Have all of the creative juices stopped flowing into the Simpsons? Or have they just had a bad run of writers?
I'm not sure what the difference between these two choices is. But there has definitely been not only a change in writing talent but also in attitude. I couldn't believe my eyes that someone voted "Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie" as one of the best 25. As a long time Simpsons fan, I was actually offended by that. The episode seemed designed to be a big "fuck you" to all the fans who were complaining about how the newer episodes were nowhere near as good as the past ones. I think the writers and producers would have been wise to listen to the feedback they were getting from fans. In fact, I just made this comment the other day about Star Trek. In the Poochie episode, Lisa finally goes off on a siloquoy (I know I spelled that wrong) about how Itchy and Scratchy is just as good as it's always been and that the falling ratings are just a result of being too successful for too long. This speech is obviously directed at unhappy fans of the Simpsons and telling them to shut the hell up and that their opinions are wrong (that the Simpsons is as good as it was in Conan's day). I couldn't believe the audacity of the writers!
Also, I don't understand what the hell they were thinking about the episode anyhow. The whole plot is that Poochie is a terrible character and makes I&S even more unwatchable. So then the writers of the Simpsons force us to watch these lame I&S clips and this is supposed to be funny? This is kind of like those awful "annoying man" skits on Saturday Night Live. I guess writers seem to think that shoving annoying stuff at us is going to make us laugh out of nervousness or something. As I see it, the entire I&S&P episode was designed as a "fuck you" to the fans and nothing else. It wasn't even designed to be funny. Why it got voted in the top 25 is beyond me.
GMD
Please don't give 'Funny' comments to interviewees
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What is the password to my PayPal account? I forgot it a while back.
Yeah, we all had a cute chuckle when someone posted this in the original "Ask Kevin" story. And it was rightfully modded 5, Funny. But considering that slashdot only submits 10 of the top rated questions to interviewees, I would really like to see no more Funny comments taking up an important slot. If you'll remember, there were tons of Interesting and Insightful questions rated with a score of 5 that were presented as possible questions for Mitnick. It annoys me that some truly important question was dropped to make room for the PayPal joke.
My request for the editors is to either (a) don't include Funny comments in the 10 questions you submit to an interviewee or (b) bump up the number of questions to 20 or something. If anyone else agrees with me, I encourage you to reply to this thread so the editors take note.
Ask Slashdot why Nemesis failed. You just know you'll get a ton of insightful and intelligent answers out of a question like that.
I got no indication that the poster was trying to make a joke. I think Paramount, Berman and Braga would do well to listen to the fans for a change instead of ramming standard sci-fi with the Trek label slapped on down our throats. The size and imagination of the Trek fanbase is legendary. There is TONS of free information out there for them to consider. Obviously, the studio wouldn't want to take some fanboy's idea verbatim or even hire fans to provide input. All they would have to do is cruise a few forums and get an idea what the fans want. Nemesis is a classic example of what happens when a studio is completely out of touch with their fans and thinks they can figure out what the fans want more than the fans themselves.
It doesn't have to be slashdot. There are plenty of free forums where the so-called creative talent behind the Trek franchise could go cruising for inspiration and insightful analysis. After 30+ years of Trek, there's really no excuse for them the studio to get it wrong.
If there truly is a God in this universe, I want him/her/it to make sure that Nolan Bushnell spends his 60th birthday fighting crowds of hyperactive kids screaming over the din of 100 videogames just so he can choke down terrible pizza while being serenaded by an animitronic rat or bear or whatever the fuck they've got at Chuck-e-Cheese nowadays.
I CAN OFFER only three words to Hollywood: Get over it. Or maybe: Turn it around. If people find certain scenes in certain movies offensive, maybe Hollywood shouldn't force its paying customers to watch those scenes.
I'm guessing that the studios aren't so much interested in forcing people to watch "offensive scenes" as they are in ensuring that they are going to be the sole avenue for producing "Family" or "Edited" versions. A Studio might, for example, decide to release a PG-13 version of James Cameron's Aliens. There would probably be a market for that unless, of course, ClearPlay, CleanFlicks or some other company is already providing families with the ability to edit their R-rated Aliens DVD on the fly.
