[sphealy drops by art school dressed in corp. clothing]
Funny thing was, every person there was wearing black cotton from head to toe, red Converse All-Stars, had either punk-red hair or at least a streak of red down the middle, and was smoking a clove cigarette. Every one.
Reminds me of a time back in '94 when I went to a Pink Floyd concert. As per usual, people like to sing along with the songs.
To dying day, I'll never forget the sound of 30,000 people droning in unison: "We don't need no thought control".
... where a corpsicle wakes up and finds out that society has confiscated all assets from the dead, and raises the question of who would want to reanimate those barbaric savages from bygone days.
Pretty interesting, though in America I'm sure you could set up a foundation or other corporate entity that would keep track of your dough.
I personally think that we aren't likely to reconstitute the frozen bodies. A solution requiring less miraculous technology would be to slice up the brain and map out the synapse connection patterns and strengths to load into a computer-emulated brain.
God, imagine the ethical problems once someone uploads these poor schmucks on Napster!;)
Re:negative connotation to consolidation
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 1
[...]how about devoting some thought to how this 'living meme', Shangri-La, which has echoed throughout culture and literature like some earthly Heaven, can be allowed to retain its own identity? Because IT WANTS TO.
But... obviously, they don't. That's why they are turning on Skynet-- er, American television. Now it's going to be the individual choice of every Bhutanese family; instead of one cultural template to pick from, now they'll have several. Isn't that... diversity? Isn't that good?
Don't Ghettoize the Bhutanese
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
These fears aren't just about Bhutan. If anything, America faces as great a threat from the death of local culture as anywhere else. The only difference is that we delude ourselves into thinking that raking in money makes it all "okay."
So... um...
What's so great about local culture that it must be preserved At All Costs?
What if these locals want to watch American television? Who are you to tell them that they are obligated to go meditate on snow or sing Bhutanese chants instead? Are the Bhutanese somehow obligated to maintain their current culture forever? What's it to you? And what happened to the idea of American culture being enriched by the contributions from abroad? Does it only work for us?
I'm not trying to annoy here, this is a serious question. If so-called cultural imperialism is done by request of the imperialized, what's the damage?
Culture without Quotes, dammit!
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 1
After all, in his day, Shakespeare's plays were considered to be for the common people. I don't mean to equate The Fast and the Furious with Hamlet, but I think we are too fast to dismiss anything other than 'high culture'.
Ah, if only I had the power to mod you up!
I have noticed some things here on slashdot and in general:
1. There seems to be this huge, inexplicable cultural self-hatred among many Americans.
2. People in foreign countries don't seem to have these reservations, after all they are importing American cultural artifacts.
3. Intellectuals & artists in foreign countries are too busy decrying #2 to go out and produce something to compete
3.a. A lot of #2 and #3 comes bagged with a sneering disdain for "the herd" and how stupid they are. How rude!
Being an American, I think we have the Fish's Problem -- we are insufficiently aware of water. There is a cultural boom going of unprecedented proportions. Dozens of movies every year, hundreds of novels, original classical-style music (this slips unnoticed by most of these "culture"-bashing folks), uncounted plays, one-man shows, Burning Man festivals... God! We're positively drowning in the stuff. [1]
Sure, lots of it is dreck. What many people forget is that much of what was produced in the rennaissance sucked too, but we have the benefit of the historical filter... the stuff that wasn't so great quietly sank out of sight. A modern example... people are still talking about "Breakfast at Tiffany's", but "Dynasty" is already long-forgotten.
I'm sure any of you can cite great recent novels, albums, movies, etc if you stop and think for a moment.
Here's my challenge to you: tell me what recent -- say since 1900 -- pieces of culture (or "culture", if you will) will survive 100 more years. I'd love to hear some nominees.
[1] A brief note about Disney... their politics may be bare-knuckled, but their movies typically rock, and their parks are awe-inspiring. The fake "Indiana Jones" temple probably took as much work as any real temple to build. But what they can't be forgiven for is how they distribute the classic Disney movies. How goddamn dare they take Cinderella off the market?! Sorry, I'll shut up now.
