I agree. My Fuji FinePix A205 was really cheap, for a Fuji (like about $200 CAD), and I just plug it in and XP recognizes it as a removable disk. I think cameras don't need fancy software for pulling images down, and anything extra is a waste of time. Let software like Photoshop, ACDSEE and others be the progs for image manipulation. I think camera mfctrs should stick with what they know, and leave the other stuff alone. Oh and we bought a nice 256meg RAM for this camera, for under $90 CAD at Costco. Pretty cheap, and it works great.
I dislike HP products. We have a scanner, a camera and some other doo-dads at the office, and they all use HP technology. The problem? HP installs a crapflood of memory resident programs to handle even the most mundane tasks that could easily be handled at runtime. I would never personally buy something from HP because of their strange software policy. This is essentially Darwin in effect, folks. Nothing to see here, move along.:-)
>...and that includes the right not to have a film shown if the theatre managers don't want to show it
An argument for censorship is an argument for fascism. Because of the unique relationship with theatre owners and their public audience, they should not have the right to refuse to show something only because they disagree with the content, morally. Film and art are open to speculation, and consideration from both sides of any debate. Whenever groups try to stop a media event, they only show the darkest side of democracy, the side that is afraid of people thinking for themselves, which is in turn an argument for fascism, not democracy.
Now if theatre owners truly have the right to block a film from being shown in their theatre, I'm okay with that, but I would never return to their cinema if they blocked a film that I wanted to see and I knew about it. That could be an argument for capitalism, so I guess I'm okay with that. Plus, the competitor could get a blocked film, and make all kinds of money showing it instead, which again helps the Darwinian aspects of business.
It would be stupid for theatres to block Moore's films because they are major cash generators. This latest film, I can't see until Wednesday because I live in Canada, but I am sooo looking forward to seeing it. I'll likely see it more than once. Oh, and I'll buy the DVD too.
> Did I miss something here, or is it common practice to throw out your "old" system to replace it with something that hasn't even begun shipping yet?
It's common practice among the brave! (and stupid)
Let's face it, the early adopters are going to back away from this and wait. Sales to early adopters are the most important, imho, due mostly to word of mouth. Anyone who *was* thinking of buying one has just changed their mind.
I remember when a buddy of mine bought the first 3d card I ever saw in action. After I saw it, I had to have one. Word of mouth is critical, and even just the news spreading is enough.
I think it's the news that hurts most. News is picked up and spread like word of mouth. Early adopters will hold off until they hear good news from a source they trust. Early adopters fund new projects by quickly infusing cash into the company; they get the ball rolling early on in sales, and that means they are critical to sales and research. Intel will feel it, even if just a little.
...folks at Maxis, Microwave power should be available around 2020, depending on which version of SimCity you play.
And they really *should* know, right? If you're a scientist and you're reading this, you'd better get started on Arco technology now, so it can be ready in time to send us all to Alpha Centauri when Earth is too polluted and crime-infested to control. In other news, I saw a copy of Sim City 3000 bundled with a bunch of other great games like Alpha Centauri for $20 CAD, and I was tempted to pick it up. I might just do that, when I'm finished with TOEE, in all its bug-ridden glory. I've since lost most of the games in the package, so it would be great to play them this summer while I wait for Doom 3, and of course winning the lottery to fund a system that can handle it.
Here in America (by which I mean the USA and Canada)
Nice jibe. I'm Canadian and I'd have to say that if you can't force us to join you in Iraq, you don't own us. Vietnam, Cuba... etc. We're our own country, and thinking otherwise is stupid.
The customer is going to pay for Intel's mistake, in many ways. They will have to foot the bill for it, and they will be without computers for a while, unless they have their old systems. How many of you keep old systems lying around? I've got a backup system on hand, but it certainly hurts to have to use it!
Customers will think twice before being early adopters for Intel, and that is when prices go up.
> At $11k per violation, assuming all of those are legit, that's over $4 billion in fines. Hopefully they stick it to 'em.