The author of the article would have a stronger argument if he wasn't distorting the true intentions of the studios like that.
I know I'm not answering your actual question here, but I would think twice about trying to save a couple of bucks on your honeymoon. Go the safer, more traditional route for something this important and you can gamble with some fly-by-night online agency for a future trip that is a little less important. Imagine if something goes wrong because of the travel agent, your wife is not going to very happy with your decision to go with a relatively new (a few years experience) online agency.
C'mon people, this is Japan we're talking about here. The most realistic answer is that Godzilla ate more plutonium than they realized on his last ramage across Japan. Since he attacks Japan so damn often, it's not surprising that their inventory counts get off once in awhile. Just relax, everyone. Everyone knows Godzilla only attacks Japan. The rest of us don't really have to worry.
I can see it now: company tries to claim a loss due to having their network compromised.
Insurer: I'm sorry but we have rejected your claim.
Insured: What the hell do you mean? This is why we bought hacker insurance!!
Insurer: Yes, but you bought "hacker" insurance. If you wanted to be reimbursed for a loss like this, you should have bought our "cracker" insurance! But you're in luck! We've got a special offer now! If you buy cracker insurance and already have purchased hacker insurance from us, you will save 10%! I guess today is your lucky day after all!
Insured: You insurance companies are vultures! Profiting off our loss! Well, okay, I don't want to think any more about it. Just sell me whatever insurance you think is best for me.
Insurer: Just what I was hoping you'd say! Sign here, here, and here, please! No, don't bother reading that. It's just a bunch of legal jargon...
As lead schools, they are conducting experiments that will be viewed by thousands of people around the world.... Obviously, my favorite one is the U.S.A.'s harvester ants tunneling in algar-based gel experiment for 16 days.
Maybe it's just me but I just can't see thousand of people around the world glued to their monitors watching a bunch of ants making tunnels through gel for 16 solid days. I'd almost rather watch a Pauly Shore comedy (note the use of the word "almost").
I'm sure others will state this more eloquently than I but one needs to consider the principle of a white list as well as the practicality of it. I feel, and I'm sure most slashdotters do as well, that the default should be "information wants to be free." For people like us, the idea of a white list is almost like capitulating to the censorship proponents.
As far as the practicallity of such a thing, I fear that it will suffer from the same problem that a black list would, namely that it's really agonizing to try to list every notable/worthy item of an enormous list. If I go to a library and get some information and then find out that it's not available and I have to special order it, I usually won't bother putting in my request and I'll turn to other ways of getting the data. I think the same thing is likely to happen if a white list would be instituted. People would get fed up with having to wait and submit a special request. The promise of the Internet as being an immediate source of information would be soured. One could certainly argue along the lines of "Hey, if you want unfettered access to information and can't be bothered waiting a little while, then buy your own computer!" but I would guess that majority of people who use library Internet access probably can't afford one for whatever reason.
In my view, the entire idea of a white list is the wrong way to be thinking of the issue. It seems like the censorship proponents should be the ones stuck doing the extra work since filters are their ideas in the first place. Sticking the poor high school student with extra work because of some over-zealous soccer moms who don't want their kids to look at undesirable Internet sites seems a bit unfair.
I for one would LOVE to have my kid taught about space by someone who's actually BEEN there, you know what I mean?
No, I'm afraid I don't. What perceived benefit do you think this would have for your child? In what way will this teacher be more qualified to teach basic astronomy because of their experience floating around in a cramped shapeship for a few days?
I admit that I didn't read the article but I don't really see what the rationale for restarting this program is except, of course, for the obvious publicity. People could argue that this, alone, makes it worthwhile (remember the media coverage John Glenn's 2nd space trip got?) for NASA to pursue but I always get a bit nervous when people start trivialising inheriently dangerous things. I am by no means blaming the Challenger disaster on the Teacher in Space program but I think there is an interesting parallel between the shoddy preparations done for that trip and the idea that space travel was so safe that civilians should be allowed. Space exploration is not a joyride. If some multimillionare wants to pony up the bucks and realizes they are taking their life in their hands, then so be it. But there's a big difference between that kind of thing and a NASA-sanctioned program encouraging teachers to risk space travel. I'd prefer if NASA was to spend their money and effort on more serious ambitions than this Teacher in Space program. This smacks of something designed purely for publicity and to keep up appearances of "applications for Everymen and Everywomen everywhere!"
