Well, thank to regulation, come 2007, I'll be able to unplug my cable, sit down and watch Will & Grace with the highest picture and sound clarity. Perhaps the goverment could also mandate that by 2007 someone shoot me in the head with.22 over and over and over again.
Excellent point. I mean, just look at what happened to netscape. It used to be a viable contender on the Windows OS web browser market, but now has gone the way of the dinosaur because most people had only Explorer, so most sites were built to be seen with explorer, now it's really tough to surf certain sites with netscape.
There needs to be some kind of massive re-education effort in order for the American consumers to change the role of M$ in the computer world. I'm assuming that most people who post on/. build their own PC's, and blow out their laptops, re-partition the disk, and put in a fresh OS. A majority of people simply don't know how or why to do this. Most people go to compusa, and just buy whatever the guy says. This means that they get XP Home, with AOL and all other kinds of useless shit slapped on it. Simply because they don't know any better. And as far as they are concerned, as long as it doesnt crash, A-0K. It would take a massive education effort to change something like that, and the only massive education system we have is run by the U.S. government, which for the most part is the friend of the business, rather than the consumer. . . so unless we nerds of the world amass and finally take control, things look bleak for the rest of the world.
I think most of your post is quite true. The majority of American watch TV, eat McDonalds, wear Nike, and sit on their asses on election day. However, I don't really think that this is necessarily a product of television. I certainly think that TV has augmented the effect of "control" over the masses that has been the calling card of most any form of government ever implemented.
Take the Roman Empire for example. Control came in the form of "bread and circus," as it was put. Entertainment and food (i.e. TV and McDonalds). Other less "democratic" societies simply excercised control via physical force and strong social norms, the City-State of Sparta, for example. I don't necessarily think we or more or less sheeplike than any other society before us.
Of course, we could get into numerous discussions about the role of government, and the greater purpose of human existence(if one exists).
Perhaps, the illusion of happiness is just as good as the real thing?
I want to take back my previous reply. I've looked at your posting history, and yeah like you said, you've "obviously been an asshole" for a long, long time. You seem to be proud of it, so that shouldn't be taken as an insult. I originally thought you were picking me out specifically, just to get under my skin, for no good reason. As it turns out, you do this to a lot of people, for your own reasons. Probably because you just like flaming people. And if it makes you feel good, go for it.
I apologize for flaming you back, and threatening you with physical violence. You're right, it was even more immature than mustering up "a half-wit comeback or even a 10 cent quip." In fact, neither would have been an appropriate response. I just hope that you're not as conversationally abrasive in person. If you are, at some point, I have a feeling that it will probably come back to haunt you, in some form or another. This relatively anonymous form of posting is obviously something you feel you need to do (for whatever reason, and I have some vague notions), so in fact, your post has very little to do with me.
Please continue to flame my posts as much as you need. I hope it gets you what you looking for. And again, I apologize for the physical threat, it was most definitely uncalled for. Also, I don't think I'll be calling you a pussy anytime soon.
May all your flames be orgasmic. --PMadavi
P.S.Dignity is not something that you can take from a person, who is unwilling to relinquish it. While I did let go at first, with my childish response to your flame, I do feel that I have reclaimed it ever since I decided that being angry at your flame was utterly ridiculous. Again, congratulations for initially getting under my skin.
I'll be changing my sig and running the joke into the ground correctly then, Fucko.
Takes a big man to call someone a twit over the net. Congrats. Hey, if you're ever in Chicago, let me know. See if you want to call me a twit in person. Bet you don't.
Thanks again, Fucko.
I think it might have to do very much with the illusion of value. People see how cheap it is for such a large quantity, and go for it without thinking about how much they actually want. Take also into account that what used to be a large drink is now a medium (etc), so you order what you've always order, but suddenly, you're getting more.
Take for example, 7-11. I'm sure the bulk soda that 7-11 receives is cheap enough that they can sell as much for as cheap as they like. The idea is to move the product as quickly as possible. Is anybody really going to drink 5 pints of soda, probably not. Definitely not without having some kind of heart attack. However, they might drink three pints. Which makes 2 extra pints that 7-11 sold that it otherwise wouldn't have, because they sold it cheap. Same with coffee, french fries, whatever. The more you sell, the more you cash in.
Well, here's my question: If somebody wants to buy a censored copy of a movie, what's the problem? I can understand if the movie makers are pissed that they're not getting a cut of the pie, but that's not what they're arguing.
