"This is supposed to be "News for Nerds"? What's so Nerdy about this? Other than the fact that Shiela Villalobos hasn't paid me back my $310... This aint news... I want 5 mins of my life back!"
Seeing as how a good portion of the/. community is interested in seeing this movie, finding out if it's good or not is worth the time. The $5 I saved by not seeing Resident Evil is going to a subscription here.
Nice attempt at Karma Whoring, though.:)
Psst btw it is news, if Samsung wins this case, it could affect our digital rights. You could get sued for stuff like making the WTC look like it's flipping off the Middle East.
I strongly disagree. It's too soon. There are a lot of people hurt and frightened by what happened on 9-11 who would like to esacpe it. If they can't go to a movie to get away from it, then where are they supposed to go? There still isn't a news day that goes by that doesn't mention the destruction of the WTC.
If you want to see the trailer in question, there's a 'magazine' (it's really a DVD) in the mag section of Borders for about $10. I think it's called Movie FX.. or something like that. (I apologize, it's been a while since I bought it.) It's a DVD that shows how effects are made. They have the WTC Spidey Trailer if you want to see it.
When I saw it back in Jan, it bothered me. I can only imagine how somebody who was close to the attack felt.
"Now the question of whether the removal is warranted or ethical I will leave to the philosopher and lawyers; I'm just an engineer."
Here in Portland, we recently had a movie filmed where they took one of the bridges and added a train to it. I haven't seen the movie yet, but that bridge is pretty identifable up close. I can imagine somebody seeing that movie, visiting Portland, finding that bridge, and saying "Hey? Where's the train?"
Anybody gonna sue them for that? I doubt it. The entire reasoning behind this is to gain free ad-space. Samsung never paid for advertising space in the movie, therefore they have no business worrying about it.
Here's another factor to chew on: Is the movie really clear about when it takes place? If it's a 'not too distant future...' movie, then how do we know their ad will always be up? The director could claim that he's trying to cover all his bases.
Frankly, I find this amusing. It could set a bad precedent though.
The RIAA should put up a site that has a list of every song they own rights to. Then, they should attach a fair price to each of those songs. (say, $.50 or $1 if it's a good song) Then they should have a discount price if I buy a license to the album. Then, what I should be able to do, is compile a list of every song that I have an Mp3 of, add up the price, and I can use PayPal or something like that to pay for it.
We both keep a record of the license, it never expires, and it also covers remixes of each song. This license says I can have that song on any media I choose. I'm an honest guy, treat me like an honest guy and I'll behave like one.
If they charged more for these licenses, then offer me an incentive to share the song with my friends and get them to pay for it. Give me a referall reward. If somebody buys a song and puts me down as a referral, give me a free song license as a reward!
The RIAA could potentially rake in a TON of cash if they do this.
"People who currently get mp3's for free aren't buying CDs. People who buy CDs probably aren't going to stop. If the Industry would offer a for-pay mp3 service they could (possibly) pull some of the free mp3 people over to the paying side. "
Not sure if I agree with this comment. The Music Industry would feel a big dent in their sales if this were true.
I have a couple of variables I'd like to throw in the mix:
1.) I think most songs that people have are from years ago. I got to peek at a few lockers (remember mp3locker.com?) and noticed that a very large portion of the music was at least 2 years old. If that's true globally (who knows, right?) then the RIAA's not losing any money because people are downloading albums not available to buy anymore.
2.) CD sales are still strong, despite the RIAA paying artists (like Mariah) to break their contracts because they suck. I bet you anything that the $80 million they paid her to leave was counted as a loss due to music piracy.
3.) I've got a few friends that'd go buy a CD, and then create a collective library, using MP3's to swap. This was interesting for a couple of reasons: a.) they ritualistically bought CD's every week. b.) They were actively searching for new CD's to get. c.) Collectively, they were spending more money on CD's than they were previously.
The RIAA would count that as stealing, but they're getting more money out of it that way. That may or may not be a common behaviour, but CD's are just too expensive to be buying regularly.