An anonymous submitter wrote in about this interview with the director of the Guildhall game development program. Slashdot mentioned it earlier.
...but we here at slashdot figured: why not post it again!
GMD
Making that a question
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Mr. Mitnick:
There are some people who feel that it is unfair for you to use your reputation as an infamous cracker to sell books and build your new consulting business. They argue that you are being given a level of free publicity and exposure that other law-abiding citizens simply would not receive. How would you respond to these accusations? Do they concern you at all? Deep in your heart do you feel that it's unfair you are getting all this extra-special treatment but are willing to accept it anyhow because you need whatever help you can get? Do you feel that it's acceptable to accept some unusual help building your business because you were subject to equally unusual/extreme punishment?
Moderators: this is not a troll. I think this is a legitimate question that many people here would like answered.
Well no, Keanu, not exactly. The people who have been dissed are those that engage in the practice or that purchase products based on those actions. I'm sure that there are people in those countries who aren't happy about the practice of cutting off the dorsal fin.
Yet of course we've done all kinds of similar things like the buffalo for tongues and hides, the dodo bird for feathers, fur of various animals driven nearly to extinction, etc. I don't think even now we're particularly unified in our view of spotted owls and other species that "get in the way of progress." So with our history and our modern ambivalence, I don't think we're in a great position to lecture, and we're really recent converts ourselves.
I'm sure that the same people who frown on the asian practice of killing sharks just for their fin are equally ashamed of the examples you listed in the western world. And, besides, if we've "recently seen the light", don't you think it's perfectly normal for us to try to explain our insight to others? Maybe they can learn from our mistakes.
Please, extinction of species is a serious issue in its own right. Don't try to muddle the discussion by throwing in some tenuous link to nationalism or racism.
There is a non-trivial number of peer-to-peer users who just download things because they can. Much like the core of packrat warez traders they're not so much interested in the specifics as trying to have the largest collection.
I agree completely. In fact, I basically made the same comment above. KaZaA v2.0+ has incorporated a "File Integrity" feature that allows users to vote on whether the file is usable or not. But the problem is that most users don't bother to vote on the file. I almost wish that KaZaA and other p2p services would REQUIRE users to verify that the file is good once it's been downloaded. I envision a pop-up dialog box saying "Listen to XXX.mp3 now?" If the user clicks "yes" then the song would play and afterwards the p2p client would ask "Keep XXX.mp3?" which would force the user to decide whether to keep it. If the user picks "No" to the "listen" dialog box, that's fine. But the next time they fire up their p2p client, they'll get the same dialog box. Basically, the p2p program would continue to harass them about files they've downloaded but haven't verified the legitimacy of.
One problem with this approach comes when video clips are considered. I can easily see someone downloading an AVI encoded with DivX 5.0.2. They try to play it, but because they only have DivX 3.11 on their machine, they can't see the clip and decide it's corrupt. A *really smart* client would then advise the user that they don't have the proper codec before they agree to delete the file. But that's probably more than really needs to be done. I'd just like to see people keeping their downloadable collections a little cleaner for the rest of us. The current approach of relying on users to do it voluntarily simply isn't working. Perhaps a little incentive is required to remind them to keep their house tidy.
What's wrong with us here in the US that we can't confront anyone anymore?
One problem, Darth Maul, is that we have a culture of violence here in the US. The news is litered with stories of how people resort to violence over seemingly unimportant things. People who are honked at for driving recklessly will take offense and try to cut off the person responsible for the honk. Parents get into fist fights over pee-wee hockey games. People will start pushing you in a pitiful attempt at saving face if you chastise them in public (Don't believe me? Try telling someone who's physically harrasing his girlfriend/wife to leave her alone). It is entirely possible that confronting someone over cell phone usage could result in them reacting violently. You can never tell what people are going to do in this day and age. You could say that it's cowardly for people to simply accept the obnixous actions of one rude person but these people may have simply done a mental risk/benefit calculation in their head and decided that possibly sparking a violent reaction is simply not worth it.
