"And I find Nanogator's assertion that those people make up a significant proportion of the downloading population to be ridiculous."
I don't. You use search engines to find music. It's a lot easier to get a search engine to find something you already know about than it is to find something you may or may not like. I doubt many people are running around downloading entire albums.
If they only download one or two songs from an album, then the RIAA has not lost any money. They sell albums, not individual songs. There's still plenty of value in buying the CD if you've downloaded that song.
In any case, the RIAA has not fallen. It has not lost a significant amount of revenue that can be directly attributed to music trading. If anything, P2P flared up interest in music. Too bad the RIAA made an enemy out of a lot of their customers over it.
"Piracy does very little to harm music, for the very simple reason that the people who make music (musicians) make money from PERFORMANCES, not selling recordings."
Record companies make ridiculous amounts of cash from CD's. Even with music trading going on (I refuse to call it piracy when a significant portion of the people who download music have already paid for it) they're still not seeing any damage because downloading a song is not the same as downloading a whole album. Why download 10 mp3s from one album when you can download 1 mp3 from 10 different albums and get a feel for if it's interseting to you or not?
Anyway, that's way off topic but I thought it should be mentioned in light of the parent post.
Re:In a related study...
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 1
"...the BSA pointed out that countries with more relaxed Intellectual Property laws had higher child mortality rates. "The inference is clear", BSA CEO Robert Holleyman said, "Piracy kills babies".
Once you count the unwanted pregnancies caused by piracy, it all evens out.
"And the new TCP/IP RFC repeated 3 times was another stupid fucking move that only demonstrates the lack of creativity they have in screwing with people."
Actually, it demonstrates that he listens to everybody's whining about the infrequent story dupes. He's not making fun of himself, he's winding up the overly sensitive ppl out there whose lives depend on Slashdot providing fresh content 20 times a day.
Exactly what 'sucks ass' about them? You haven't given any reasons why it's bad that it's proprietary. Other than the potential to recieve karma for praising Open Source, what exactly is wrong with Macromedia providing this product?
a.) WC3 is incredibly slow and hesitant to evolve the standard. That's why MS charges ahead with it's own stuff. If Mozilla or Opera were smart, they'd do it as well.
b.) Macromedia, since it's made a business of it, has a good deal of incentive to keep Flash under development. They also have an incentive to make sure that the software's actually usable. Sadly, lots of Open Source projects don't have that incentive. The options there are to write it ourselves or just appreciate what we got.
c.) What exactly is stopping this from happening anyway? Macromedia cannot do anything to stop a rising standard. As a matter of fact, the market for an alternative version is wide open. You keep saying "should", but that opportunity is there and ready to be taken. Macromedia has done that and really evolved it. That 'sucks ass'?
"Or does anyone else think Flash should die a quick and painful death?"
Nope. If anything, I think it's exactly the tool the internet needs. The graphics are (usually) vectorized resulting in smooth resizing. A properly programmed Flash interface can result in far fewer page hits, thus optimizing traffic. Audio can be added. Though that's a double edged sword, it's more than can be said for HTML. It's pretty compact as well.
As for it dying a quick and painful death, I think that's an ignorant point of view. Just because some people have used it to irritate you doesn't mean it should die. The authors of that content should perhaps, but not the plug-in itself.
You want an example of a good use for Flash? Well, I don't have the site handy, but somebody used Flash to create an interface for blind people. It was all black, but when you moved your mouse around you recieved audio clues on where to click. That was damn cool. This could likely be done in Java as well, but the difference is in development environment. You don't need to be a Java programmer to make an app like that in Flash.
So no, I don't agree with you. If anything, I don't think Flash has reached its potential yet. You might do a search for "Ninjai". It's a cartoon series done with Flash, and it's damn cool.
>I have NO idea how you relate the shit ending with "interesting if you've done programming" either. Seems like you just tossed that in for some reason or another.
He's referring to David's program. He was programmed to love his 'mother'. But once his mother was established, there was no way for them to change who his mom is. It was a one shot deal. So when his mother eventually died of old age, that was it for him. Tragically, he couldn't finish his program. I think the programming reference the AC was making was that it's sort of like a un-trapped error event. His program can no longer be completed.
At the end of the movie, the super-robots at the end scanned his memory and they found out how tragic his programming was, so they found a way to fix it. They fed him a BS story that they could clone his mother so that they could trick him into thinking he could see her again, providing a way to complete his program.