If somebody wants to buy the lame version of a movie, what's to stop them? It's not like our options are being removed. I agree that they should be able to collect revenue, even from the most edited versions of their movies. But seriously, who would call a Hollywood movie (and believe me, indy movies are in no danger of being so highly in demand that the bible belt needs to see them so badly that they chop out the naughty parts and then show the flicks to their little children) a work of art, deserving of a moral trump card.
Besides, the original version exists. Copies are copies, and as such anything can be done to them.
I think that it's a little naive to assume that our "elected officials" would listen to us, rather than a corporation. I don't recall it ever happening before. Here's two reasons why a "mature" approach wouldn't work here.
First and foremost, there's just not enough geeks who know/care about this stuff to scare a congressperson into voting against the re-election financing corporation. We simply cannot amass a strong enough force in the time allotted to stop this legislation Second of all, you're assuming that the legal playing field is level. In this case, it's not. DoS is either illegal, or it isn't. Just like murder, rape, stealing, etc. . . The fact that our congressman are willing to allow a corporation to use an illegal act to counter-act "stealing," means that RIAA has pull that most civilians simply don't.
Which brings me to my final point. What do you do when the legal playing field is uneven? You protest. I think that a DoS on RIAA.org is just as legitimate a form of protest as a non-violent sit in would be. Why? Because legal does not equal moral, and morality is a subjective thing. For many people Hacking is a legitimate form of protest, and your assertion that it is "just plain stupid," is not only offensive, but not never well formulated.
I think that's an argument that's based on your perception of the role of law/government in regulating society and where we set our limits, so it's not something you and I can reach a point of agreement on.
It's a sound argument that you make, and I think most would agree with you. However, a Libertarian, for example, would have serious problems with your argument.
"Negligable or not," they'd say, "it has a legitimate use (more legitimate than using coke for a paperweight [which would be extremely expensive by the way]), and that's more than enough reason for it be legal."
I am not saying that all Libertarians use coke. Um, anyway, at this point I think it's about where the boundries are set. I just think the legal argument of "I could be using this for legal purposes, so don't throw me in jail for owning it" is a better argument than "Bullshit. This thing's used for illegal games so you are going to jail." At least if there's no evidence to swing it either way.
In my original post, I had mentioned that someone might want to burn a back-up copy of a game he/she has purchased legitimately from a store, in case the original gets lost or scratched or stolen or something like that. In which case, they'd need a mod-chip to run this back-up copy of the software they purchased. I think that would be a legitimate use for a mod-chip.
Now, I'm not sure if these gaming companies pull a microsoft, and say that you're buying the CD and not the software on it (essentially paying for the distribution and not the product), but I don't think they do. If they don't, then you have every right to burn a back-up copy of your game and play it on the PS2. . . which would require a mod-chip. So, if this logic holds-up, you've got every right to go out and get yourself a mod-chip. What you choose to do with it is up to you.
Well, I can see him getting arrested for selling pirated software, that makes sense. What's interesting is that he got charged for the mod-chip, not the games. Should selling something that allows you to do illegal things be illegal? I mean, we sell guns and pipes. All kinds of things. Should you buy those things doesn't mean you're going to kill or do drugs, right?
Here's a scenario. You bought a rad new PS2 game, you want to make sure that if it gets scratched, eaten, etc. . . you can still play your game, so you burn a copy, and use the mod chip to play the game. You paid for the game once, right? What's wrong with that.
If you ask me, aside from the selling pirated games, this guy had a case.
Considering that most of the expensive printers available are bought by companies and corporations for their business offices, and considering that said companies and corporations like to stick with one provider for compatibility reasons, it's easy to see why HP is pissed.
I'm not sure what the market share is for all printers for corps. vs. personal use, but this might be more of an act of retaliation than an actual way to cut losses.
I was about to post that if it wasn't Miller writing the script that it would probably just suck all kinds of balls, especially for anyone who's actually read Dark Knight Returns, and the first installment of Dark Knight 2. I don't know what kind of battle they've got planned, but I can't imagine it topping either of the ones that Miller has written.
Touche'. However, while TMBG has been on major labels for a decade, but have been producing albums for roughly 2 decades. I believe they started in 83. The first time I heard of Ash and Soul Coughing was through a friend's independant music magazine, but that doesnt mean too much. The first time I saw Soul Coughing live was in a broke-ass theatre in NYC, with obviously very little funding thrown at the show/tour.