That's why people oftentimes will not confront someone themselves but will enlist the support of an impartial third party such as a theatre manager.
Does this mean that the next time I'm forced to do that God-awful "Chicken Dance" at a wedding that I can at least take some solace in the fact that I'm actually doing "The Raptor Dance" or "The Tyrannosaurus Rex Dance"?
2. Some dope must download this 'bad' track-- but once they find it's bad, they delete it. The track never gets past that first copy.
Ah, if only p2p networks were so efficient. Most people just aren't as deligent as you about cleaning up corrupted stuff they download as you are. With harddrives in the tens of gigabytes these days, there's no pressing need for the average user to get rid of every single junk file. Most people are lazy, lazy, lazy. They download a whole chunk of mp3s at once and figure they'll sort through them later. Maybe that won't happen for a few days. In the meantime, others do the same thing and download it off him before he gets a chance to delete it.
I don't quite understand your arguement about why creating bad mp3s is so pricey for them. I'm sure they can whip up a short program that will automate the process. Then they just pay some intern minimum wage to run batch jobs and create a huge amount of corrupted files. They can repeat this process over and over.
I'm not saying that the RIAAs tactic is sound. But I also think that your conclusion that "Eventually, the RIAA will come under such heavy costs to maintain their disinformation campaign, that it would be cheaper to start using the P2P system to their advantage" is flawed. I think this is a dirt cheap and easy way for them to feel like they are doing something about the p2p problem.
There's an article featured over at space.com about an ongoing EBay auction to spend a night in Hawaii's Keck Observatory with Astronomer Geoff Marcy.
You know, if those guys were really smart they would have purposely goofed up the astronmer's name as 'Marcy Geoff' in the promotion. Then when some horny geek has spent big bucks in the hopes that he's gonna bed some astrobabe they can claim that it was a typo and reveal that the astronomer is really Geoff Marcy.
If you do stop and think about how the pieces are going to fit together, things get pretty creepy. In an earlier slashdot story I wrote a comment about how UAVs being used presemably to protect us against terrorists here in the States could easily be modified to do basically whatever. And, let's face it, UAVs are pretty obvious. Think about the intelligence data that could be obtained by less obvious sources. Bit by bit, they can collect a wealth of information about you.
The problem with making concessions on personal liberties to aid the war on terror is that there isn't going to be any definite end point of this "war". Traditional wars end when one side comes to the bargaining table. This war is pretty ill-defined and so no clear "end" will ever exist. Once those liberties are gone, I don't think we're going to see them coming back anytime soon.
What would Walt Disney think if some 40 years after his death, somebody with a computer and an internet connection was making porn cartoons with the characters he created?
I hate to point this out, but ol' Walt wouldn't think anything because he's dead.
Now, before someone mods me as Funny or Troll, I'm trying to point out that your attempt at using Walt to humanize this issue is completly wrong. One of the reasons that everyone here is so up in arms is because the new ruling allows for indefinite copyright -- far past the lifetime of the creator. The beneficiary of this rulling is not a creative person with feelings but an immortal non-person. So trying to convince us that perpetual copyright is good by referring to the feelings of someone who won't benefit from the ruling is ludicrous.
Brown dwarf? Good god! For those of you living in a cave, the proper ethnically-sensitive term is "Vertically-challenged African-American". How would you like someone to refer to you as "Whitey 4-eyes"? At least you guys had the sense to use the word "companion" rather than "hooker" although "escort" would also be acceptable.
Just because they don't spend their nights recompiling their Linux kernals doesn't make them any less of a person than you. Let's try to use modern terminology here, people!
Slashdot Mirror
Have all of the creative juices stopped flowing into the Simpsons? Or have they just had a bad run of writers?