The setup there was that she'd go to sleep and when she wakes up, she'd die. So when she went to bed, still alive of course, it was time for David to sleep as well. He started to dream. For him, she's still alive until he wakes up to discover she's dead. So, knowing she'd die, he just never wakes up. He spends the rest of his existence, with his program satisfactorally complete, dreaming. Sure beats being awake and having a mission you can't fulfill, duddn't it?
The AC's right, that's a very creative ending. Killing him off underwater would have been pointless.
Heh. That made my day. I'm tired of being corrected on stupid things like the difference between "viruses" and "virii". Normally I wouldn't mind, but once you've studied latin it's hard to avoid the urge to call it 'virii'. I wish people who use that term would be cut a little slack, it's not like we're all posting with spell and grammar checkers here. Afterall, this is just a forum. It's not a Scholastic Competition. When you correct somebody on use of a term that nobody could possibily mistake, you just sound like an arrogant ass, especially when done with such little tact.
Okay, I'm done ranting. Please spare me your ill-based theory that if people don't speak 100% correct English 100% of the time that we'll all end up communicating via a series of grunts and moans.
"It's sad that Intel is trying to block a level of tweakability, but I can't say I'm surprised. I'm certainly not ready to raise the pitchforks towards them. If anything, I'd aim it at the Geek Community who put it in Intel's sights. Good job guys.
"
I wouldn't be so quick to judge that as flamebait. He's got a point. Ya'all can't act like victims here. Intel is perfectly within their right to do so. It may not settle well with you, and that's perfectly fine. However, acting like Intel's just out to ruin the fun (as the guy who started this thread suggested) is childish.
Just to be clear, I'm not anti-overclocking. I'm not saying that overclocking is stealing from Intel. Not even close. All I'm saying is that Intel's well within their right to protect their hardware. Despite what the DMCA says, I think you're well within your right to crack that protection as well. I just don't think you're within your right to complain that MS is out to make people's lives miserable.
..but can anybody out there make that claim? I doubt it. If you know enough to keep everybody out, you pretty much know enough to keep everybody out no matter what OS you're on. Windows' big problem (I'm referring only to NT/2K/XP, not 9x or ME. I wouldn't defend that line for nothing.) is its poor choice of defaults. Lock it down and it isn't half bad. I had an IIS server running for nearly 2 years without a single incident. The big thing I did (here's a free tip for you IIS users out there) was I installed 'URLScan' which applied a filter to all URS before parsing. This not only prevented people from trying to use buffer-overflow techniques to break in, but it also let me prevent very specific things from being run. Damn cool, but it really should come with IIS. Like I said, poor defaults.
A Linux box, by default, is hardly more secure. Within a couple of weeks of building an Apache Server with the latest Redhat, it got rooted. Yay. You still have to patch it up, lock it down, and monitor it. I know the tools are there to make it more secure, but the problem is that you have to get to know it. I'm new to the Linux world, and as such I was more vulnerable to malicious attack than I was with IIS because I was unfamiliar with it.
So I'm curious, who actually can make that claim? Nobody immediately springs to mind.
Though I completely agree, I meant to say that Voyager tainted the entire Trek franchise.
As for Farscape, though I love the set/costume design and the dialog, that show would easily survive in a half hour time slot. Babble babble babble.
Re:Everyone's upset that Sci-Fi cancelled...
on
Farscape Finale Tonight
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"I thought that Sci-Fi said the ratings were fine, they just weren't *growing* enough to justify the high cost of production. "
It's a valid point. No idea if it's true or not, but I can see that happening. Farscape was probably a victim of it's own ambition. Make a show too involved, and you lose the ability to grow your audience. Frankly, the show's too weird for newcomers.
I just started watching the "We're So Screwed" trilogy from my Replay. (Sniff sniff damn SonicBlue.) BORING. Down right boring. I could see myself enjoying it more if I understood the importance of one of the characters. And here I am, the type of guy easily gets into new shows.
If the show had taken a step back and tried not to be too... oh I don't know the word... it could capture an audience and grow. But in it's current state, you really have to invest more time than most ppl are willing to in order to be rewarded.
Know what bothers me, though? This is the type of thing that could drive series DVD sales. I'm spending $100 a month for DS9 on DVD. It earned my fandom and now they're getting loads of cash from me. Wouldn't it be cool if Farscape went off the air, but continued making straight to DVD eps?
"Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this? "
Well, I think the technology's going to come before the application here. Chances are your question wouldn't be answered until this stuff's done and released.
However, I can think of an interesting application: The desktop interface to your computer. I like the idea of my individual windows having depth. If they were transparent to boot, that could potentially mean that I can have a great deal more data on the screen at once.
The question is, will this particular 3D technology lend itself to that. To be honest, I don't know. I haven't seen it. I do think, though, that depth perception could really revolutionize interfaces in general.
All I said was that he had a point, no need to get all defensive.
To be fair, the game market's success is also the PC's success. Without it, I doubt laptops would even have sound hardware. You recieve benefit from it, whether you realize it or not. It's not a complete waste of money.
The AC's got a good point. MS has created a huge game market, and as long as they keep Windows up to date that market will only grow.
You personally may not care about that, but there's a huge number of people who do. You may not like supporting MS, but if you're a gamer then that $90 'tax' is not entirely a bad thing. Nothing wrong with having XP to dual boot with.
"I don't understand how this is different from rhapsody from http://www.listen.com Listen.com has a plan where you pay $9.95/month, then you can preview as many as you like."
I think people are cautious about subscriptions to websites. If Rhapsody is smart, they'll offer the $.99 service sans subscription. Then people can shop on their own.
It'd also be interesting if they had a 'legalize your collection!' sale. "30% off 100 songs ore more!'
Slashdot Mirror
"And I find Nanogator's assertion that those people make up a significant proportion of the downloading population to be ridiculous."
I don't. You use search engines to find music. It's a lot easier to get a search engine to find something you already know about than it is to find something you may or may not like. I doubt many people are running around downloading entire albums.
If they only download one or two songs from an album, then the RIAA has not lost any money. They sell albums, not individual songs. There's still plenty of value in buying the CD if you've downloaded that song.
In any case, the RIAA has not fallen. It has not lost a significant amount of revenue that can be directly attributed to music trading. If anything, P2P flared up interest in music. Too bad the RIAA made an enemy out of a lot of their customers over it.
"Piracy does very little to harm music, for the very simple reason that the people who make music (musicians) make money from PERFORMANCES, not selling recordings."
Record companies make ridiculous amounts of cash from CD's. Even with music trading going on (I refuse to call it piracy when a significant portion of the people who download music have already paid for it) they're still not seeing any damage because downloading a song is not the same as downloading a whole album. Why download 10 mp3s from one album when you can download 1 mp3 from 10 different albums and get a feel for if it's interseting to you or not?
Anyway, that's way off topic but I thought it should be mentioned in light of the parent post.
"...the BSA pointed out that countries with more relaxed Intellectual Property laws had higher child mortality rates. "The inference is clear", BSA CEO Robert Holleyman said, "Piracy kills babies".
Once you count the unwanted pregnancies caused by piracy, it all evens out.
"because microsoft IS the evil empire you pawn "
You're on the 'Hating Microsoft is Cool' bandwagon, and he is the pawn?
No wonder you don't have a registerred nick, you failed the clue-exam.
"Linux, the Gamer's Choice! "
Ouch! Hehehehee.
"Mac at 3 Ghz..."
"And the new TCP/IP RFC repeated 3 times was another stupid fucking move that only demonstrates the lack of creativity they have in screwing with people."
Actually, it demonstrates that he listens to everybody's whining about the infrequent story dupes. He's not making fun of himself, he's winding up the overly sensitive ppl out there whose lives depend on Slashdot providing fresh content 20 times a day.
"Great! a web site that works for blind people. But now it does not work for the deaf!"
That was an intentional design choice to show what it's like for a blind person to surf. It was not a limitation of the software.
"Just give me the damned content (if you have any) in plain HTML.
Umm, if you were blind, you wouldn't be saying that.
"Proprietary 'punch the monkey' things suck ass."
Exactly what 'sucks ass' about them? You haven't given any reasons why it's bad that it's proprietary. Other than the potential to recieve karma for praising Open Source, what exactly is wrong with Macromedia providing this product?
a.) WC3 is incredibly slow and hesitant to evolve the standard. That's why MS charges ahead with it's own stuff. If Mozilla or Opera were smart, they'd do it as well.
b.) Macromedia, since it's made a business of it, has a good deal of incentive to keep Flash under development. They also have an incentive to make sure that the software's actually usable. Sadly, lots of Open Source projects don't have that incentive. The options there are to write it ourselves or just appreciate what we got.
c.) What exactly is stopping this from happening anyway? Macromedia cannot do anything to stop a rising standard. As a matter of fact, the market for an alternative version is wide open. You keep saying "should", but that opportunity is there and ready to be taken. Macromedia has done that and really evolved it. That 'sucks ass'?