What the RIAA should do is sell 'licenses' to songs that I can buy cheaply so that I can have that song on any media I want indefinitely.
If I can't do as much with a CD, and if they're using it to thwart copying, they're reducing 'unauthorized copying' of their music. This means they can't possibly b losing as much money due to piracy, right? So make these CD's cheaper! Give me INCENTIVE to buy these instead of giving me incentive to BOYCOTT.
"Anybody remember those 'Where do you want to go today?' billboards? It has a picture of the little hand icon pointing to the 'START' menu.
Somebody shifted the index finger to the right one digit. Heh.
Maybe that's the trick to putting a stop to those signs. When you see a sign that says 'Lose 30 pounds' write a caption under it that says '(English Pounds are worth 2 American Dollars)' "
Somebody modded me down as a troll. I don't see how really. It was on topic, it wasn't inflamatory, as a matter of fact it was a funny story.
If somebody could give me a reasonable explanation about how this could be interpreted as being a troll, I'd be most appreciative. I certainly didn't intend for it to be trollish. If there's something I could do to modify my presentation, it'd help me make sure i"m NOT being a Troll.
Anybody remember those 'Where do you want to go today?' billboards? It has a picture of the little hand icon pointing to the 'START' menu.
Somebody shifted the index finger to the right one digit. Heh.
Maybe that's the trick to putting a stop to those signs. When you see a sign that says 'Lose 30 pounds' write a caption under it that says '(English Pounds are worth 2 American Dollars)'
"It's up to all of us to make buying music about as easy as stealing it," Williams said.
How come the RIAA doesn't understand this? When has a business model along the lines of "Dont give the customer what they want" ever worked? I only took one semester of economics in High School, but I'm reasonably sure that business model is about as succssful as putting a maze in front of a bathroom and putting up a sign saying 'fun bathrooms!'.
This kinda pisses me off. Everywhere I go, they want to extort more money out of me...
-Movie/TV Industry: Wants me to pay for every time I watch their 'oh so valuable' content.
-Computer Industry: Wants me to pay for every month that I use software. (Notably MS and their 'subscriber software')
- Internet Provider: Wants me to pay by the megabyte
- Phone Industry: Wants me to pay for every minute I'm talking to somebody, rounding up of course
- Record Industry: Wants me to pay the price of a CD for every song I want.
- And now Authors want me to buy the new book because they get nothing from the used book. Never mind that I might RECOMMEND that book to other people, no no.
If all these industries 'optimize their profits' (I like the word extortion, but I'm a vindictive ass), how could I possibly pay for all of it?
"It did make australia look like a bizzare, twisted, barbaric country. Which I guess it is, but not in the way they showed it."
You know, I think you unintentionally brought up a good point. (Or maybe you did intentionally, heh) The Simpsons does that to EVERYWHERE they visit.
I can personally verify this. I've been to Australia, and the Simpsons made an amusing parody of it, but not one I'd take seriously because I know what's true about that episode and what isn't. I've been to Brazil, and know that monkeys don't invade schools and take children. Because of my real life experiences that the Simpsons has made a parody of, I have a basis to figure out when they're just being silly vs. illusrtating something that has at least some truth to it.
It's easy for me to see that the Simpsons doesn't let anybody get away unscathed. I think most people that really love that show feel the same way. They don't take it personally when the Simpsons makes fun of something that hits close to home.
That would be Slashdot's defense. "You can only take it seriously if you have no idea what it is you have wandered in to." I could understand a first time viewer of the Simpsons thinking Rio is a place where monkeys will take your children, but not somebody who has watched more than a couple of episodes.
Slashdot is the same way. Once you've invested a little time into it, you start to realize how much a statement can be weighted.
I hope the law takes that into account. Just because the Simpsons made a parody, doesn't mean that Rio can justifiably ask for damages.
Well that makes me feel better. I think the reason I started this discussion was that I'm concerned about Slashdot getting burned if the Media sets fire to the term "DoS".
"Ok, well I apolagise for misinterpreting your comment, but I still contest the opinion that Slashdot is any different from CNN."