But then you see, the government is profiting by these violations and the violations will never cease because it's loving tax money. Like speeding tickets.
> I guess I didn't quite get that from the original article, though... I felt that he was just trying to say "write the software so that the users really like it".
Maybe you're right and I've got my tinfoil hat on, but I think we have to be weary when Microsoft says they want to charm their customers.
Great software has a purpose that is unquestionable, and it has a simplicity of design that is catering, and unobtrusive.
Look at Word, for example; this software package that is so loaded with features, it requires more memory than it needs, and files are saved much larger than they need to be. It's a word processor program that has turned into a lot of other programs. It's an HTML editor, for example. No programmer in their right mind would use Word to make web pages. No programmer in their right mind would use Word to open HTML. So you see, the focus of this product is muddled. Microsoft saw other HTML editors and immediately thought they would allow the HTML editing/saving in Word, because it's what the users will want. But they failed to address the standards compliance with w3.org and therefore Microsoft breaks HTML it loads by adding crap-loaded characters, like open/close quotes. It's wasteful. Word does so much more than it should, really. However, Corel when they had a chance to fight Microsoft, fell into the same trap they always do, in that they tried to follow their competitor and they started adding features to Wordperfect, to get their product up to snuff. What they failed to realize that by doing so, Corel cut themselves off from profit. They should have went the other way, and started cutting out features to create a simple solution to word processing. You see, the time investment in Word, and feature rich programs, is part of the equation for keeping customers in the jar. If they spent all this time learning Word, why would they ever switch? And if we give users more to learn next time, they will buy in again, because people prefer learning to working.
It's also about keeping the templates and code separate in software so users can modify the program appearance quickly to suit their needs. I think it's about standards, and love for the finished product. But you can't love your finished product if it's never finished, and by definition continues to be resold in a new package, with new features, new designs, new, new, new.
I might add that Longhorn seems to be nothing new in the Microsoft mantra; look at the memory requirements. *sigh*
It's a pushy marketing aspect of Microsoft that is starting to wear away at their support, and until they understand that, they are slowly dooming themselves.
> 1. Cheap, cheap, cheap. The damn things get lost and stolen too easily. If they cost $25 that'd be OK.
That would be great for my use. They don't have to be ultra expensive for my tates... they just have to function properly and be remotely good.
> 2. Pretty in pink. Make them colored, even better, make it possible to print phone sheaths on an inkjet. Why the boring grey?
Foldable, printable phone sheaths. I think you just made a million dollars.
> 3. Standardised: one single battery standard for all phones. One single micro plug for all phones. (etc)
I agree 100%. When are hardware mfctrs gonna learn that they need to follow the w3.org in their standards for the web, over to the hardware side of things. Stop competing with competitors on style, and locking customers into service by changing the designs of hardware to make them incompatible on purpose. Just think of what it would be like if you owned the company that has all their products parts interchangable to a public standard! All the other companies would follow, much like how everyone follows Google these days.
> 4. Extensible rather than overpackaged.
With the new Microsoft skin bus, this should be easy enough to accomplish, for a high price. But still... cool enough.:-)
> I think the focus on features, rather than on quality, is a manifestation of what I call "bookkeeping syndrome": something is adopted as a metric not because it's important, but because it's easy to count. Using quality as a metric is harder, because it requires actual thought about how the product ought to work, and about what really matters to the potential users.
I have to agree. I'll also add that Microsoft, being the largest corporation around that I know of, has taken into consideration the general customer's purchasing department strategy for doing *their* jobs. They ask, "what can it do?" They ask, "what can the others do?" What purchasers fail to ask, more often than not, is whether we need all that crap, and if there is something cheaper, or Open Source, that can do the job better or as effective. But that's changing, isn't it? This kind of thinking has to change because the companies around the world are evolving to understand Microsoft, and they are understanding the problems with Microsoft as being more than run-of-the-mill computer problems.