"Or does anyone else think Flash should die a quick and painful death?"
Nope. If anything, I think it's exactly the tool the internet needs. The graphics are (usually) vectorized resulting in smooth resizing. A properly programmed Flash interface can result in far fewer page hits, thus optimizing traffic. Audio can be added. Though that's a double edged sword, it's more than can be said for HTML. It's pretty compact as well.
As for it dying a quick and painful death, I think that's an ignorant point of view. Just because some people have used it to irritate you doesn't mean it should die. The authors of that content should perhaps, but not the plug-in itself.
You want an example of a good use for Flash? Well, I don't have the site handy, but somebody used Flash to create an interface for blind people. It was all black, but when you moved your mouse around you recieved audio clues on where to click. That was damn cool. This could likely be done in Java as well, but the difference is in development environment. You don't need to be a Java programmer to make an app like that in Flash.
So no, I don't agree with you. If anything, I don't think Flash has reached its potential yet. You might do a search for "Ninjai". It's a cartoon series done with Flash, and it's damn cool.
I just wanted to point you at this post I made here:
6 04 350
:)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=58612&cid=5
It talks about the ending to AI and may shed some light on it for you.
Cheers.
>I have NO idea how you relate the shit ending with "interesting if you've done programming" either. Seems like you just tossed that in for some reason or another.
He's referring to David's program. He was programmed to love his 'mother'. But once his mother was established, there was no way for them to change who his mom is. It was a one shot deal. So when his mother eventually died of old age, that was it for him. Tragically, he couldn't finish his program. I think the programming reference the AC was making was that it's sort of like a un-trapped error event. His program can no longer be completed.
At the end of the movie, the super-robots at the end scanned his memory and they found out how tragic his programming was, so they found a way to fix it. They fed him a BS story that they could clone his mother so that they could trick him into thinking he could see her again, providing a way to complete his program.
The setup there was that she'd go to sleep and when she wakes up, she'd die. So when she went to bed, still alive of course, it was time for David to sleep as well. He started to dream. For him, she's still alive until he wakes up to discover she's dead. So, knowing she'd die, he just never wakes up. He spends the rest of his existence, with his program satisfactorally complete, dreaming. Sure beats being awake and having a mission you can't fulfill, duddn't it?
The AC's right, that's a very creative ending. Killing him off underwater would have been pointless.
"STFU, not STFES.
Learn More." [reference.com]"
LOL! Burn!
Heh. That made my day. I'm tired of being corrected on stupid things like the difference between "viruses" and "virii". Normally I wouldn't mind, but once you've studied latin it's hard to avoid the urge to call it 'virii'. I wish people who use that term would be cut a little slack, it's not like we're all posting with spell and grammar checkers here. Afterall, this is just a forum. It's not a Scholastic Competition. When you correct somebody on use of a term that nobody could possibily mistake, you just sound like an arrogant ass, especially when done with such little tact.
Okay, I'm done ranting. Please spare me your ill-based theory that if people don't speak 100% correct English 100% of the time that we'll all end up communicating via a series of grunts and moans.
"I just don't think you're within your right to complain that MS is out to make people's lives miserable. "
Oops, I meant Intel, not MS. *Sheepish Grin* Damn, I'm gonna lose Karma over that mistake. -1, Not Anti-Microsoft.
"It's sad that Intel is trying to block a level of tweakability, but I can't say I'm surprised. I'm certainly not ready to raise the pitchforks towards them. If anything, I'd aim it at the Geek Community who put it in Intel's sights. Good job guys.
"
I wouldn't be so quick to judge that as flamebait. He's got a point. Ya'all can't act like victims here. Intel is perfectly within their right to do so. It may not settle well with you, and that's perfectly fine. However, acting like Intel's just out to ruin the fun (as the guy who started this thread suggested) is childish.
