Why do you think they push the fact that you can get MSOffice for it in all the ads of late?
Because those expert graphics users don't tend to be sophisticated otherwise when it comes to computers. They still need user friendly apps that sync more or less seamlessly with the PC mainstream.
The tone of the "Way out" is a whiny "UNIX is too hard" that perfectly matches the designed-by-Smurfs interface they're pushing with XP.
When XP came out, people were falling all over themselves to point out how it was a rip off of OSX (and that Windows in general was a rip-off of MacOS. I take it that you think that OSX also fits in the designed-by-Smurfs category.
It's nice to see Apple having the collective cajones to ante up and reply "Yeah, UNIX can be hard, but (a) it's worth it, (b) we've done it, and (c) it just *works.*"
Their message is that UNIX is only usable with a designed-by-Smurfs UI tacked on to it.
Apple has always survived by soliciting the fringe crowd. They recognize that average users are not interested in changing OSs, and certainly not to make a political statement. Instead, they have targeted users who actually need an alternative OS, and would like a slick, not too costly option. So for Graphic Artists etc, there is MacOS. Now for the Unix crowd, there is OSX.
Finally, I'm a bit perplexed why you would choose Flash as a good tool for educating people about "complicated policy questions" - this strikes me as something that would be served better by a more dynamic text-oriented approach (such as a Slash-code based site).
I couldn't agree more. Perhaps the reason why these policy quesitons remain complicated is that the people put in charge of creating educational tools have no clue about how to deliver simple, succinct answers.
...and frankly, if you're just in it for the money, you probably shouldn't be a writer. It's just not a good way to get rich.
Damn straight. I am sick and tired of these industry shills and IP lawyers whining about how no artist is going to create anything if they don't get to rake in loads of dough selling it. What author who was in it for the money created anything worth buying?
The real artists would be working two minimum wage jobs and creating their works for free if that was the only option (not that it should be). There is certainly no shortage of talent doing just that while they hope for their big break.
Of course, without all the profits they wouldn't be able to afford representation, and that would be a fscking tragedy!
If Amazon gets more successful at this, we may have only a few copies flying around the country as people resell books. This would be great for the postal system but bad for the author.
If this happens, it will only be because there are no books being written that are worth keeping or re-reading. If that is what the industry is churning out, maybe it deserves a kick in the shins.
Due to legal issues with Hasbro over the usage of the word "monopoly"
In a "free" country, the only legal issue would be the punitive damages Hasbro had to pay for trying to intimidate someone from using a word that they clearly have no reasonable claim over.
Unless, that is, Hasbro invented the word. But either way, I guess that doesn't apply around here.
I don't think that I am offering defeatism. I am not saying that nothing can be done. I am simply saying that one opinion, or even 3500, does not change a politicians mind (unless, they are all from his/her district, and it is a fairly small disctrict at that). There are 250m+ people in this country. It is a safe bet that any national politician can side with the monied interests and still find enough votes to counter any fallout from this vote. Heck, Gore got 150 times that many votes over and above Bush, and he still lost. (And those were actual votes, which speak a lot louder than concerned letters).
What to do differently? All I am saying is look at how the game is played. Politicians don't have the time or incentive to pay attention to individual interests. Who is to say that 3500 out of 250m represent any significant percentage of the vote? PACs and lobbys get face time because their very existence proves that some element of power (be it votes or money) is behind their agenda. If you want to be heard, you need to organize.
How are you? I would really like you to change your mind about that bill. You know, the one with the really long name that started with an S, but now starts with a C. I think that it is stupid. You should too.
Sincerely,
twiztidoljk
--------------
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Thank you for your concern on this issue. Concern is the hallmark of concered citizenship, and without the concern of citizens like yourself, my job becomes very difficult.
Sincerely,
Senator
P.S. Consider it done. I have change my mind on that one bill. I hope I can remeber what it is called when it comes up for a vote.
