They're actually changing their business model to coincide with modern times. I'd like to believe music companies generally care about their customers. This may be the first step to realizing that dream.
I'd call that incredibly doubtful. I don't think this new service is about pleasing customers as much as it's about adapting because they realize:
a) There's actually profit to made here.
b) If they don't adapt to the times right away, they're headed for serious trouble from musicians and consumers/art-lovers alike.
c) Impending financial doom.
To summarize, the record companies still don't give two ratshits about you, they're jumping onboard extremely late in the game to cover their own asses.
Hrm, neat. so what though? What does this really mean? Will it make Linux/BSD closer to being "ready for the desktop?" How is this going to affect your average user?
Personally, I don't really care what affect this will have in bringing Linux to the desktop. I don't care about the "average user" either.
I care about me, and I'm glad I'll be able to switch resolutions without having to hack at a config file. I'm sure most people will be too, whether they're chatting with friends or coding. It's good for everyone.
I repeat, "Office bitch, throw out all these AOL CDs." It'd be ten times more annoying if they're mailed seperately and over a long period of time, just like they do to us.
And when you're calling someone a dumbass, don't post as Anonymous Coward, you anonymous coward.
This is lame. Who cares if AOL gets a big box of these things? "Hey, office bitch, go and throw that/those box(es) out." Problem solved.
Find a mailing address for AOL and have people mail them to that address instead. Skip the middle-man. Have it on some significant date and make it a national holiday, preferably a Monday. I really hate Mondays.
Anyway, I'll agree. The idea of 'jamming' camcorders is insane. How many times have you actually been bothered by someone with a camcorder?
Um, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think the point of camcorder jamming has anything to do with keeping customers happy, it's to stop bootlegging.
Camcorder jamming has a seperate purpose from cell phone jamming. Nobody's trying to pirate movies with their cell phones (yet).
If theatres want to stop bootlegging, jam camcorders. If they want to make my viewing experience more enjoyable, hire a rent-a-thug to punch people in the face if they/their-cell-phones/their-children won't shut the fuck up.
The Brazilians use sugar cane alcohol to fuel their modification of a single engine crop duster called the "Ipanema."
Wtf is sugar cane alcohol? Is it like Mike's Hard Lemonade?
It's only a matter of time before this succeeds.
on
Xbox Live Beta Report
·
· Score: 1
Whether it's Microsoft that brings online gaming to the masses or Sony or Nintendo, whoever stumbles into the right formula for consumers is going to strike gold. We've all played games, and we've all played games online; we know what's better, don't we? Most people haven't, and when they do they're going to be addicted just like the rest of us.
I wonder if any Microsoft games released on the PC will be compatible with Microsoft's Live service? If not, some hackers will do it.
After all the drama fades between competing services, it would be cool if (certain) PS2 and Xbox and possibly PC games could go head to head with each other.
At a time when the music scene was bogus, in a world plagued by ftp ratios, one man decided to change everything...
Starring Mr. T as Shawn Fanning, Eric Roberts as one honest cop who will do anything to stop him, Christopher Walken as that icon thing, and Hilary Swank as the woman he loved.
Get ready...
TO DOWNLOAD.
"NAPSTER DOT COM"
(an exclusive made-for-TV event, based on real events)
Just watched the trailer, looks really awesome. Can't wait.
Did anyone else notice that the trailer used the same music (originally performed by The Kronos Quartet) as the movie Requiem For A Dream ? I'm not complaining, it gave me chills:)
I very much agree. I thought Keaton was quite good as Batman -- he certainly played a much more convincing Bruce Wayne than the others. Val Kilmer sucked -- too much of the playboy type, rather than the tragic figure that Wayne was supposed to be. George Clooney could have been okay, but again he tried too much to be the sex god rather than the dark figure that Batman and Bruce Wayne really are
Keaton was the one and only Batman (cinematically speaking). Kilmer in Forever was, well, okay at best compared to Keaton in Batman and Batman Returns(probably because Tim Burton produced Batman Forever, though he did not direct as he did the first two). Jim Carey turned Batman Forever into a comedy, which was a big problem.
Batman and Robin was god awful. Clooney was way too upbeat to play Bruce Wayne. Sure, he had the happy-go-lucky Bruce Wayne as businessman and public icon persona down quite well, but as Batman and the real Bruce, he was unept to play such dark roles.