I apologize for being rude in my response.
"How many times do you think a headline from CNN concerning topics such as the war in Afghanistan has been exaggerated or presented misleading facts because it makes the American government sound better?"
Hmm... You mean sensationalism? Fair point. I remember a couple of years ago, late in the year, that the news was keeping a running tally of students getting hurt in football games. They described it as an epidemic. They made it like the parents should be concerned as if YOUR KID MIGHT DIE!!
The injury tally, by the Octoberish time of year, was 7. Now 7 kids taken to the hospital between late August and October is a heck of a lot, I suppose. However, the number was 7 from January 1st. If memory serves, it was after the high school shootings media attention died down.
Basically, the media presented a potential result before establishing it's case. Yep, that's opinionated.
I do think my original idea does still carry some weight, but I understand what you're saying and it is a good rebuttal. Thanks, you expanded my perspective.:)
I agree with your points. What saddens me, though, is that I'm not convinced a Lawyer would explain that difference in his case.
Let's try another scenario, though. What if a Slashdot article posted an e-mail address for somebody to write legitimate complaints to. If a small company recieved 300,000 emails, that'd be a bit of a problem. Could a judge see that as an attack?
Why do my posts encourage some people to distill what I said down to one sentence and then oversimplify it?
My paragraph about the difference between Slashdot and CNN was compressed down to 'CNN doesn't opinionate.'
Here is what I said:
"The difference between Slashdot and a news site such as CNN is that more opinions make their way to the front page. For example, remember the article that said MS kicked Sony out of CeBit? That's not what happened, but that was the view it posted."
Notice the sentence in particular where I said that Slashdot offers MORE opinions right away than CNN. I never, ever, EVER said that news sites don't provide opinions. If you had paid any real attention to what I said, you'd note that I made an example where a factual error was made in presenting the story. A very serious factual error. Instead of the headline explaining what really happened, it explained the submitter's point of view about it.
There is a huge difference between that and the stories you read on most places that carry any sort of journalistic integrity. They take extra care to not present details incorrectly.
In any case, thanks for grossly misinterpreting me. I'll give you credit, though. You did offere a very fascinating rebuttal to something I didn't say.
Heh, it's an interesting coincidence that you brought this up. Not only am I going to Brazil next month (not Rio, though), but I have a friend who was rather upset at that episode.
I don't think that they understand that the Simpsons makes fun of EVERYTHING. There was an episode only a week or two ago showing a CISCO router being held together with band-aids, etc, sort of implying that it was crap.
The reason that this particular case could actually turn into something is that they might make a claim that a show as popular as Simpsons could make people think twice about vacationing in Brazil. I know I wasn't terribly wild about the idea that I could get kidnapped and held for ransom.
I'm a little concerned that if media attention turns to DoS attacks, Slashdot could find itself in a bit of legal trouble for the same reason that the Simpsons is.
"I read in Discover about someone with damage his right frontal lobe that couldn't understand humor. I guess you've taken one too many shots to the forehead, huh?"
If you read a little closer, I was attempting humor as well.
"Though I would agree that DOS is probably inhibiting people from getting data off certain sites off the net..." -- get it?
Maybe i should have said "...probably inhibiting A LOT of people..."
Slashdot Mirror
"They're also digitally removing the WTC. Lots of editing going on in Spider Man"
:P
You mean those buildings that don't exist anymore? Damn them for making the movie up to date!!
"This is supposed to be "News for Nerds"? What's so Nerdy about this? Other than the fact that Shiela Villalobos hasn't paid me back my $310... This aint news... I want 5 mins of my life back!"
/. community is interested in seeing this movie, finding out if it's good or not is worth the time. The $5 I saved by not seeing Resident Evil is going to a subscription here.
:)
Seeing as how a good portion of the
Nice attempt at Karma Whoring, though.
Psst btw it is news, if Samsung wins this case, it could affect our digital rights. You could get sued for stuff like making the WTC look like it's flipping off the Middle East.