Looks like I've got at least one clue that escaped you: The SSSCA not CBDPTA was not defeated. It has recieved a lot of criticism, to be sure, but then again so did the DMCA, USAPATRIOT and countless other pieces of legislation that were ultimately passed anyway.
So to sum things up, you have acheived nothing.
Yeah for us.
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Our enemeies are not nations, with navys to sink, armies to slaughter and cities to destroy. Having all the cards doesn't amount to much when your the only on left in the game. These new schemes are deisgined to protect us agains threats that are all but non-existant, while leaving us open to the next terrorist with a scheme that no one else thought of before.
Who said anything about violence? I think letting them know that we expect more than platitudes from their press secretary would be a start.
What I am saying is that you are not trying to change things for the better. You are allowing yourself (and encouraging others) to be a pawn. They get that serious, earnest look in their eyes and tell you how important your opinion is, and you get a weepy and start hailing the power of the people. What you need to be doing is saying, "Thanks, but talk is cheap. I am not going to be happy until you actually DO something to address my concerns."
Case in point, this bill has NOT been defeated yet, and here you are talking about a victory for the user over the PACs. Sheesh.
At least some of us "defeatists" have the presence of mind to tell people "Look, that obviously isn't working and here's why." You are just compounding the problem by encouraging their futile efforts.
Politicians have perverted the system to favor themselves. Who is a more frightening to them, someone who recognizes this, or some chump who thinks he can change things with a few earnest e-mails? Which one is more likely to topple the system, or to pose such a threat that it must change to survive?
And you need to understand that collecting that money is the primary goal of these politicians. They will always follow the money. History has shown that politicians rarely get punished for this kind of behavior. What do they have to worry about when the next guy is going to be just as bad? And why be a politician in the first place if you can't cash in your influence? To serve the people? Don't make me laugh.
Bottom line: it is worth the risk to take the money and screw the voters. If the only way to stay in office is to defend the interests of voters over the interests of deep pocketed contributors (and sacrifice those contributions) what's the point of being in office? If it comes to that, they'll just call in their favors and get a cushy consulting or lobbyist job.
Look around you. Look at the laws and regulations that govern this country. Whether or not you think they are just, there are certainly an abundance of government initiatives (DMCA, USAPATRIOT, environment laws, corporate tax loopholes) that no amount of ground-swell, letter writing, grass-roots activism or "user input" could put a stop to.
Free clue: politicians only give a damn about your opinion on election day. The rest of the time they are just stringing you along, letting you feel like you are actually contributing to the governance of this country. You are not. You are being "handled."
Unless you can out-spend and out-lobby Hollywood or whatever other industry is trying to subvert your rights to further their bottom line, your opinion doesn't count.
Seriously. Since when do politicians listen to their constituents over deep pocketed industry types? I declare rumors of this bill's demise to be greatly exagerated.
"We can't provide our services at the current prices without suplementing our revenue by selling information to marketers. Get over it you spoiled, freeloading brats. We can just hear you know: 'Boo hoo, I have to give something in order to get something in return. Life is sooooo unfair.' Holy $hit you people make us sick."
What is it with these opt-out fanatics? It seems like a pretty bare-faced admission that they know that people don't want their products/services. Why must the vast majority of us who don't want to be solicited go out of our way to be left alone? Finally, what does it say about your product/service when your target audience is too inept to request it?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think they push the fact that you can get MSOffice for it in all the ads of late?
Because those expert graphics users don't tend to be sophisticated otherwise when it comes to computers. They still need user friendly apps that sync more or less seamlessly with the PC mainstream.
The tone of the "Way out" is a whiny "UNIX is too hard" that perfectly matches the designed-by-Smurfs interface they're pushing with XP.
When XP came out, people were falling all over themselves to point out how it was a rip off of OSX (and that Windows in general was a rip-off of MacOS. I take it that you think that OSX also fits in the designed-by-Smurfs category.