I think what the Open Source community did that pushed them ahead of any other Microsoft competitor in terms of value, and units, is they took the purchasers out of the process, by providing free products that could be licensed for support. It becomes a nobrainer for a purchaser, provided they aren't too deep in Microsoft Slurm (note Futurama lovers will get this).
Because it's also synonymous with blinding someone with features, or a childlike enthrallment caused by a plethora of cake and ice cream. But cake and ice cream aren't nourishing; you've gotta have the main course, too. Plus the use of the word enrapture invokes a thought of blind christian followers, who do not question the leadership, or rules from the higher powers. I think it is very telling of the author to use this word. You ever hear of charming your way in? Well charms and spells don't make for good software; customer satisfaction is not customer enrapture. I much prefer customer satisfaction, because I know my customers are thinking for themselves and aren't simply overjoyed by my shiny objects of no value.
Yes, and I would also add that feigning ignorance is much safer than feigning self-confidence, and it helps projects to thouroughly research information that is even considered known.
2. Get to a known state and stay there.
I disagree. I think we should accept that we are only ever in a state of the unknown, so that we may prepare for the worse. Don't stay in a state of the known, because then you are ripe for the unknown to come up and bite you on the ass.
3. Remember the triangle.
Resources, features and the schedule are indeed important, but I would also add that there are core features that must be adhered to in order to prevent disasters, which are not features, but critical systems. Sometimes companies like Microsoft will push for more and more features, when a much simpler system will work better and have stronger core competencies.
4. Don't go dark.
I would have to agree with this, but it could also be identified as avoiding feature creep by keeping it simple-stupid. Microsoft adds too many features that require a plethora of miniscule details in order to work, and that often throw off stability of the rest of the system in doing so. Going dark in some areas is going to happen, so I would put that you should go dark wisely, by accepting that at times in the project the team will be in a state of the unknown. Ensure that core competencies are structured correctly to accomodate individual feature additions without delays or growing instabilities. What it comes down to is smart planning and a lot of foresight, but even less features, but enough to get the job done.
5. Use zero defect (ZD) milestones.
I disagree. I think every milestone has to be understood completely for what it is, but it's got to be bug free or it's a fail, in my books. And you should understand the milestone failures along the way because that's part of team building. If you code up a module as one of your milestones and it has a few bugs, you have to track down why they are there and set that as a new milestone -- not skip to the next official milestone.
6. Beware of a guy in a room.
Read Donald Trump's book, How to Get Rich (2004). There is a part in there when Trump talks about a guy who is constantly late all the time, who isn't speaking with employees, and isn't working as a team member properly. Some employees start complaining, and Trump informs them to ask the guy if he needs his laundry picked up or a coffee or lunch brought to him. Trump reminds them that the guy started acting this way just a few months before a multi-million dollar idea was worked out, alone in his office. He says that whenever the guy acts like this, he's about to shake the company. You have to accomodate programmers like this too, and to do so, you can't be looking over their shoulder all the time. I think you should not beware of a guy in a room, but you should change your schedule to accomodate them, and ask for updates from time to time. You have to trust your people or it won't work.
7. Never trade a bad date for an equally bad date
I would agree with this, but if possible you should follow the Id Software motto, when it's done, instead, because only then will you reach the zenith of design and programming practice. Just don't take it too far like some of the other companies with games due out in the late/mid nineties that we're still waiting/not-waiting for.
8. When slipping, don't fall.
Duh.
9. Low tech is good.
Only if you're at Microsoft, because that's all you've got. *zing!* Seriously... the guy says, "A smaller effort is almost always more desirable than a larger one." Can I just say that it reminds me of the commercial with the underachievers? It hinges on putting forth a paced effort, not a minimal output. Sometimes you have to do some work.
Yes that was part of the double entendre. But you see, if you read the Wikipedia page about the Beaker people, you'll see that Slashdotters really are much like them, in contrast to other groups around at the time.
> How many CDs was that again? Oh maybe we have finally found a way to get rid of the RIAA nazis! Thinking positively, that would be 6 years per CD, plus $500,000 each. That would be perfect!