This is what's good/bad about the West
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So these people get to watch adverts for cars/food/luxuries that they will not be able to purchase.
Exactly. And plenty of folks there are going to want to purchase those things. [...]
And in a few years they're gonna be waking up early every morning and going to a job they hate and busting their butt every friggin' day, just like you & me, to get all that stuff.
Welcome to the west.
Just as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that one of the great hallmarks of the West is exactly that -- dissatisfaction with who you are, where you are, and what you have.
This produces drive. Drive to "get ahead", drive to "keep up with the Jonses", drive to get your butt off the sofa and finish that goddamn Great American Novel.
That a side effect of this institutionalized dissatisfaction is a household full of unneeded, worthless goods is a small price to pay, sez I.
Besides, this sort of thing is determined largely by economics - the smaller cups must not have been selling as well.
Economics, yes, demand, no. Starbucks saw that they could make more profit on large sizes. They control enough of the market to make competion a moot point. It's the typical distortion of the free market seen when one supplier (or one buyer) becomes too influential.
Economics, yes, demand, yes!
I live in San Francisco, as coffee-happy a town as you're likely to find. We certainly have dozens of Starbuxen, but also scads of other chain and non-chain coffee shops. Some of them have little cups. If people really wanted the little cups, they know where to go.
Instead, I go into Starbucks and overhear people ordering grande cappucinos. These people's hearts usually then burst out of their chests and tap-dance on the table, but I digress.
Point being, there seems to be an overall trend of everything in America getting bigger: Coke cups, coffee cups, McDonalds sandwiches, and, possibly not unrelatedly, people's butts.
It may be a little early yet to denounce Starbucks for manipulating the consumer coffee mkt.
So the real argument, when you get through all the layers of "We want free stuff" and "Burn, internet pirates, burn!" is that Big Hollywood wants Congress to allow THEM to determine what sorts of digital technology make it to market in the future. So, by granting them this right, Congress is short-circuting the process by which new technology could arise and replace the old.
I concede that destroying the concept of general-purpose machines is a bad way to go about what the *AA want.;)
That said, I am saddened by the way in which the other side (the good guys!) is acting as well. If technology is to destroy the *AA, it should be through someone developing a better product, or irate consumers not buying the overpriced products. This business of "it's too expensive so its okay for me to copy it" leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
So... is there a middle ground? I have heard some interesting proposals (dollar downloads from music sites, etc) that might offer a light at the end of the tunnel.
Just how "imperfect" does something have to be before I'm allowed to watch it? [...] How about if he takes the sound down to simple mono and superimposes a silhouette of himself at the bottom of the screen, delivering meant-to-be-funny lines about the movie MST3K-style?
This brings up an interesting question...
How bad can TV, movies, and music get before nobody even wants to steal them anymore? I think we're nearing an inflexion point here.
I think Temptation Island, The Country Bears, and the Backstreet Boys are essentially self copy-protecting. Valenti & co have won.
Times change, technology changes. Plenty of formerly profitable businesses are on the scrap heap of history because they could not or would not adjust to a changing technological landscape. Yet you seem to think that the Congress has the right, nay, the duty to grant the MPAA/RIAA a special exception to this, and to prop up their profit models in the face of a changing landscape. Curious.
Inneresting cite, technology obsoleting industries. This sure happens, but in the past (I'm thinking about automobiles obsoleting horses, plastic obsoleting whalebone) the new industry came by its gains honestly, by offering a better product. What the *AA are trying to do is prevent the theft -- or, if you prefer, "unauthorized copying without payment to the distributor or artist" -- of their material. I see a significant difference here.
What upsets me is that theft is now seen as morally fine, and that the providers' business model is "broken" because it is so easy, safe, and convenient to steal their product [1].
What's even weirder is that so many people say "If I could download this stuff for $1 per song I'd gladly do it and never Napster again!". I'm getting the impression that people feel a sense of entitlement to music, that if it is "too expensive" they have a right to steal it.
Not (trying to) troll, but can someone please explain this to me?
[1] I know there is a debate here over whether you can really "steal" digital content.
600 seems like a lot of land to me. what type of bots do they need to test on such an expanse?