It's nice to see Apple having the collective cajones to ante up and reply "Yeah, UNIX can be hard, but (a) it's worth it, (b) we've done it, and (c) it just *works.*"
Their message is that UNIX is only usable with a designed-by-Smurfs UI tacked on to it.
I wonder why they used such a unixism (/dev/null) if this really is a response to the anti unix ads.
Probably because they are trying to sell computers, not a political agenda.
When will Apple just win the PC war? I mean, they DO have the superior computer....at least among BSD gurus, and Graphics people.
And what will the other 99.999% of PC users do with their overpriced, undersupported OS that can't open any of their documents?
Apple has always survived by soliciting the fringe crowd. They recognize that average users are not interested in changing OSs, and certainly not to make a political statement. Instead, they have targeted users who actually need an alternative OS, and would like a slick, not too costly option. So for Graphic Artists etc, there is MacOS. Now for the Unix crowd, there is OSX.
Take not Linux advocates.
Finally, I'm a bit perplexed why you would choose Flash as a good tool for educating people about "complicated policy questions" - this strikes me as something that would be served better by a more dynamic text-oriented approach (such as a Slash-code based site).
I couldn't agree more. Perhaps the reason why these policy quesitons remain complicated is that the people put in charge of creating educational tools have no clue about how to deliver simple, succinct answers.
Flash indeed.
...and frankly, if you're just in it for the money, you probably shouldn't be a writer. It's just not a good way to get rich.
Damn straight. I am sick and tired of these industry shills and IP lawyers whining about how no artist is going to create anything if they don't get to rake in loads of dough selling it. What author who was in it for the money created anything worth buying?
The real artists would be working two minimum wage jobs and creating their works for free if that was the only option (not that it should be). There is certainly no shortage of talent doing just that while they hope for their big break.
Of course, without all the profits they wouldn't be able to afford representation, and that would be a fscking tragedy!
get exclusive contracts from publishers to sell product.
Never happened.
If Amazon gets more successful at this, we may have only a few copies flying around the country as people resell books. This would be great for the postal system but bad for the author.
If this happens, it will only be because there are no books being written that are worth keeping or re-reading. If that is what the industry is churning out, maybe it deserves a kick in the shins.
Due to legal issues with Hasbro over the usage of the word "monopoly"
In a "free" country, the only legal issue would be the punitive damages Hasbro had to pay for trying to intimidate someone from using a word that they clearly have no reasonable claim over.
Unless, that is, Hasbro invented the word. But either way, I guess that doesn't apply around here.
It was supposed to be "nor"
I don't think that I am offering defeatism. I am not saying that nothing can be done. I am simply saying that one opinion, or even 3500, does not change a politicians mind (unless, they are all from his/her district, and it is a fairly small disctrict at that). There are 250m+ people in this country. It is a safe bet that any national politician can side with the monied interests and still find enough votes to counter any fallout from this vote. Heck, Gore got 150 times that many votes over and above Bush, and he still lost. (And those were actual votes, which speak a lot louder than concerned letters).
What to do differently? All I am saying is look at how the game is played. Politicians don't have the time or incentive to pay attention to individual interests. Who is to say that 3500 out of 250m represent any significant percentage of the vote? PACs and lobbys get face time because their very existence proves that some element of power (be it votes or money) is behind their agenda. If you want to be heard, you need to organize.
I can just imagine it:
Dear Senator,
How are you? I would really like you to change your mind about that bill. You know, the one with the really long name that started with an S, but now starts with a C. I think that it is stupid. You should too.
Sincerely,
twiztidoljk
--------------
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Thank you for your concern on this issue. Concern is the hallmark of concered citizenship, and without the concern of citizens like yourself, my job becomes very difficult.
Sincerely,
Senator
P.S. Consider it done. I have change my mind on that one bill. I hope I can remeber what it is called when it comes up for a vote.
Congrats!
You're clueless.