> alcohol and tobacco companies aren't liable (and shouldn't be) for kids getting to their products. The schools are a stop-gap, but the intent to offer these explicit lyrics freely to children, changes the role of the RIAA from a distributor, to a provider, much like a parent or anyone who would pay to obtain explicit material to children. Like a pervert might give nude books to children, or a criminal would offer booze, drugs or smokes to children. The RIAA broke the law, and they should be punished.
Yeah, they offered all kinds of crappy unsellable junk to the school system, to get a double writeoff. This stuff wouldn't sell on ebay for $1 ea. Oh but they are in a legal quagmire over the explcit lyrics! (tries to hide joy)
> 2. Are you arguing for censorship? No. I think that there should be age limits for certain types of media. If a company willingly gives explicit content to children, they are at fault, just as they would be at fault for providing smokes to minors or booze to minors.
My point is that the RIAA pushes the fervent agenda that children should be responsible, and not download or upload copyright protected material, but in the same course, they offer free explicit music to the school system because they are too cheap to pay a fine. My thoughts are that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the RIAA should be charged for corruption of innocents, or attempted corruption of innocents. (IANAL)
From the Article: Raunchy music wasn't what anyone in education or the Attorney General's Office had in mind when they announced that a windfall of music was coming to public schools and libraries from last year's $143 million anti-trust settlement with the recording industry.
Yes, but it's exactly what the RIAA had in mind, so couldn't the Attourney General charge the RIAA with the intentional corruption of youth? Gosh if the world was perfect, the RIAA would be charged criminally for trying to push explicit lyrics on children.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. My Fuji FinePix A205 was really cheap, for a Fuji (like about $200 CAD), and I just plug it in and XP recognizes it as a removable disk. I think cameras don't need fancy software for pulling images down, and anything extra is a waste of time. Let software like Photoshop, ACDSEE and others be the progs for image manipulation. I think camera mfctrs should stick with what they know, and leave the other stuff alone. Oh and we bought a nice 256meg RAM for this camera, for under $90 CAD at Costco. Pretty cheap, and it works great.
I dislike HP products. We have a scanner, a camera and some other doo-dads at the office, and they all use HP technology. The problem? HP installs a crapflood of memory resident programs to handle even the most mundane tasks that could easily be handled at runtime. I would never personally buy something from HP because of their strange software policy. This is essentially Darwin in effect, folks. Nothing to see here, move along. :-)
> ...and that includes the right not to have a film shown if the theatre managers don't want to show it
An argument for censorship is an argument for fascism. Because of the unique relationship with theatre owners and their public audience, they should not have the right to refuse to show something only because they disagree with the content, morally. Film and art are open to speculation, and consideration from both sides of any debate. Whenever groups try to stop a media event, they only show the darkest side of democracy, the side that is afraid of people thinking for themselves, which is in turn an argument for fascism, not democracy.
Now if theatre owners truly have the right to block a film from being shown in their theatre, I'm okay with that, but I would never return to their cinema if they blocked a film that I wanted to see and I knew about it. That could be an argument for capitalism, so I guess I'm okay with that. Plus, the competitor could get a blocked film, and make all kinds of money showing it instead, which again helps the Darwinian aspects of business.
It would be stupid for theatres to block Moore's films because they are major cash generators. This latest film, I can't see until Wednesday because I live in Canada, but I am sooo looking forward to seeing it. I'll likely see it more than once. Oh, and I'll buy the DVD too.
> Did I miss something here, or is it common practice to throw out your "old" system to replace it with something that hasn't even begun shipping yet?
It's common practice among the brave! (and stupid)
Let's face it, the early adopters are going to back away from this and wait. Sales to early adopters are the most important, imho, due mostly to word of mouth. Anyone who *was* thinking of buying one has just changed their mind.
I remember when a buddy of mine bought the first 3d card I ever saw in action. After I saw it, I had to have one. Word of mouth is critical, and even just the news spreading is enough.