I think the point I should have pressed was that I heard of all these artists through means other than the typical manner (i.e. music industry radio/MTV). And the people who introduced me to this music had been exposed by their friends, rather than mass media.
Honestly (and especially now more than ever, what with the internet and all), I think that musicians really don't need a big music company to become popular, unless they plan on having a meteoric rise. Take Remy Zero, whose first album, Twister, did squat in the marketplace, but by the time their second album came out, got huge returns from the fans. Mostly because of play on college radio, MP3, and word of mouth. TMBG used Dial-A-Song to get their music out there.
Much of this, I believe, should be based on how artists want to do things. I think it's wrong that artists feel that in order to make a living they have to sign with large companies who will dictate the way they go. It just seems wrong that a few record companies should dictate (and entirely on their own terms) the futures of so many people.
Anyway, I've got the blabber mouth right now, and could go on an on about how all those bands I mentioned still don't get radio play, and still make the majority of their fans based on word of mouth and the internet. I've known people to rent studio time and make pretty impressive CD's by themselves, I've known them to distribute these CD's, and in the case of Josh Ritter, even get widely popular in places like Ireland, so unless you want to be a megastar, I just don't see what the record companies have to offer.
On your second point: Even if downloading does cut into Britney's sales, what is it that we're going to lose? Enirique Iglesias? Mandy Moore? How about the Goo Goo Dolls? Music that is good will most likely come from an independent source. Why? Because good music is art and recording companies are not interested in producing works of art, they are interested in making money. Thus, the lowest common denominator is catered to. Also, other bands that have had success without initial major label help: Remy Zero, Ash, Soul Coughing, They Might Be Giants (best band ever), Tom Waitts, The Neilds, and Moxy Fruvous. Are they the most popular bands in the world? No. Are they succesful in their own right, and have a strong and numerous fan following? Yes.
1.)Once people get something for free (whether it's stolen or not) they want to continue to get it for free. People will come up with new ways of getting music for free, rather than paying, even a very small price, for tunes. That's human nature. 2.)Some of us are shafting the music industry based on principle. It might not be legal, but to us folk, it is moral.
Yeah, I really don't want to spend 18-20 bucks on a CD if I just like one song. What if there's not a single available? I support the bands I like, I buy their CD's, go to shows, etc. . . Is it stealing? Probably. But as the other posters pointed out, it's only stealing 10% from recording artists and 90% from Music Companies, and if you ask me, they deserve the shaft for what they've done to radio.
I'm no right wing nut-job. I'm for gay marriages, drug legalization, and the general chilling out of America. Heck, I'm a registered Libertarian But the mere mention of changing our time system to metric is proof that there is a subversive communist plot to destroy this great nation. Metric! How could you! On the 4th of July, to boot. For shame. For shame.
While this is technically an act of passive resistence, it could still be very detrimental to the cause of the Falun Gong. I don't think that anyone can deny that the Falun Gong have been singled out and horrible abused by the Chinese government. However, they have come down from their moral high ground. While they were merely trying to spread the word about their beliefs, they did so through the expense of the Chinese government. It would seem to be counteractive to some of the cultural/religious ideas that they hold. What is worse, I believe that this will most certainly intensify the wrongful imprisonment and torture tactics of the Chinese government. It generally doesn't look good for the Falun Gong.
Slashdot Mirror
We're gettin' there baby, we're getting there.
Well, thank to regulation, come 2007, I'll be able to unplug my cable, sit down and watch Will & Grace with the highest picture and sound clarity. Perhaps the goverment could also mandate that by 2007 someone shoot me in the head with .22 over and over and over again.
Excellent point. I mean, just look at what happened to netscape. It used to be a viable contender on the Windows OS web browser market, but now has gone the way of the dinosaur because most people had only Explorer, so most sites were built to be seen with explorer, now it's really tough to surf certain sites with netscape.
There needs to be some kind of massive re-education effort in order for the American consumers to change the role of M$ in the computer world. I'm assuming that most people who post on /. build their own PC's, and blow out their laptops, re-partition the disk, and put in a fresh OS. A majority of people simply don't know how or why to do this.
Most people go to compusa, and just buy whatever the guy says. This means that they get XP Home, with AOL and all other kinds of useless shit slapped on it. Simply because they don't know any better. And as far as they are concerned, as long as it doesnt crash, A-0K.
It would take a massive education effort to change something like that, and the only massive education system we have is run by the U.S. government, which for the most part is the friend of the business, rather than the consumer. . . so unless we nerds of the world amass and finally take control, things look bleak for the rest of the world.