I strongly disagree. It's too soon. There are a lot of people hurt and frightened by what happened on 9-11 who would like to esacpe it. If they can't go to a movie to get away from it, then where are they supposed to go? There still isn't a news day that goes by that doesn't mention the destruction of the WTC.
If you want to see the trailer in question, there's a 'magazine' (it's really a DVD) in the mag section of Borders for about $10. I think it's called Movie FX.. or something like that. (I apologize, it's been a while since I bought it.) It's a DVD that shows how effects are made. They have the WTC Spidey Trailer if you want to see it.
When I saw it back in Jan, it bothered me. I can only imagine how somebody who was close to the attack felt.
"Now the question of whether the removal is warranted or ethical I will leave to the philosopher and lawyers; I'm just an engineer."
Here in Portland, we recently had a movie filmed where they took one of the bridges and added a train to it. I haven't seen the movie yet, but that bridge is pretty identifable up close. I can imagine somebody seeing that movie, visiting Portland, finding that bridge, and saying "Hey? Where's the train?"
Anybody gonna sue them for that? I doubt it. The entire reasoning behind this is to gain free ad-space. Samsung never paid for advertising space in the movie, therefore they have no business worrying about it.
Here's another factor to chew on: Is the movie really clear about when it takes place? If it's a 'not too distant future...' movie, then how do we know their ad will always be up? The director could claim that he's trying to cover all his bases.
Frankly, I find this amusing. It could set a bad precedent though.
The RIAA should put up a site that has a list of every song they own rights to. Then, they should attach a fair price to each of those songs. (say, $.50 or $1 if it's a good song) Then they should have a discount price if I buy a license to the album. Then, what I should be able to do, is compile a list of every song that I have an Mp3 of, add up the price, and I can use PayPal or something like that to pay for it.
We both keep a record of the license, it never expires, and it also covers remixes of each song. This license says I can have that song on any media I choose. I'm an honest guy, treat me like an honest guy and I'll behave like one.
If they charged more for these licenses, then offer me an incentive to share the song with my friends and get them to pay for it. Give me a referall reward. If somebody buys a song and puts me down as a referral, give me a free song license as a reward!
The RIAA could potentially rake in a TON of cash if they do this.
"People who currently get mp3's for free aren't buying CDs. People who buy CDs probably aren't going to stop. If the Industry would offer a for-pay mp3 service they could (possibly) pull some of the free mp3 people over to the paying side. "
Not sure if I agree with this comment. The Music Industry would feel a big dent in their sales if this were true.
I have a couple of variables I'd like to throw in the mix:
1.) I think most songs that people have are from years ago. I got to peek at a few lockers (remember mp3locker.com?) and noticed that a very large portion of the music was at least 2 years old. If that's true globally (who knows, right?) then the RIAA's not losing any money because people are downloading albums not available to buy anymore.
2.) CD sales are still strong, despite the RIAA paying artists (like Mariah) to break their contracts because they suck. I bet you anything that the $80 million they paid her to leave was counted as a loss due to music piracy.
3.) I've got a few friends that'd go buy a CD, and then create a collective library, using MP3's to swap. This was interesting for a couple of reasons: a.) they ritualistically bought CD's every week. b.) They were actively searching for new CD's to get. c.) Collectively, they were spending more money on CD's than they were previously.
The RIAA would count that as stealing, but they're getting more money out of it that way. That may or may not be a common behaviour, but CD's are just too expensive to be buying regularly.
What the RIAA should do is sell 'licenses' to songs that I can buy cheaply so that I can have that song on any media I want indefinitely.
What email address did you send that too? *thinks slashdot should start posting email addresses where you can complain.*
"They have it, they know you want it, and they know that the law is on their side. "
That's supply and demand. If demand goes down when the CD is restricted, then they MUST lower prices.
We should be trying to get a law passed that makes sure they are marked as 'COPY RESTRICTED'. Who'll pay for them then?