Anyone still posting with their Amiga systems? I'd love to get my TI/99 4A back so I could try and post with it!!
> Were either of these guy's Dilbert's boss in a past life?
Either that, or they were neatly combed by Dogbert as interns for a while.
I think it's the news that hurts most. News is picked up and spread like word of mouth. Early adopters will hold off until they hear good news from a source they trust. Early adopters fund new projects by quickly infusing cash into the company; they get the ball rolling early on in sales, and that means they are critical to sales and research. Intel will feel it, even if just a little.
...folks at Maxis, Microwave power should be available around 2020, depending on which version of SimCity you play.
And they really *should* know, right? If you're a scientist and you're reading this, you'd better get started on Arco technology now, so it can be ready in time to send us all to Alpha Centauri when Earth is too polluted and crime-infested to control. In other news, I saw a copy of Sim City 3000 bundled with a bunch of other great games like Alpha Centauri for $20 CAD, and I was tempted to pick it up. I might just do that, when I'm finished with TOEE, in all its bug-ridden glory. I've since lost most of the games in the package, so it would be great to play them this summer while I wait for Doom 3, and of course winning the lottery to fund a system that can handle it.
Here in America (by which I mean the USA and Canada)
Nice jibe. I'm Canadian and I'd have to say that if you can't force us to join you in Iraq, you don't own us. Vietnam, Cuba... etc. We're our own country, and thinking otherwise is stupid.
> In general, a mistake by one competitor does not give me more trust in another. Less trust in the former, yes.
I agree. The market hurts when these things happen.
The customer is going to pay for Intel's mistake, in many ways. They will have to foot the bill for it, and they will be without computers for a while, unless they have their old systems. How many of you keep old systems lying around? I've got a backup system on hand, but it certainly hurts to have to use it!
Customers will think twice before being early adopters for Intel, and that is when prices go up.
> At $11k per violation, assuming all of those are legit, that's over $4 billion in fines. Hopefully they stick it to 'em.
But then you see, the government is profiting by these violations and the violations will never cease because it's loving tax money. Like speeding tickets.
> I guess I didn't quite get that from the original article, though... I felt that he was just trying to say "write the software so that the users really like it".
Maybe you're right and I've got my tinfoil hat on, but I think we have to be weary when Microsoft says they want to charm their customers.
Great software has a purpose that is unquestionable, and it has a simplicity of design that is catering, and unobtrusive.
Look at Word, for example; this software package that is so loaded with features, it requires more memory than it needs, and files are saved much larger than they need to be. It's a word processor program that has turned into a lot of other programs. It's an HTML editor, for example. No programmer in their right mind would use Word to make web pages. No programmer in their right mind would use Word to open HTML. So you see, the focus of this product is muddled. Microsoft saw other HTML editors and immediately thought they would allow the HTML editing/saving in Word, because it's what the users will want. But they failed to address the standards compliance with w3.org and therefore Microsoft breaks HTML it loads by adding crap-loaded characters, like open/close quotes. It's wasteful. Word does so much more than it should, really. However, Corel when they had a chance to fight Microsoft, fell into the same trap they always do, in that they tried to follow their competitor and they started adding features to Wordperfect, to get their product up to snuff. What they failed to realize that by doing so, Corel cut themselves off from profit. They should have went the other way, and started cutting out features to create a simple solution to word processing. You see, the time investment in Word, and feature rich programs, is part of the equation for keeping customers in the jar. If they spent all this time learning Word, why would they ever switch? And if we give users more to learn next time, they will buy in again, because people prefer learning to working.
It's also about keeping the templates and code separate in software so users can modify the program appearance quickly to suit their needs. I think it's about standards, and love for the finished product. But you can't love your finished product if it's never finished, and by definition continues to be resold in a new package, with new features, new designs, new, new, new.