Looks like I've got at least one clue that escaped you: The SSSCA not CBDPTA was not defeated. It has recieved a lot of criticism, to be sure, but then again so did the DMCA, USAPATRIOT and countless other pieces of legislation that were ultimately passed anyway.
So to sum things up, you have acheived nothing.
Our enemeies are not nations, with navys to sink, armies to slaughter and cities to destroy. Having all the cards doesn't amount to much when your the only on left in the game. These new schemes are deisgined to protect us agains threats that are all but non-existant, while leaving us open to the next terrorist with a scheme that no one else thought of before.
So what are you going to do, kill them?
Who said anything about violence? I think letting them know that we expect more than platitudes from their press secretary would be a start.
What I am saying is that you are not trying to change things for the better. You are allowing yourself (and encouraging others) to be a pawn. They get that serious, earnest look in their eyes and tell you how important your opinion is, and you get a weepy and start hailing the power of the people. What you need to be doing is saying, "Thanks, but talk is cheap. I am not going to be happy until you actually DO something to address my concerns."
Case in point, this bill has NOT been defeated yet, and here you are talking about a victory for the user over the PACs. Sheesh.
At least some of us "defeatists" have the presence of mind to tell people "Look, that obviously isn't working and here's why." You are just compounding the problem by encouraging their futile efforts.
Politicians have perverted the system to favor themselves. Who is a more frightening to them, someone who recognizes this, or some chump who thinks he can change things with a few earnest e-mails? Which one is more likely to topple the system, or to pose such a threat that it must change to survive?
And you need to understand that collecting that money is the primary goal of these politicians. They will always follow the money. History has shown that politicians rarely get punished for this kind of behavior. What do they have to worry about when the next guy is going to be just as bad? And why be a politician in the first place if you can't cash in your influence? To serve the people? Don't make me laugh.
Bottom line: it is worth the risk to take the money and screw the voters. If the only way to stay in office is to defend the interests of voters over the interests of deep pocketed contributors (and sacrifice those contributions) what's the point of being in office? If it comes to that, they'll just call in their favors and get a cushy consulting or lobbyist job.
Look around you. Look at the laws and regulations that govern this country. Whether or not you think they are just, there are certainly an abundance of government initiatives (DMCA, USAPATRIOT, environment laws, corporate tax loopholes) that no amount of ground-swell, letter writing, grass-roots activism or "user input" could put a stop to.
Free clue: politicians only give a damn about your opinion on election day. The rest of the time they are just stringing you along, letting you feel like you are actually contributing to the governance of this country. You are not. You are being "handled."
Unless you can out-spend and out-lobby Hollywood or whatever other industry is trying to subvert your rights to further their bottom line, your opinion doesn't count.
. . .to Hollywood to step up the "donations".
Seriously. Since when do politicians listen to their constituents over deep pocketed industry types? I declare rumors of this bill's demise to be greatly exagerated.
A troll on Salon? [cough-horowitz-cough]
Some blowhard jackass out to pad their self esteem by panning someone else's work? [cough-wagner-au-cough]
The hell you say!
selling them to a world full of eager Linux users
I guess Loki has figured out the difference between users and customers.
No, its:
"We can't provide our services at the current prices without suplementing our revenue by selling information to marketers. Get over it you spoiled, freeloading brats. We can just hear you know: 'Boo hoo, I have to give something in order to get something in return. Life is sooooo unfair.' Holy $hit you people make us sick."
Something like that, I would imagine.
It's for ISPs in Minnesota.
What is it with these opt-out fanatics? It seems like a pretty bare-faced admission that they know that people don't want their products/services. Why must the vast majority of us who don't want to be solicited go out of our way to be left alone? Finally, what does it say about your product/service when your target audience is too inept to request it?
. . .none of these measures prevents you from spamming us all with your ad for Immunix.
Just goes to show you that when it comes to capitalism, sleaze is always one step ahead.