Take the Roman Empire for example. Control came in the form of "bread and circus," as it was put. Entertainment and food (i.e. TV and McDonalds). Other less "democratic" societies simply excercised control via physical force and strong social norms, the City-State of Sparta, for example. I don't necessarily think we or more or less sheeplike than any other society before us.
Of course, we could get into numerous discussions about the role of government, and the greater purpose of human existence(if one exists).
Perhaps, the illusion of happiness is just as good as the real thing?
I want to take back my previous reply. I've looked at your posting history, and yeah like you said, you've "obviously been an asshole" for a long, long time. You seem to be proud of it, so that shouldn't be taken as an insult. I originally thought you were picking me out specifically, just to get under my skin, for no good reason. As it turns out, you do this to a lot of people, for your own reasons. Probably because you just like flaming people. And if it makes you feel good, go for it.
I apologize for flaming you back, and threatening you with physical violence. You're right, it was even more immature than mustering up "a half-wit comeback or even a 10 cent quip." In fact, neither would have been an appropriate response. I just hope that you're not as conversationally abrasive in person. If you are, at some point, I have a feeling that it will probably come back to haunt you, in some form or another. This relatively anonymous form of posting is obviously something you feel you need to do (for whatever reason, and I have some vague notions), so in fact, your post has very little to do with me.
Please continue to flame my posts as much as you need. I hope it gets you what you looking for. And again, I apologize for the physical threat, it was most definitely uncalled for. Also, I don't think I'll be calling you a pussy anytime soon.
May all your flames be orgasmic.
--PMadavi
P.S.Dignity is not something that you can take from a person, who is unwilling to relinquish it. While I did let go at first, with my childish response to your flame, I do feel that I have reclaimed it ever since I decided that being angry at your flame was utterly ridiculous. Again, congratulations for initially getting under my skin.
Takes a big man to call someone a twit over the net. Congrats. Hey, if you're ever in Chicago, let me know. See if you want to call me a twit in person. Bet you don't. Thanks again, Fucko.
Take for example, 7-11. I'm sure the bulk soda that 7-11 receives is cheap enough that they can sell as much for as cheap as they like. The idea is to move the product as quickly as possible. Is anybody really going to drink 5 pints of soda, probably not. Definitely not without having some kind of heart attack. However, they might drink three pints. Which makes 2 extra pints that 7-11 sold that it otherwise wouldn't have, because they sold it cheap. Same with coffee, french fries, whatever. The more you sell, the more you cash in.
It's called a computer. You should see all the stuff it can do.
Ah, Dude. . .
If somebody wants to buy the lame version of a movie, what's to stop them? It's not like our options are being removed.
I agree that they should be able to collect revenue, even from the most edited versions of their movies. But seriously, who would call a Hollywood movie (and believe me, indy movies are in no danger of being so highly in demand that the bible belt needs to see them so badly that they chop out the naughty parts and then show the flicks to their little children) a work of art, deserving of a moral trump card.
Besides, the original version exists. Copies are copies, and as such anything can be done to them.
First and foremost, there's just not enough geeks who know/care about this stuff to scare a congressperson into voting against the re-election financing corporation. We simply cannot amass a strong enough force in the time allotted to stop this legislation
Second of all, you're assuming that the legal playing field is level. In this case, it's not. DoS is either illegal, or it isn't. Just like murder, rape, stealing, etc. . . The fact that our congressman are willing to allow a corporation to use an illegal act to counter-act "stealing," means that RIAA has pull that most civilians simply don't.
Which brings me to my final point. What do you do when the legal playing field is uneven? You protest. I think that a DoS on RIAA.org is just as legitimate a form of protest as a non-violent sit in would be. Why? Because legal does not equal moral, and morality is a subjective thing. For many people Hacking is a legitimate form of protest, and your assertion that it is "just plain stupid," is not only offensive, but not never well formulated.
It's a sound argument that you make, and I think most would agree with you. However, a Libertarian, for example, would have serious problems with your argument.
"Negligable or not," they'd say, "it has a legitimate use (more legitimate than using coke for a paperweight [which would be extremely expensive by the way]), and that's more than enough reason for it be legal."
I am not saying that all Libertarians use coke. Um, anyway, at this point I think it's about where the boundries are set. I just think the legal argument of "I could be using this for legal purposes, so don't throw me in jail for owning it" is a better argument than "Bullshit. This thing's used for illegal games so you are going to jail." At least if there's no evidence to swing it either way.