I'm not sure what the difference between these two choices is. But there has definitely been not only a change in writing talent but also in attitude. I couldn't believe my eyes that someone voted "Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie" as one of the best 25. As a long time Simpsons fan, I was actually offended by that. The episode seemed designed to be a big "fuck you" to all the fans who were complaining about how the newer episodes were nowhere near as good as the past ones. I think the writers and producers would have been wise to listen to the feedback they were getting from fans. In fact, I just made this comment the other day about Star Trek. In the Poochie episode, Lisa finally goes off on a siloquoy (I know I spelled that wrong) about how Itchy and Scratchy is just as good as it's always been and that the falling ratings are just a result of being too successful for too long. This speech is obviously directed at unhappy fans of the Simpsons and telling them to shut the hell up and that their opinions are wrong (that the Simpsons is as good as it was in Conan's day). I couldn't believe the audacity of the writers!
Also, I don't understand what the hell they were thinking about the episode anyhow. The whole plot is that Poochie is a terrible character and makes I&S even more unwatchable. So then the writers of the Simpsons force us to watch these lame I&S clips and this is supposed to be funny? This is kind of like those awful "annoying man" skits on Saturday Night Live. I guess writers seem to think that shoving annoying stuff at us is going to make us laugh out of nervousness or something. As I see it, the entire I&S&P episode was designed as a "fuck you" to the fans and nothing else. It wasn't even designed to be funny. Why it got voted in the top 25 is beyond me.
GMD
What is the password to my PayPal account? I forgot it a while back.
Yeah, we all had a cute chuckle when someone posted this in the original "Ask Kevin" story. And it was rightfully modded 5, Funny. But considering that slashdot only submits 10 of the top rated questions to interviewees, I would really like to see no more Funny comments taking up an important slot. If you'll remember, there were tons of Interesting and Insightful questions rated with a score of 5 that were presented as possible questions for Mitnick. It annoys me that some truly important question was dropped to make room for the PayPal joke.
My request for the editors is to either (a) don't include Funny comments in the 10 questions you submit to an interviewee or (b) bump up the number of questions to 20 or something. If anyone else agrees with me, I encourage you to reply to this thread so the editors take note.
GMD
Ask Slashdot why Nemesis failed. You just know you'll get a ton of insightful and intelligent answers out of a question like that.
I got no indication that the poster was trying to make a joke. I think Paramount, Berman and Braga would do well to listen to the fans for a change instead of ramming standard sci-fi with the Trek label slapped on down our throats. The size and imagination of the Trek fanbase is legendary. There is TONS of free information out there for them to consider. Obviously, the studio wouldn't want to take some fanboy's idea verbatim or even hire fans to provide input. All they would have to do is cruise a few forums and get an idea what the fans want. Nemesis is a classic example of what happens when a studio is completely out of touch with their fans and thinks they can figure out what the fans want more than the fans themselves.
It doesn't have to be slashdot. There are plenty of free forums where the so-called creative talent behind the Trek franchise could go cruising for inspiration and insightful analysis. After 30+ years of Trek, there's really no excuse for them the studio to get it wrong.
GMD
Did you have your video camera trained on Columbia? Finally, Child of Apollo writes ...
What's with this "finally" stuff? Have people been holding their breath to hear what Child of Apollo has to say or something?
GMD
If there truly is a God in this universe, I want him/her/it to make sure that Nolan Bushnell spends his 60th birthday fighting crowds of hyperactive kids screaming over the din of 100 videogames just so he can choke down terrible pizza while being serenaded by an animitronic rat or bear or whatever the fuck they've got at Chuck-e-Cheese nowadays.
GMD
I'm guessing that the studios aren't so much interested in forcing people to watch "offensive scenes" as they are in ensuring that they are going to be the sole avenue for producing "Family" or "Edited" versions. A Studio might, for example, decide to release a PG-13 version of James Cameron's Aliens. There would probably be a market for that unless, of course, ClearPlay, CleanFlicks or some other company is already providing families with the ability to edit their R-rated Aliens DVD on the fly.
The author of the article would have a stronger argument if he wasn't distorting the true intentions of the studios like that.