Just to be clear, I'm not anti-overclocking. I'm not saying that overclocking is stealing from Intel. Not even close. All I'm saying is that Intel's well within their right to protect their hardware. Despite what the DMCA says, I think you're well within your right to crack that protection as well. I just don't think you're within your right to complain that MS is out to make people's lives miserable.
..but can anybody out there make that claim? I doubt it. If you know enough to keep everybody out, you pretty much know enough to keep everybody out no matter what OS you're on. Windows' big problem (I'm referring only to NT/2K/XP, not 9x or ME. I wouldn't defend that line for nothing.) is its poor choice of defaults. Lock it down and it isn't half bad. I had an IIS server running for nearly 2 years without a single incident. The big thing I did (here's a free tip for you IIS users out there) was I installed 'URLScan' which applied a filter to all URS before parsing. This not only prevented people from trying to use buffer-overflow techniques to break in, but it also let me prevent very specific things from being run. Damn cool, but it really should come with IIS. Like I said, poor defaults.
A Linux box, by default, is hardly more secure. Within a couple of weeks of building an Apache Server with the latest Redhat, it got rooted. Yay. You still have to patch it up, lock it down, and monitor it. I know the tools are there to make it more secure, but the problem is that you have to get to know it. I'm new to the Linux world, and as such I was more vulnerable to malicious attack than I was with IIS because I was unfamiliar with it.
So I'm curious, who actually can make that claim? Nobody immediately springs to mind.
"Voyager sucked from the very beginning."
Though I completely agree, I meant to say that Voyager tainted the entire Trek franchise.
As for Farscape, though I love the set/costume design and the dialog, that show would easily survive in a half hour time slot. Babble babble babble.
"I thought that Sci-Fi said the ratings were fine, they just weren't *growing* enough to justify the high cost of production. "
... oh I don't know the word ... it could capture an audience and grow. But in it's current state, you really have to invest more time than most ppl are willing to in order to be rewarded.
It's a valid point. No idea if it's true or not, but I can see that happening. Farscape was probably a victim of it's own ambition. Make a show too involved, and you lose the ability to grow your audience. Frankly, the show's too weird for newcomers.
I just started watching the "We're So Screwed" trilogy from my Replay. (Sniff sniff damn SonicBlue.) BORING. Down right boring. I could see myself enjoying it more if I understood the importance of one of the characters. And here I am, the type of guy easily gets into new shows.
If the show had taken a step back and tried not to be too
Know what bothers me, though? This is the type of thing that could drive series DVD sales. I'm spending $100 a month for DS9 on DVD. It earned my fandom and now they're getting loads of cash from me. Wouldn't it be cool if Farscape went off the air, but continued making straight to DVD eps?
"Save Farscape!"
Save it? It had a good run. Let it go before it gets tained, Voyager style.
"Free advertising on Slashdot."/i.
Ha! Somebody should print the source code and write an article about how they installed Linux on a ream of paper...
"System Can't See It."
Ha!
How about:
Same Configuration, Spastic Interface
Sorry I meant t, as in time.
:)
Had a bit of a brain fart there.
Your 2-D monitor works in 3 dimensions because it's animated.
"Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this? "
Well, I think the technology's going to come before the application here. Chances are your question wouldn't be answered until this stuff's done and released.
However, I can think of an interesting application: The desktop interface to your computer. I like the idea of my individual windows having depth. If they were transparent to boot, that could potentially mean that I can have a great deal more data on the screen at once.
The question is, will this particular 3D technology lend itself to that. To be honest, I don't know. I haven't seen it. I do think, though, that depth perception could really revolutionize interfaces in general.
All I said was that he had a point, no need to get all defensive.
To be fair, the game market's success is also the PC's success. Without it, I doubt laptops would even have sound hardware. You recieve benefit from it, whether you realize it or not. It's not a complete waste of money.
The AC's got a good point. MS has created a huge game market, and as long as they keep Windows up to date that market will only grow.
You personally may not care about that, but there's a huge number of people who do. You may not like supporting MS, but if you're a gamer then that $90 'tax' is not entirely a bad thing. Nothing wrong with having XP to dual boot with.
"I don't understand how this is different from rhapsody from http://www.listen.com Listen.com has a plan where you pay $9.95/month, then you can preview as many as you like."
I think people are cautious about subscriptions to websites. If Rhapsody is smart, they'll offer the $.99 service sans subscription. Then people can shop on their own.
It'd also be interesting if they had a 'legalize your collection!' sale. "30% off 100 songs ore more!'