If I can't do as much with a CD, and if they're using it to thwart copying, they're reducing 'unauthorized copying' of their music. This means they can't possibly b losing as much money due to piracy, right? So make these CD's cheaper! Give me INCENTIVE to buy these instead of giving me incentive to BOYCOTT.
... Now Tom's Hardware can benchmark AMD's running WiFi.
This is the text of my original post:
"Anybody remember those 'Where do you want to go today?' billboards? It has a picture of the little hand icon pointing to the 'START' menu.
Somebody shifted the index finger to the right one digit. Heh.
Maybe that's the trick to putting a stop to those signs. When you see a sign that says 'Lose 30 pounds' write a caption under it that says '(English Pounds are worth 2 American Dollars)' "
Somebody modded me down as a troll. I don't see how really. It was on topic, it wasn't inflamatory, as a matter of fact it was a funny story.
If somebody could give me a reasonable explanation about how this could be interpreted as being a troll, I'd be most appreciative. I certainly didn't intend for it to be trollish. If there's something I could do to modify my presentation, it'd help me make sure i"m NOT being a Troll.
It's still first come, first serve. It'll be the exact same, really.
Anybody remember those 'Where do you want to go today?' billboards? It has a picture of the little hand icon pointing to the 'START' menu.
Somebody shifted the index finger to the right one digit. Heh.
Maybe that's the trick to putting a stop to those signs. When you see a sign that says 'Lose 30 pounds' write a caption under it that says '(English Pounds are worth 2 American Dollars)'
"It's up to all of us to make buying music about as easy as stealing it," Williams said.
How come the RIAA doesn't understand this? When has a business model along the lines of "Dont give the customer what they want" ever worked? I only took one semester of economics in High School, but I'm reasonably sure that business model is about as succssful as putting a maze in front of a bathroom and putting up a sign saying 'fun bathrooms!'.
Oh I know the answer to this: Armin Shimmerman!
*Happy he finally got to use DS9 trivia on Slashdot*
"Some people take entertainment way to seriously."
Yeah, they don't realize that Star Wars is really just big commercial for Lucasfilm. "You gotta have cool effects, and you gotta have us to do it."
Anybody who thinks Star Wars was meant to be more than that really should take a good hard look at all the unnecessary digital work they did.
This kinda pisses me off. Everywhere I go, they want to extort more money out of me...
-Movie/TV Industry: Wants me to pay for every time I watch their 'oh so valuable' content.
-Computer Industry: Wants me to pay for every month that I use software. (Notably MS and their 'subscriber software')
- Internet Provider: Wants me to pay by the megabyte
- Phone Industry: Wants me to pay for every minute I'm talking to somebody, rounding up of course
- Record Industry: Wants me to pay the price of a CD for every song I want.
- And now Authors want me to buy the new book because they get nothing from the used book. Never mind that I might RECOMMEND that book to other people, no no.
If all these industries 'optimize their profits' (I like the word extortion, but I'm a vindictive ass), how could I possibly pay for all of it?
I'll need to quadruple my paycheck. >:I
"It did make australia look like a bizzare, twisted, barbaric country. Which I guess it is, but not in the way they showed it."
You know, I think you unintentionally brought up a good point. (Or maybe you did intentionally, heh) The Simpsons does that to EVERYWHERE they visit.
I can personally verify this. I've been to Australia, and the Simpsons made an amusing parody of it, but not one I'd take seriously because I know what's true about that episode and what isn't. I've been to Brazil, and know that monkeys don't invade schools and take children. Because of my real life experiences that the Simpsons has made a parody of, I have a basis to figure out when they're just being silly vs. illusrtating something that has at least some truth to it.
It's easy for me to see that the Simpsons doesn't let anybody get away unscathed. I think most people that really love that show feel the same way. They don't take it personally when the Simpsons makes fun of something that hits close to home.
That would be Slashdot's defense. "You can only take it seriously if you have no idea what it is you have wandered in to." I could understand a first time viewer of the Simpsons thinking Rio is a place where monkeys will take your children, but not somebody who has watched more than a couple of episodes.
Slashdot is the same way. Once you've invested a little time into it, you start to realize how much a statement can be weighted.