GMD
I know I'm not answering your actual question here, but I would think twice about trying to save a couple of bucks on your honeymoon. Go the safer, more traditional route for something this important and you can gamble with some fly-by-night online agency for a future trip that is a little less important. Imagine if something goes wrong because of the travel agent, your wife is not going to very happy with your decision to go with a relatively new (a few years experience) online agency.
GMD
C'mon people, this is Japan we're talking about here. The most realistic answer is that Godzilla ate more plutonium than they realized on his last ramage across Japan. Since he attacks Japan so damn often, it's not surprising that their inventory counts get off once in awhile. Just relax, everyone. Everyone knows Godzilla only attacks Japan. The rest of us don't really have to worry.
GMD
I thought Directive 4 was that any attempt to arrest a senior officer of OCP Corporation would result in immediate shutdown!
GMD
I can see it now: company tries to claim a loss due to having their network compromised.
Insurer: I'm sorry but we have rejected your claim.
Insured: What the hell do you mean? This is why we bought hacker insurance!!
Insurer: Yes, but you bought "hacker" insurance. If you wanted to be reimbursed for a loss like this, you should have bought our "cracker" insurance! But you're in luck! We've got a special offer now! If you buy cracker insurance and already have purchased hacker insurance from us, you will save 10%! I guess today is your lucky day after all!
Insured: You insurance companies are vultures! Profiting off our loss! Well, okay, I don't want to think any more about it. Just sell me whatever insurance you think is best for me.
Insurer: Just what I was hoping you'd say! Sign here, here, and here, please! No, don't bother reading that. It's just a bunch of legal jargon...
GMD
As lead schools, they are conducting experiments that will be viewed by thousands of people around the world. ... Obviously, my favorite one is the U.S.A.'s harvester ants tunneling in algar-based gel experiment for 16 days.
Maybe it's just me but I just can't see thousand of people around the world glued to their monitors watching a bunch of ants making tunnels through gel for 16 solid days. I'd almost rather watch a Pauly Shore comedy (note the use of the word "almost").
GMD
I'm sure others will state this more eloquently than I but one needs to consider the principle of a white list as well as the practicality of it. I feel, and I'm sure most slashdotters do as well, that the default should be "information wants to be free." For people like us, the idea of a white list is almost like capitulating to the censorship proponents.
As far as the practicallity of such a thing, I fear that it will suffer from the same problem that a black list would, namely that it's really agonizing to try to list every notable/worthy item of an enormous list. If I go to a library and get some information and then find out that it's not available and I have to special order it, I usually won't bother putting in my request and I'll turn to other ways of getting the data. I think the same thing is likely to happen if a white list would be instituted. People would get fed up with having to wait and submit a special request. The promise of the Internet as being an immediate source of information would be soured. One could certainly argue along the lines of "Hey, if you want unfettered access to information and can't be bothered waiting a little while, then buy your own computer!" but I would guess that majority of people who use library Internet access probably can't afford one for whatever reason.
In my view, the entire idea of a white list is the wrong way to be thinking of the issue. It seems like the censorship proponents should be the ones stuck doing the extra work since filters are their ideas in the first place. Sticking the poor high school student with extra work because of some over-zealous soccer moms who don't want their kids to look at undesirable Internet sites seems a bit unfair.
GMD
I for one would LOVE to have my kid taught about space by someone who's actually BEEN there, you know what I mean?
No, I'm afraid I don't. What perceived benefit do you think this would have for your child? In what way will this teacher be more qualified to teach basic astronomy because of their experience floating around in a cramped shapeship for a few days?
I admit that I didn't read the article but I don't really see what the rationale for restarting this program is except, of course, for the obvious publicity. People could argue that this, alone, makes it worthwhile (remember the media coverage John Glenn's 2nd space trip got?) for NASA to pursue but I always get a bit nervous when people start trivialising inheriently dangerous things. I am by no means blaming the Challenger disaster on the Teacher in Space program but I think there is an interesting parallel between the shoddy preparations done for that trip and the idea that space travel was so safe that civilians should be allowed. Space exploration is not a joyride. If some multimillionare wants to pony up the bucks and realizes they are taking their life in their hands, then so be it. But there's a big difference between that kind of thing and a NASA-sanctioned program encouraging teachers to risk space travel. I'd prefer if NASA was to spend their money and effort on more serious ambitions than this Teacher in Space program. This smacks of something designed purely for publicity and to keep up appearances of "applications for Everymen and Everywomen everywhere!"