Keanu as Superman? I don't quite see it. He's too young and not quite naive looking enough. Clark Kent isn't supposed to look cool, he's supposed to look like "Smallville" guy from the middle of nowhere. Even with glasses, Keanu just doesn't look naive enough for the role. Agreed, Reeves was the definitive Superman, the manifestion of Superman/Kent on-screen.
And yeah, I know I'm gonna catch shit for saying Keanu Reeves doesn't look naive. Yeah, he looks surfer-stupid, but he doesn't look Smallville-stupid. And for the record, I like Keanu... He was good in the Matrix, he was okay in Speed, he was excellent in the Devil's Advocate. No complaint's here. Wild Stallions!
I'm inclined to agree that this is not news for nerds, but hey, since it's posted...
Season 7 is definitely looking like it will be the last. Joss and Co. are making the effort to make Dawn less whiney and more likeable, probably setting her up to have the torch passed. Eliza Dushku has signed on for the last five episodes of season 7 (as well as three episodes of Angel), which fits in with the Dawn-Slayer-Spinoff theory, because Faith will probably die in one of these episodes, passing the Slayer line down to Dawn.
To me, this sounds like a bad idea. Not because I don't think Mutant Enemy can pull it off, but because Joss is an incredibly busy man and the work suffers when he's spread too thin. Look at all the shows he's already got going: Buffy, Angel, Firefly, The Buffy Animated Series, an upcoming Giles spinoff (probably called "Ripper," cool) that has been put on hold, AND he wants to start another new show? We're talking massive burnout potential here. There's some consensus that season six was Buffy's worst (although still okay), and Joss only wrote one ep all season (Once More, With Feeling), less writing than he's done in any other year... this probably isn't a coincidence.
"What I want to make clear is that we're not in a gouging scenario here."
Yeah, 'cuz it's not like the DVD released on the 6th came with a mini-catalogue marketing LOTR rings, LOTR clothing, LOTR soap on a roap, LOTR bedroom and dining sets, LOTR cereal, and the LOTR personalized will and final wishes kit. Oh wait... yeah it did.
On Nov. 12, New Line will release a four-disc "special extended edition" (suggested price: $39) of "Fellowship" that will include an additional 30 minutes of scenes filmed for the movie but trimmed from the theatrical release. The deleted footage will be reinserted into the film in both the DVD and video versions.
Seriously, Lord of the Rings was a great movie, and I plan on buying the DVD released on August 6th, but I think there's some consensus that the movie is LOOONNNNG.
I love the story, but I don't think I could take ANOTHER thirty minutes on top of what we already have. I mean, I'm gonna have to quit my job just to watch this thing!
The link finally worked for me (I think eralier it was slashdotted), and since the article states that consumers are the ones asking the companies to do the editing, I suppose that would be alright. I was under the impression that the edits were being sold as the original works (*cough*cough*Blockbuster*cough*cough*). Hey, it's not all my fault, "...companies that are making a name for themselves selling/renting out edited films to consumers" isn't entirely accurate. Still, next time I won't jump the gun so quickly (Well, yeah, I probably still will. Sue me).
On that note, consumers who use the service better shut their filthy mouths if they're all confused because they miss an important detail that was revealed during a nude scene or something.
The argument is the same with any appliance, music, movie or other media that I buy. Once it's in my grubby hands and I remove the shrinkwrap, I should be able to do whatever I want to it for my own personal use.
That's not the issue here. The issue is that companies are making a name for themselves SELLING edited films. Who are these editors to decide what contributes to someone else's story? I'd be outraged as all hell too.
Even if the editor's make note that "This film has been heavily modified from it's original version," you've still got an altered work that has the director's name on it. Makes me very angry. Personal editing is okay, because at least then you've seen the original version and you're not trying to turn a profit from it, but MARKETING modified films pisses me off to no end.
There's an annoying double standard around here, everyone's appauled by censorship on one hand, and completely against the DGA on the other (simply because they're the big, bad, evil Hollywood people). Get a grip.
Sorry, but at least this time: Go Director's Guild!