I might add that Longhorn seems to be nothing new in the Microsoft mantra; look at the memory requirements. *sigh*
It's a pushy marketing aspect of Microsoft that is starting to wear away at their support, and until they understand that, they are slowly dooming themselves.
> 1. Cheap, cheap, cheap. The damn things get lost and stolen too easily. If they cost $25 that'd be OK.
:-)
That would be great for my use. They don't have to be ultra expensive for my tates... they just have to function properly and be remotely good.
> 2. Pretty in pink. Make them colored, even better, make it possible to print phone sheaths on an inkjet. Why the boring grey?
Foldable, printable phone sheaths. I think you just made a million dollars.
> 3. Standardised: one single battery standard for all phones. One single micro plug for all phones. (etc)
I agree 100%. When are hardware mfctrs gonna learn that they need to follow the w3.org in their standards for the web, over to the hardware side of things. Stop competing with competitors on style, and locking customers into service by changing the designs of hardware to make them incompatible on purpose. Just think of what it would be like if you owned the company that has all their products parts interchangable to a public standard! All the other companies would follow, much like how everyone follows Google these days.
> 4. Extensible rather than overpackaged.
With the new Microsoft skin bus, this should be easy enough to accomplish, for a high price. But still... cool enough.
> Thank you, mfh. :-)
Hey, anytime, buddy.
> I think the focus on features, rather than on quality, is a manifestation of what I call "bookkeeping syndrome": something is adopted as a metric not because it's important, but because it's easy to count. Using quality as a metric is harder, because it requires actual thought about how the product ought to work, and about what really matters to the potential users.
I have to agree. I'll also add that Microsoft, being the largest corporation around that I know of, has taken into consideration the general customer's purchasing department strategy for doing *their* jobs. They ask, "what can it do?" They ask, "what can the others do?" What purchasers fail to ask, more often than not, is whether we need all that crap, and if there is something cheaper, or Open Source, that can do the job better or as effective. But that's changing, isn't it? This kind of thinking has to change because the companies around the world are evolving to understand Microsoft, and they are understanding the problems with Microsoft as being more than run-of-the-mill computer problems.
I think what the Open Source community did that pushed them ahead of any other Microsoft competitor in terms of value, and units, is they took the purchasers out of the process, by providing free products that could be licensed for support. It becomes a nobrainer for a purchaser, provided they aren't too deep in Microsoft Slurm (note Futurama lovers will get this).
> Why would that be a bad thing?
Because it's also synonymous with blinding someone with features, or a childlike enthrallment caused by a plethora of cake and ice cream. But cake and ice cream aren't nourishing; you've gotta have the main course, too. Plus the use of the word enrapture invokes a thought of blind christian followers, who do not question the leadership, or rules from the higher powers. I think it is very telling of the author to use this word. You ever hear of charming your way in? Well charms and spells don't make for good software; customer satisfaction is not customer enrapture. I much prefer customer satisfaction, because I know my customers are thinking for themselves and aren't simply overjoyed by my shiny objects of no value.
1. Don't know what you don't know.
Yes, and I would also add that feigning ignorance is much safer than feigning self-confidence, and it helps projects to thouroughly research information that is even considered known.
2. Get to a known state and stay there.
I disagree. I think we should accept that we are only ever in a state of the unknown, so that we may prepare for the worse. Don't stay in a state of the known, because then you are ripe for the unknown to come up and bite you on the ass.
3. Remember the triangle.
Resources, features and the schedule are indeed important, but I would also add that there are core features that must be adhered to in order to prevent disasters, which are not features, but critical systems. Sometimes companies like Microsoft will push for more and more features, when a much simpler system will work better and have stronger core competencies.
4. Don't go dark.
I would have to agree with this, but it could also be identified as avoiding feature creep by keeping it simple-stupid. Microsoft adds too many features that require a plethora of miniscule details in order to work, and that often throw off stability of the rest of the system in doing so. Going dark in some areas is going to happen, so I would put that you should go dark wisely, by accepting that at times in the project the team will be in a state of the unknown. Ensure that core competencies are structured correctly to accomodate individual feature additions without delays or growing instabilities. What it comes down to is smart planning and a lot of foresight, but even less features, but enough to get the job done.