Now, I'm not sure if these gaming companies pull a microsoft, and say that you're buying the CD and not the software on it (essentially paying for the distribution and not the product), but I don't think they do. If they don't, then you have every right to burn a back-up copy of your game and play it on the PS2. . . which would require a mod-chip. So, if this logic holds-up, you've got every right to go out and get yourself a mod-chip. What you choose to do with it is up to you.
Here's a scenario. You bought a rad new PS2 game, you want to make sure that if it gets scratched, eaten, etc. . . you can still play your game, so you burn a copy, and use the mod chip to play the game. You paid for the game once, right? What's wrong with that.
If you ask me, aside from the selling pirated games, this guy had a case.
damn /i's, get me every time
I'm not sure what the market share is for all printers for corps. vs. personal use, but this might be more of an act of retaliation than an actual way to cut losses.
I was about to post that if it wasn't Miller writing the script that it would probably just suck all kinds of balls, especially for anyone who's actually read Dark Knight Returns, and the first installment of Dark Knight 2. I don't know what kind of battle they've got planned, but I can't imagine it topping either of the ones that Miller has written.
I think the point I should have pressed was that I heard of all these artists through means other than the typical manner (i.e. music industry radio/MTV). And the people who introduced me to this music had been exposed by their friends, rather than mass media.
Honestly (and especially now more than ever, what with the internet and all), I think that musicians really don't need a big music company to become popular, unless they plan on having a meteoric rise. Take Remy Zero, whose first album, Twister, did squat in the marketplace, but by the time their second album came out, got huge returns from the fans. Mostly because of play on college radio, MP3, and word of mouth. TMBG used Dial-A-Song to get their music out there.
Much of this, I believe, should be based on how artists want to do things. I think it's wrong that artists feel that in order to make a living they have to sign with large companies who will dictate the way they go. It just seems wrong that a few record companies should dictate (and entirely on their own terms) the futures of so many people.
Anyway, I've got the blabber mouth right now, and could go on an on about how all those bands I mentioned still don't get radio play, and still make the majority of their fans based on word of mouth and the internet. I've known people to rent studio time and make pretty impressive CD's by themselves, I've known them to distribute these CD's, and in the case of Josh Ritter, even get widely popular in places like Ireland, so unless you want to be a megastar, I just don't see what the record companies have to offer.
On your second point:
Even if downloading does cut into Britney's sales, what is it that we're going to lose? Enirique Iglesias? Mandy Moore? How about the Goo Goo Dolls? Music that is good will most likely come from an independent source. Why? Because good music is art and recording companies are not interested in producing works of art, they are interested in making money. Thus, the lowest common denominator is catered to.
Also, other bands that have had success without initial major label help: Remy Zero, Ash, Soul Coughing, They Might Be Giants (best band ever), Tom Waitts, The Neilds, and Moxy Fruvous. Are they the most popular bands in the world? No. Are they succesful in their own right, and have a strong and numerous fan following? Yes.
1.)Once people get something for free (whether it's stolen or not) they want to continue to get it for free. People will come up with new ways of getting music for free, rather than paying, even a very small price, for tunes. That's human nature.
2.)Some of us are shafting the music industry based on principle. It might not be legal, but to us folk, it is moral.
Yeah, I really don't want to spend 18-20 bucks on a CD if I just like one song. What if there's not a single available? I support the bands I like, I buy their CD's, go to shows, etc. . .
Is it stealing? Probably. But as the other posters pointed out, it's only stealing 10% from recording artists and 90% from Music Companies, and if you ask me, they deserve the shaft for what they've done to radio.
Okay, how about squashing deez in your mouf.
I'm no right wing nut-job. I'm for gay marriages, drug legalization, and the general chilling out of America. Heck, I'm a registered Libertarian But the mere mention of changing our time system to metric is proof that there is a subversive communist plot to destroy this great nation.
Metric! How could you! On the 4th of July, to boot. For shame. For shame.
While this is technically an act of passive resistence, it could still be very detrimental to the cause of the Falun Gong.
I don't think that anyone can deny that the Falun Gong have been singled out and horrible abused by the Chinese government. However, they have come down from their moral high ground. While they were merely trying to spread the word about their beliefs, they did so through the expense of the Chinese government. It would seem to be counteractive to some of the cultural/religious ideas that they hold.
What is worse, I believe that this will most certainly intensify the wrongful imprisonment and torture tactics of the Chinese government. It generally doesn't look good for the Falun Gong.