The big black delta robots, of course!
They are clearly out to (ahem) immanentize the eschaton. The authorities are helpless; our only hope is for hordes of Battlebot operators to bring their robots and fight the deltas to a standstill. Botniks, this is your hour!
(Sadly, the guy who approved the script for "Mortal Kombat: The Movie" is probably stroking his chin right now, going "hmm...")
Anyone should be able to write software that understands Microsoft file formats.
This one would probably be sufficient. If anyone sufficiently motivated could write a file-compatible office suite, and the file formats were published, so that independent auditors could test compliance...
You could have good old-fashioned competition in office suites again. Price wars! Ads on TV! Beautiful spokesmodels!
Now here's where it gets weird. Say it happened, and someone (who? w3c? Microsoft? ANSI?) controlled the file format. If this happened, then neither Microsoft nor anyone else could add new features to their offerings without notifying the rest of the world that The One True Format was about to change, and allowing some lead time for everyone else. Would that speed up or slow down the introduction of new features? I'm not sure I like this much. Have I missed something obvious?
Not everyine who uses CDeX is a music pirate. [...] I have never given away a single song I ever ripped.
And just because a tool CAN be used to violate a law, does not make it a violation to have or use it. [froth froth]
Cool your jets, rocket-boy. All I'm saying here is that it's funny that a lot of people [1] both applaud the GPL, enforced by copyright, and believe it is somehow okay to violate the license terms of music recordings.
I never said I was a huge fan of the DMCA. The RIAA does have to have some way to protect their IP, but I'm not sure if there is a solution that protects their interests as well as satisfying fair use. There are people out there who will rip all their CDs and have them fly around their private LAN just to say that Napster is fair use.;)
[1] Not necessarily you, I have very little knowledge of or interest in your situation, though your refusal to share music files is laudable.
The problem is not so much that their taking someone's GPL'd program and redistributing it under a new name, but that they are removing the original author's (Albert L Faber) copyright notices.
Of course, the CDex people are pillars of the copyright-respecting community...;)
<wide-eyed-ingenuous-look>
Maybe they can report the NeoNapster folks to the RIAA, as DMCA violators.
Rollover will always be a problem somewhere along the line. Hopefully, a 64 bit date field will be good enough until computers themselves are obsolete (over 584 million years at a resolution of 1 ms).
New machines will be 64-bit by 2038 I'm sure, but there will have to be a "year 2038" effort to deal with all those 32-bit machines -- particularly databases -- which have data in the old format.
Where are the wacko's complaining about deforestation? Our "dwinding" tree supply is almost run out here in America!
The tree people are not complaining because they (understandably) are scared to death of the evil walking insectile death-robots that the foresters now possess.
We are helpless to resist their untippable tripod-balanced might.
Some years ago I used the Raima "network" database, which was non-sql (links between data represented by pointer-like links rather than shared keys), mapped very nicely to C structs, and later C++, and was blazingly fast.
Anyone out there still using it? I think they call themselves "birdstep" now.
[How is this any different] from sneaking in and connecting a laptop to the network? I mean, wouldn't a Dreamcast plugged into the company network be a bit more suspicious than a computer?
Well, there's the extra humiliation factor... Imagine a bunch of IT boys from different corps going out for a beer:
BOFH1: Yeah, I got 0wn3d today by a massive distributed DOS attack from thousands of zombie machines across the 'net.
BOFH2: Ha! That's nothing. I got r00t3D when someone compromised the latest openSSH source. That woz pretty elite.
BOFH3: (mumble mumble)
BOFH2: What was that?
BOFH3: [sobbing] An iPAQ! I got H4x0r3D by a fucking iPAQ, okay? Are you happy now?
That said, "could care less" is improper usage of the American language.
I like to think of the phrase "I could care less" as shorthand for "I could care less if I bothered to make the effort".
Reminds me of the spanish phrase "me vale un huevo", meaning literally "it's worth an egg to me", espressing the same sentiment as the english "I could care less". Since "huevos" is also slang for (ahem) balls, the phrase has the same kind of reverse meaning as the English slang.