5. Use zero defect (ZD) milestones.
I disagree. I think every milestone has to be understood completely for what it is, but it's got to be bug free or it's a fail, in my books. And you should understand the milestone failures along the way because that's part of team building. If you code up a module as one of your milestones and it has a few bugs, you have to track down why they are there and set that as a new milestone -- not skip to the next official milestone.
6. Beware of a guy in a room.
Read Donald Trump's book, How to Get Rich (2004). There is a part in there when Trump talks about a guy who is constantly late all the time, who isn't speaking with employees, and isn't working as a team member properly. Some employees start complaining, and Trump informs them to ask the guy if he needs his laundry picked up or a coffee or lunch brought to him. Trump reminds them that the guy started acting this way just a few months before a multi-million dollar idea was worked out, alone in his office. He says that whenever the guy acts like this, he's about to shake the company. You have to accomodate programmers like this too, and to do so, you can't be looking over their shoulder all the time. I think you should not beware of a guy in a room, but you should change your schedule to accomodate them, and ask for updates from time to time. You have to trust your people or it won't work.
7. Never trade a bad date for an equally bad date
I would agree with this, but if possible you should follow the Id Software motto, when it's done, instead, because only then will you reach the zenith of design and programming practice. Just don't take it too far like some of the other companies with games due out in the late/mid nineties that we're still waiting/not-waiting for.
8. When slipping, don't fall.
Duh.
9. Low tech is good.
Only if you're at Microsoft, because that's all you've got. *zing!* Seriously... the guy says, "A smaller effort is almost always more desirable than a larger one." Can I just say that it reminds me of the commercial with the underachievers? It hinges on putting forth a paced effort, not a minimal output. Sometimes you have to do some work.
10. Design time at design time.
> Surely you mean this kind of Beaker person?
Yes that was part of the double entendre. But you see, if you read the Wikipedia page about the Beaker people, you'll see that Slashdotters really are much like them, in contrast to other groups around at the time.
> How many CDs was that again?
Oh maybe we have finally found a way to get rid of the RIAA nazis! Thinking positively, that would be 6 years per CD, plus $500,000 each. That would be perfect!
> alcohol and tobacco companies aren't liable (and shouldn't be) for kids getting to their products.
The schools are a stop-gap, but the intent to offer these explicit lyrics freely to children, changes the role of the RIAA from a distributor, to a provider, much like a parent or anyone who would pay to obtain explicit material to children. Like a pervert might give nude books to children, or a criminal would offer booze, drugs or smokes to children. The RIAA broke the law, and they should be punished.
If this is the bronze age of the Intarweb, Slashdotters represent the Beaker People.
Yeah, they offered all kinds of crappy unsellable junk to the school system, to get a double writeoff. This stuff wouldn't sell on ebay for $1 ea. Oh but they are in a legal quagmire over the explcit lyrics! (tries to hide joy)
> 2. Are you arguing for censorship?
No. I think that there should be age limits for certain types of media. If a company willingly gives explicit content to children, they are at fault, just as they would be at fault for providing smokes to minors or booze to minors.
My point is that the RIAA pushes the fervent agenda that children should be responsible, and not download or upload copyright protected material, but in the same course, they offer free explicit music to the school system because they are too cheap to pay a fine. My thoughts are that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the RIAA should be charged for corruption of innocents, or attempted corruption of innocents. (IANAL)
From the Article: Raunchy music wasn't what anyone in education or the Attorney General's Office had in mind when they announced that a windfall of music was coming to public schools and libraries from last year's $143 million anti-trust settlement with the recording industry.
Yes, but it's exactly what the RIAA had in mind, so couldn't the Attourney General charge the RIAA with the intentional corruption of youth? Gosh if the world was perfect, the RIAA would be charged criminally for trying to push explicit lyrics on children.