GMD
An anonymous submitter wrote in about this interview with the director of the Guildhall game development program. Slashdot mentioned it earlier.
...but we here at slashdot figured: why not post it again!
GMD
Mr. Mitnick:
There are some people who feel that it is unfair for you to use your reputation as an infamous cracker to sell books and build your new consulting business. They argue that you are being given a level of free publicity and exposure that other law-abiding citizens simply would not receive. How would you respond to these accusations? Do they concern you at all? Deep in your heart do you feel that it's unfair you are getting all this extra-special treatment but are willing to accept it anyhow because you need whatever help you can get? Do you feel that it's acceptable to accept some unusual help building your business because you were subject to equally unusual/extreme punishment?
Moderators: this is not a troll. I think this is a legitimate question that many people here would like answered.
GMD
Whoa, you just dissed an entire country!
Well no, Keanu, not exactly. The people who have been dissed are those that engage in the practice or that purchase products based on those actions. I'm sure that there are people in those countries who aren't happy about the practice of cutting off the dorsal fin.
Yet of course we've done all kinds of similar things like the buffalo for tongues and hides, the dodo bird for feathers, fur of various animals driven nearly to extinction, etc. I don't think even now we're particularly unified in our view of spotted owls and other species that "get in the way of progress." So with our history and our modern ambivalence, I don't think we're in a great position to lecture, and we're really recent converts ourselves.
I'm sure that the same people who frown on the asian practice of killing sharks just for their fin are equally ashamed of the examples you listed in the western world. And, besides, if we've "recently seen the light", don't you think it's perfectly normal for us to try to explain our insight to others? Maybe they can learn from our mistakes.
Please, extinction of species is a serious issue in its own right. Don't try to muddle the discussion by throwing in some tenuous link to nationalism or racism.
GMD
There is a non-trivial number of peer-to-peer users who just download things because they can. Much like the core of packrat warez traders they're not so much interested in the specifics as trying to have the largest collection.
I agree completely. In fact, I basically made the same comment above. KaZaA v2.0+ has incorporated a "File Integrity" feature that allows users to vote on whether the file is usable or not. But the problem is that most users don't bother to vote on the file. I almost wish that KaZaA and other p2p services would REQUIRE users to verify that the file is good once it's been downloaded. I envision a pop-up dialog box saying "Listen to XXX.mp3 now?" If the user clicks "yes" then the song would play and afterwards the p2p client would ask "Keep XXX.mp3?" which would force the user to decide whether to keep it. If the user picks "No" to the "listen" dialog box, that's fine. But the next time they fire up their p2p client, they'll get the same dialog box. Basically, the p2p program would continue to harass them about files they've downloaded but haven't verified the legitimacy of.
One problem with this approach comes when video clips are considered. I can easily see someone downloading an AVI encoded with DivX 5.0.2. They try to play it, but because they only have DivX 3.11 on their machine, they can't see the clip and decide it's corrupt. A *really smart* client would then advise the user that they don't have the proper codec before they agree to delete the file. But that's probably more than really needs to be done. I'd just like to see people keeping their downloadable collections a little cleaner for the rest of us. The current approach of relying on users to do it voluntarily simply isn't working. Perhaps a little incentive is required to remind them to keep their house tidy.
GMD
What's wrong with us here in the US that we can't confront anyone anymore?
One problem, Darth Maul, is that we have a culture of violence here in the US. The news is litered with stories of how people resort to violence over seemingly unimportant things. People who are honked at for driving recklessly will take offense and try to cut off the person responsible for the honk. Parents get into fist fights over pee-wee hockey games. People will start pushing you in a pitiful attempt at saving face if you chastise them in public (Don't believe me? Try telling someone who's physically harrasing his girlfriend/wife to leave her alone). It is entirely possible that confronting someone over cell phone usage could result in them reacting violently. You can never tell what people are going to do in this day and age. You could say that it's cowardly for people to simply accept the obnixous actions of one rude person but these people may have simply done a mental risk/benefit calculation in their head and decided that possibly sparking a violent reaction is simply not worth it.