Point being? Do expect inconsistencies in slang; that's part of the fun.
Sorry to poke holes in your example but, unless I'm mistaken, the Saudi's don't have an equivalent to our 1st admendment, so your example means nothing. In the U.S. we are supposed to have free speech, so excuse us when we feel that right is being infringed.
Er... I was trying to point out that we *do* have an equivalent to our 1st amendment, and that any restrictions to our freedom of speech are minor compared to what happens elsewhere. This was an attempt to provide some perspective, and be funny.
Having failed on both counts, I'll just sign off now. Cheers!
Between this and the Patriot act, the new Homeland Security plans, and the limiting of F.O.I.A. during the "War on Terrorism", I am really starting to wonder what the first amendmend really means anymore.
Try this: Go to a busy intersection in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Wear a low-cut dress (trust me, this will work regardless of gender). Start passing out leaflets saying the government is corrupt, and should abdicate, and that people should be allowed to do/act/say/pray as they please.
You will have many years to Reflect on how things might have played out differently if you'd pushed your pamphlets in, say, New York City.
Slashdot Mirror
To dying day, I'll never forget the sound of 30,000 people droning in unison: "We don't need no thought control".
I think you'll find most people see death not as "the whole point", but rather as an
That said, if they ever do invent immortality we'll have social problems you wouldn't believe!
... where a corpsicle wakes up and finds out that society has confiscated all assets from the dead, and raises the question of who would want to reanimate those barbaric savages from bygone days. Pretty interesting, though in America I'm sure you could set up a foundation or other corporate entity that would keep track of your dough.
What's so great about local culture that it must be preserved At All Costs?
What if these locals want to watch American television? Who are you to tell them that they are obligated to go meditate on snow or sing Bhutanese chants instead? Are the Bhutanese somehow obligated to maintain their current culture forever? What's it to you? And what happened to the idea of American culture being enriched by the contributions from abroad? Does it only work for us?
I'm not trying to annoy here, this is a serious question. If so-called cultural imperialism is done by request of the imperialized, what's the damage?
I have noticed some things here on slashdot and in general:
1. There seems to be this huge, inexplicable cultural self-hatred among many Americans.
2. People in foreign countries don't seem to have these reservations, after all they are importing American cultural artifacts.
3. Intellectuals & artists in foreign countries are too busy decrying #2 to go out and produce something to compete
3.a. A lot of #2 and #3 comes bagged with a sneering disdain for "the herd" and how stupid they are. How rude!
Being an American, I think we have the Fish's Problem -- we are insufficiently aware of water. There is a cultural boom going of unprecedented proportions. Dozens of movies every year, hundreds of novels, original classical-style music (this slips unnoticed by most of these "culture"-bashing folks), uncounted plays, one-man shows, Burning Man festivals
Sure, lots of it is dreck. What many people forget is that much of what was produced in the rennaissance sucked too, but we have the benefit of the historical filter... the stuff that wasn't so great quietly sank out of sight. A modern example... people are still talking about "Breakfast at Tiffany's", but "Dynasty" is already long-forgotten.
I'm sure any of you can cite great recent novels, albums, movies, etc if you stop and think for a moment.
Here's my challenge to you: tell me what recent -- say since 1900 -- pieces of culture (or "culture", if you will) will survive 100 more years. I'd love to hear some nominees.
[1] A brief note about Disney... their politics may be bare-knuckled, but their movies typically rock, and their parks are awe-inspiring. The fake "Indiana Jones" temple probably took as much work as any real temple to build. But what they can't be forgiven for is how they distribute the classic Disney movies. How goddamn dare they take Cinderella off the market?! Sorry, I'll shut up now.
This produces drive. Drive to "get ahead", drive to "keep up with the Jonses", drive to get your butt off the sofa and finish that goddamn Great American Novel.
That a side effect of this institutionalized dissatisfaction is a household full of unneeded, worthless goods is a small price to pay, sez I.
I live in San Francisco, as coffee-happy a town as you're likely to find. We certainly have dozens of Starbuxen, but also scads of other chain and non-chain coffee shops. Some of them have little cups. If people really wanted the little cups, they know where to go.
