert break, and actively removing every single advert.
You still have a full bladder in the later scenario.
Other than that... Fuck 'em, I don't want to see their ads for tampons: I'll never buy tampons in my LIFE, if I ever do, it will be a brand specified by the woman making me run errands, not a brand selected based on advertising.
I use the mute button or channel-surf when ads come on, I'm not watching ads on TV, I don't see ads on the net, I don't read the ads in the magazines, I don't listen to them on the radio, I don't owe anything to the advertisers.
They try to brainwash me into giving them money, I resist by ignoring them, changing channel, muting, adlocking, turning the page, or skipping to thwe end of the commercial break. It isn't wrong of me to do this, like it isn't wrong of them to spend money to get me to know their product exists.
Every time somebody says "Bit Torrent is just like a VCR" or "it's not stealing" or "I'm not doing anything wrong when I download," you make it just that much harder for Apple or anybody else to open such a store.
Every time you say something like that, you push the date of our opening back by a month.
If you won't buy a moral argument, will you at least buy that one?
Quick! Everybody clap your hands! It'll make the RIAA stop being callous assholes!
everyone says it's a good enough series that I should overlook things like the female Starbuck and the non-robotic Cylons.
Think of all you had to overlook in order to enjoy the originals; this is much easier.
What's wrong with it is that the people aren't offering you a chance to try before you buy. In order to try before you buy, you have to steal a copy from the owners. It's kind of sad that you don't see anything wrong with that.
There is wrong in that: The owners are wrong.
If you wanted to turn this around into an argument that says, "Hey, content providers should offer this as a service," that would be fine. I'd be right there with you. But using it to say "It's okay to take things" just isn't right.
It's ok to borrow things, as long as you do it without causing the owner to be unable to use it if he wants to use it, and you don't dammage or wear it out in the process.
I can't believe we're still having the old and tired "copying/theft" argument: Unauthorised use, yes, but you don't take it away from them, therefore it isn't theft. I never bought as much music as I did during the napster haydays, I was sampling music, buying the ones I liked. They called me a thief for it! Now I want them bankrupt... corrupt bastards.
Now go ahead readers & nitpick my analogy. But you know it to be true in essence.
I do not.
I know that free software is distributed freely, and that the products of the copyright owners aren't supposed to be.
Freely distributed software, freely distributed TV shows.
"I go to a convenience store and use my Star Trek Replication Device to copy a can of Diet Coke, without taking away the existing Diet Coke. I like it so much that the next day, I replicate a case. I tell my friend that I like Diet Coke, and he replicates his own case. Now none of us buy Diet Coke, and they go bankrupt. Noone will bother inventing new soft drinks anymore, since there's no profit to be made."
The whole "this is profitable" argument relies that a chain of events leading up to more sales (or other money-generating events like ad impressions).
If you have Star Trek Replication Technology. You also have the Star Trek Socialist Techno-Eutopia that goes with it, in which there is no money, and no RIAA.
Q. E. D.
Profit is the goal and motive, control of the masses is just something they do in order to reach that goal.
But they act in a way that sacrifices short-term profit in order to reach that goal. So it leads some people to think that profit isn't what they really care about.
I think what they really want is power, and profit is one way of obtaining power.
I call bullshit whenever I hear such major loss of profit due to filesharing followed by a record quarterly earnings from the same companies.
These are the people who list a greater number of burners than were actually there because the burners were fast.
Making up numbers is what they do, apparently.
but would you send your kids to Neverland Ranch to stay with MJ?
Hell, I want to go to neverland ranch! They got a ferris wheel, llamas AND porn! Sounds like my kind of place.
Yes and the second law of thermodynamics says that will eventually lead to a bunch of dead humans.
Not to mention that feeding on human brains tends to propagate creutzfeldt jacobs' disease. A closed system just falls to entropy too easilly.
Once upon a time, long, long ago, a neurologist said (approx) "We only know what 20% of the brain is used for." A reporter translated this into "We only use 20% of our brain".
I always hear "10%", this is the first time I've seen 20...
And I thought the whole thing was a misinterpretation of the fact that the myelin covered axons only use about 10% or their length to transmit a signal, since the covered parts are "skipped", thus resulting in faster signal transmission. At least, that's what they told me in biology class.
Think of this the next time you read a news story.
I once saw a reporter call that british fraud "the first cyborg"... and I KNOW the same reporter did a piece on cochlear implants before that.
It baffles me that people can be that dumb.
probably cause when you hold up a Duracell battery, everyone knows what it is. try that with a processor, even an Intel one.
I didn't mind that in that sense, since Morpheus flat out tells Neo he doesn't really know what the hell is going on, the coppertop jokes were in line with what the Zion people believed, it was part of their post-apocalytic ignorance.
But it doesn't make sense when you think about it, and they had a better explanation (from an agent of the matrix, who DOES know what's going on, unlike the free humans) on their web site when the movie came out... it's even on the DVD's computer-accessible extras, but they decided to ignore it and roll with the power supply explanation, and, well, that was just one of the many ways in which the sequels sucked.
Now all we need is a way to darken the sky.
Am I the only one that was disapointed that they acted as if humans were less dependant on solar energy (hello, plants!) than machines (fossil fuels, nuclear energy, etc)?
And further disapointed when in the Animatrix they took "scorched the sky" to the absurd by having it be be a set of planes releasing black smoke instead of the nuclear winter it could so simply and logically have been?
bubblegum crisis.
2 fembots powered by blood comes to earth in one episode of the OVA series.
Wait, was that the episode where they fight them on top of a space elevator guarded by robot sabre-toothed tigers... Or cyber-toothed tigers, if you will?
Ohh god, don't give hollywood any ideas.
;-)
Why not? They've been begging for one for years!
When Morpheus said they believe the Matrix uses people as a power source for the machines, I thought "Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!", but on their web site I found a more coherant explanation, written by Neil Gaiman.
Unfortunatly, they discarded the better writer's explanation and went ahead with their sillyness in the sequels. But you can still read the short story (it's on the first DVD, too).
If the tables were turned, I'm sure apple would do the same thing to tiger direct. Apple has quite a colorful litigeous history.
;-)
Big businesses hire lawyers.
Lawyers that just sit around the office all day, looking for someone to sue. You either sick 'em on outsiders or they start looking fo a reason to sue their coworkers
Bullshimble!
...perfectly cromulent word.
The English language is evolving.com all the time, and new words are addendumated every year into the lexicolon.
The fact is, the average person has probably never even heard of the Firefly series.
So they'll hear about some sci-fi movie and go see it based on the promise of hot babes and many explosions.
No worries, if you blow it up, they will come.