That's why people oftentimes will not confront someone themselves but will enlist the support of an impartial third party such as a theatre manager.
GMD
Does this mean that the next time I'm forced to do that God-awful "Chicken Dance" at a wedding that I can at least take some solace in the fact that I'm actually doing "The Raptor Dance" or "The Tyrannosaurus Rex Dance"?
GMD
2. Some dope must download this 'bad' track-- but once they find it's bad, they delete it. The track never gets past that first copy.
Ah, if only p2p networks were so efficient. Most people just aren't as deligent as you about cleaning up corrupted stuff they download as you are. With harddrives in the tens of gigabytes these days, there's no pressing need for the average user to get rid of every single junk file. Most people are lazy, lazy, lazy. They download a whole chunk of mp3s at once and figure they'll sort through them later. Maybe that won't happen for a few days. In the meantime, others do the same thing and download it off him before he gets a chance to delete it.
I don't quite understand your arguement about why creating bad mp3s is so pricey for them. I'm sure they can whip up a short program that will automate the process. Then they just pay some intern minimum wage to run batch jobs and create a huge amount of corrupted files. They can repeat this process over and over.
I'm not saying that the RIAAs tactic is sound. But I also think that your conclusion that "Eventually, the RIAA will come under such heavy costs to maintain their disinformation campaign, that it would be cheaper to start using the P2P system to their advantage" is flawed. I think this is a dirt cheap and easy way for them to feel like they are doing something about the p2p problem.
GMD
For a minute there it looked like you were making some serious points. Then I got to this line:
Make out with your girlfriend.
That kind of delusional thinking just wiped out any semblance of reality that your post might have had. :)
GMD
There's an article featured over at space.com about an ongoing EBay auction to spend a night in Hawaii's Keck Observatory with Astronomer Geoff Marcy.
You know, if those guys were really smart they would have purposely goofed up the astronmer's name as 'Marcy Geoff' in the promotion. Then when some horny geek has spent big bucks in the hopes that he's gonna bed some astrobabe they can claim that it was a typo and reveal that the astronomer is really Geoff Marcy.
Well, that's what I would have done at least...
GMD
If you do stop and think about how the pieces are going to fit together, things get pretty creepy. In an earlier slashdot story I wrote a comment about how UAVs being used presemably to protect us against terrorists here in the States could easily be modified to do basically whatever. And, let's face it, UAVs are pretty obvious. Think about the intelligence data that could be obtained by less obvious sources. Bit by bit, they can collect a wealth of information about you.
The problem with making concessions on personal liberties to aid the war on terror is that there isn't going to be any definite end point of this "war". Traditional wars end when one side comes to the bargaining table. This war is pretty ill-defined and so no clear "end" will ever exist. Once those liberties are gone, I don't think we're going to see them coming back anytime soon.
GMD
What would Walt Disney think if some 40 years after his death, somebody with a computer and an internet connection was making porn cartoons with the characters he created?
I hate to point this out, but ol' Walt wouldn't think anything because he's dead.
Now, before someone mods me as Funny or Troll, I'm trying to point out that your attempt at using Walt to humanize this issue is completly wrong. One of the reasons that everyone here is so up in arms is because the new ruling allows for indefinite copyright -- far past the lifetime of the creator. The beneficiary of this rulling is not a creative person with feelings but an immortal non-person. So trying to convince us that perpetual copyright is good by referring to the feelings of someone who won't benefit from the ruling is ludicrous.
GMD
Brown dwarf? Good god! For those of you living in a cave, the proper ethnically-sensitive term is "Vertically-challenged African-American". How would you like someone to refer to you as "Whitey 4-eyes"? At least you guys had the sense to use the word "companion" rather than "hooker" although "escort" would also be acceptable.
Just because they don't spend their nights recompiling their Linux kernals doesn't make them any less of a person than you. Let's try to use modern terminology here, people!
GMD