Yeah well, I can picture this very same debate happening 10 years from now, only it's a machine arguing, offended by the term "emulation." Sure it sounds like something out of a certain Steven Spielberg/Stanley Kubrick hybrid, and I'm not saying it will definitely happen, I'm just saying it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
My point was, I think, machines don't necessarily have to "emulate" our own thought processes to become more intelligent than we are. Who says that our way of thinking is the only way?
And of course there's the possibility I have an over-active imagination.
If you subscribe to Ray Kurzweil's theory that man's big purpose was only to give birth to technology, then this is really frightening.
Look how far we're coming, and how much quicker we're getting there. Five years from now who knows what this robot will be able to do. How long will it be before robots are serving us? How long before they're as intelligent as we are? How long before they're creating our music, our films, our art? I don't think humans could compete with a machine that knows all the right buttons to push.
And yeah, to feed the paranoid, how long until they surpass us, and realize that we're nothing more than a liability? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: down with technology, we should have stopped at the wheel!
It's not gonna look nearly as badass when you're watching a bunch of people slam into each other and you can't even hear what's driving them to do it.
And how stupid are the bands playing live and in concert gonna look when you can't hear what the hell they're playing? My God... it will be like a world mimes!
Slashdot Mirror
I'd call that incredibly doubtful. I don't think this new service is about pleasing customers as much as it's about adapting because they realize:
a) There's actually profit to made here.
b) If they don't adapt to the times right away, they're headed for serious trouble from musicians and consumers/art-lovers alike.
c) Impending financial doom.
To summarize, the record companies still don't give two ratshits about you, they're jumping onboard extremely late in the game to cover their own asses.
Personally, I don't really care what affect this will have in bringing Linux to the desktop. I don't care about the "average user" either.
I care about me, and I'm glad I'll be able to switch resolutions without having to hack at a config file. I'm sure most people will be too, whether they're chatting with friends or coding. It's good for everyone.
I repeat, "Office bitch, throw out all these AOL CDs." It'd be ten times more annoying if they're mailed seperately and over a long period of time, just like they do to us.
And when you're calling someone a dumbass, don't post as Anonymous Coward, you anonymous coward.
Find a mailing address for AOL and have people mail them to that address instead. Skip the middle-man. Have it on some significant date and make it a national holiday, preferably a Monday. I really hate Mondays.
Um, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think the point of camcorder jamming has anything to do with keeping customers happy, it's to stop bootlegging.
Camcorder jamming has a seperate purpose from cell phone jamming. Nobody's trying to pirate movies with their cell phones (yet).
If theatres want to stop bootlegging, jam camcorders. If they want to make my viewing experience more enjoyable, hire a rent-a-thug to punch people in the face if they/their-cell-phones/their-children won't shut the fuck up.
...when the plane's going down. Who wants to die sober?
Wtf is sugar cane alcohol? Is it like Mike's Hard Lemonade?
I wonder if any Microsoft games released on the PC will be compatible with Microsoft's Live service? If not, some hackers will do it.
After all the drama fades between competing services, it would be cool if (certain) PS2 and Xbox and possibly PC games could go head to head with each other.
Starring Mr. T as Shawn Fanning, Eric Roberts as one honest cop who will do anything to stop him, Christopher Walken as that icon thing, and Hilary Swank as the woman he loved.
Get ready...
TO DOWNLOAD.
"NAPSTER DOT COM"
(an exclusive made-for-TV event, based on real events)
Just watched the trailer, looks really awesome. Can't wait.
Did anyone else notice that the trailer used the same music (originally performed by The Kronos Quartet) as the movie Requiem For A Dream ? I'm not complaining, it gave me chills :)
Or am I just nuts?
Keaton was the one and only Batman (cinematically speaking). Kilmer in Forever was, well, okay at best compared to Keaton in Batman and Batman Returns(probably because Tim Burton produced Batman Forever, though he did not direct as he did the first two). Jim Carey turned Batman Forever into a comedy, which was a big problem.
Batman and Robin was god awful. Clooney was way too upbeat to play Bruce Wayne. Sure, he had the happy-go-lucky Bruce Wayne as businessman and public icon persona down quite well, but as Batman and the real Bruce, he was unept to play such dark roles.