I hope the law takes that into account. Just because the Simpsons made a parody, doesn't mean that Rio can justifiably ask for damages.
Well that makes me feel better. I think the reason I started this discussion was that I'm concerned about Slashdot getting burned if the Media sets fire to the term "DoS".
"Ok, well I apolagise for misinterpreting your comment, but I still contest the opinion that Slashdot is any different from CNN."
:)
I apologize for being rude in my response.
"How many times do you think a headline from CNN concerning topics such as the war in Afghanistan has been exaggerated or presented misleading facts because it makes the American government sound better?"
Hmm... You mean sensationalism? Fair point. I remember a couple of years ago, late in the year, that the news was keeping a running tally of students getting hurt in football games. They described it as an epidemic. They made it like the parents should be concerned as if YOUR KID MIGHT DIE!!
The injury tally, by the Octoberish time of year, was 7. Now 7 kids taken to the hospital between late August and October is a heck of a lot, I suppose. However, the number was 7 from January 1st. If memory serves, it was after the high school shootings media attention died down.
Basically, the media presented a potential result before establishing it's case. Yep, that's opinionated.
I do think my original idea does still carry some weight, but I understand what you're saying and it is a good rebuttal. Thanks, you expanded my perspective.
"He's probably a democrate."
:P
I am not a crate. Even if I was, I certainly wouldn't be a demo model. I demand an apology.
I agree with your points. What saddens me, though, is that I'm not convinced a Lawyer would explain that difference in his case.
Let's try another scenario, though. What if a Slashdot article posted an e-mail address for somebody to write legitimate complaints to. If a small company recieved 300,000 emails, that'd be a bit of a problem. Could a judge see that as an attack?
Why do my posts encourage some people to distill what I said down to one sentence and then oversimplify it?
My paragraph about the difference between Slashdot and CNN was compressed down to 'CNN doesn't opinionate.'
Here is what I said:
"The difference between Slashdot and a news site such as CNN is that more opinions make their way to the front page. For example, remember the article that said MS kicked Sony out of CeBit? That's not what happened, but that was the view it posted."
Notice the sentence in particular where I said that Slashdot offers MORE opinions right away than CNN. I never, ever, EVER said that news sites don't provide opinions. If you had paid any real attention to what I said, you'd note that I made an example where a factual error was made in presenting the story. A very serious factual error. Instead of the headline explaining what really happened, it explained the submitter's point of view about it.
There is a huge difference between that and the stories you read on most places that carry any sort of journalistic integrity. They take extra care to not present details incorrectly.
In any case, thanks for grossly misinterpreting me. I'll give you credit, though. You did offere a very fascinating rebuttal to something I didn't say.
Heh, it's an interesting coincidence that you brought this up. Not only am I going to Brazil next month (not Rio, though), but I have a friend who was rather upset at that episode.
I don't think that they understand that the Simpsons makes fun of EVERYTHING. There was an episode only a week or two ago showing a CISCO router being held together with band-aids, etc, sort of implying that it was crap.
The reason that this particular case could actually turn into something is that they might make a claim that a show as popular as Simpsons could make people think twice about vacationing in Brazil. I know I wasn't terribly wild about the idea that I could get kidnapped and held for ransom.
I'm a little concerned that if media attention turns to DoS attacks, Slashdot could find itself in a bit of legal trouble for the same reason that the Simpsons is.
"I read in Discover about someone with damage his right frontal lobe that couldn't understand humor. I guess you've taken one too many shots to the forehead, huh?"
If you read a little closer, I was attempting humor as well.
"Though I would agree that DOS is probably inhibiting people from getting data off certain sites off the net..." -- get it?
Maybe i should have said "...probably inhibiting A LOT of people..."
Oh well.
"If someone 0wned the Windows Update server and used it for a DoS attack..."
I th1nk the reas0n tha+ hackerZ d0n't use M$ s0ftware iZ +hat m0st 0f everyth1ng they wr1te w0uld have squ1ggly lineZ under it.