Keanu as Superman? I don't quite see it. He's too young and not quite naive looking enough. Clark Kent isn't supposed to look cool, he's supposed to look like "Smallville" guy from the middle of nowhere. Even with glasses, Keanu just doesn't look naive enough for the role. Agreed, Reeves was the definitive Superman, the manifestion of Superman/Kent on-screen.
And yeah, I know I'm gonna catch shit for saying Keanu Reeves doesn't look naive. Yeah, he looks surfer-stupid, but he doesn't look Smallville-stupid. And for the record, I like Keanu... He was good in the Matrix, he was okay in Speed, he was excellent in the Devil's Advocate. No complaint's here. Wild Stallions!
Okay, I'm done ranting.
Season 7 is definitely looking like it will be the last. Joss and Co. are making the effort to make Dawn less whiney and more likeable, probably setting her up to have the torch passed. Eliza Dushku has signed on for the last five episodes of season 7 (as well as three episodes of Angel), which fits in with the Dawn-Slayer-Spinoff theory, because Faith will probably die in one of these episodes, passing the Slayer line down to Dawn.
To me, this sounds like a bad idea. Not because I don't think Mutant Enemy can pull it off, but because Joss is an incredibly busy man and the work suffers when he's spread too thin. Look at all the shows he's already got going: Buffy, Angel, Firefly, The Buffy Animated Series, an upcoming Giles spinoff (probably called "Ripper," cool) that has been put on hold, AND he wants to start another new show? We're talking massive burnout potential here. There's some consensus that season six was Buffy's worst (although still okay), and Joss only wrote one ep all season (Once More, With Feeling), less writing than he's done in any other year... this probably isn't a coincidence.
In any case, I'll watch 'em anyways :)
Yeah, 'cuz it's not like the DVD released on the 6th came with a mini-catalogue marketing LOTR rings, LOTR clothing, LOTR soap on a roap, LOTR bedroom and dining sets, LOTR cereal, and the LOTR personalized will and final wishes kit. Oh wait... yeah it did.
Seriously, Lord of the Rings was a great movie, and I plan on buying the DVD released on August 6th, but I think there's some consensus that the movie is LOOONNNNG.
I love the story, but I don't think I could take ANOTHER thirty minutes on top of what we already have. I mean, I'm gonna have to quit my job just to watch this thing!
"Also mentioned is a proposal being considered by the FCC that would allow cable companies to 'turn off' the firewire port"
And two hours later, some 15 year old from Norway will "turn it back on."
On that note, consumers who use the service better shut their filthy mouths if they're all confused because they miss an important detail that was revealed during a nude scene or something.
That's not the issue here. The issue is that companies are making a name for themselves SELLING edited films. Who are these editors to decide what contributes to someone else's story? I'd be outraged as all hell too.
Even if the editor's make note that "This film has been heavily modified from it's original version," you've still got an altered work that has the director's name on it. Makes me very angry. Personal editing is okay, because at least then you've seen the original version and you're not trying to turn a profit from it, but MARKETING modified films pisses me off to no end. There's an annoying double standard around here, everyone's appauled by censorship on one hand, and completely against the DGA on the other (simply because they're the big, bad, evil Hollywood people). Get a grip.
Sorry, but at least this time: Go Director's Guild!
My point was, I think, machines don't necessarily have to "emulate" our own thought processes to become more intelligent than we are. Who says that our way of thinking is the only way?
And of course there's the possibility I have an over-active imagination.
Look how far we're coming, and how much quicker we're getting there. Five years from now who knows what this robot will be able to do. How long will it be before robots are serving us? How long before they're as intelligent as we are? How long before they're creating our music, our films, our art? I don't think humans could compete with a machine that knows all the right buttons to push.
And yeah, to feed the paranoid, how long until they surpass us, and realize that we're nothing more than a liability? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: down with technology, we should have stopped at the wheel!
Think of the PORN!
It's not gonna look nearly as badass when you're watching a bunch of people slam into each other and you can't even hear what's driving them to do it.
And how stupid are the bands playing live and in concert gonna look when you can't hear what the hell they're playing? My God... it will be like a world mimes!
This settles it: down with technology!
Because your typical script kiddy has never even heard of the MPAA.
By the time 2019 rolls around, machines will rule the world, it'll be their damn problem.
One word: PORN
I'm so sorry.