Instead, I go into Starbucks and overhear people ordering grande cappucinos. These people's hearts usually then burst out of their chests and tap-dance on the table, but I digress.
Point being, there seems to be an overall trend of everything in America getting bigger: Coke cups, coffee cups, McDonalds sandwiches, and, possibly not unrelatedly, people's butts.
It may be a little early yet to denounce Starbucks for manipulating the consumer coffee mkt.
That said, I am saddened by the way in which the other side (the good guys!) is acting as well. If technology is to destroy the *AA, it should be through someone developing a better product, or irate consumers not buying the overpriced products. This business of "it's too expensive so its okay for me to copy it" leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
So... is there a middle ground? I have heard some interesting proposals (dollar downloads from music sites, etc) that might offer a light at the end of the tunnel.
How bad can TV, movies, and music get before nobody even wants to steal them anymore? I think we're nearing an inflexion point here.
I think Temptation Island, The Country Bears, and the Backstreet Boys are essentially self copy-protecting. Valenti & co have won.
What upsets me is that theft is now seen as morally fine, and that the providers' business model is "broken" because it is so easy, safe, and convenient to steal their product [1].
What's even weirder is that so many people say "If I could download this stuff for $1 per song I'd gladly do it and never Napster again!". I'm getting the impression that people feel a sense of entitlement to music, that if it is "too expensive" they have a right to steal it.
Not (trying to) troll, but can someone please explain this to me?
[1] I know there is a debate here over whether you can really "steal" digital content.
They are clearly out to (ahem) immanentize the eschaton. The authorities are helpless; our only hope is for hordes of Battlebot operators to bring their robots and fight the deltas to a standstill. Botniks, this is your hour!
(Sadly, the guy who approved the script for "Mortal Kombat: The Movie" is probably stroking his chin right now, going "hmm...")
This one would probably be sufficient. If anyone sufficiently motivated could write a file-compatible office suite, and the file formats were published, so that independent auditors could test compliance...
You could have good old-fashioned competition in office suites again. Price wars! Ads on TV! Beautiful spokesmodels!
Now here's where it gets weird. Say it happened, and someone (who? w3c? Microsoft? ANSI?) controlled the file format. If this happened, then neither Microsoft nor anyone else could add new features to their offerings without notifying the rest of the world that The One True Format was about to change, and allowing some lead time for everyone else. Would that speed up or slow down the introduction of new features? I'm not sure I like this much. Have I missed something obvious?
Cool your jets, rocket-boy. All I'm saying here is that it's funny that a lot of people [1] both applaud the GPL, enforced by copyright, and believe it is somehow okay to violate the license terms of music recordings.
I never said I was a huge fan of the DMCA. The RIAA does have to have some way to protect their IP, but I'm not sure if there is a solution that protects their interests as well as satisfying fair use. There are people out there who will rip all their CDs and have them fly around their private LAN just to say that Napster is fair use.
[1] Not necessarily you, I have very little knowledge of or interest in your situation, though your refusal to share music files is laudable.
<wide-eyed-ingenuous-look>
Maybe they can report the NeoNapster folks to the RIAA, as DMCA violators.
</wide-eyed-ingenuous-look>
The tree people are not complaining because they (understandably) are scared to death of the evil walking insectile death-robots that the foresters now possess .
We are helpless to resist their untippable tripod-balanced might.
Some years ago I used the Raima "network" database, which was non-sql (links between data represented by pointer-like links rather than shared keys), mapped very nicely to C structs, and later C++, and was blazingly fast.
Anyone out there still using it? I think they call themselves "birdstep" now.
Well, there's the extra humiliation factor... Imagine a bunch of IT boys from different corps going out for a beer:
BOFH1: Yeah, I got 0wn3d today by a massive distributed DOS attack from thousands of zombie machines across the 'net.
BOFH2: Ha! That's nothing. I got r00t3D when someone compromised the latest openSSH source. That woz pretty elite.
BOFH3: (mumble mumble)
BOFH2: What was that?
BOFH3: [sobbing] An iPAQ! I got H4x0r3D by a fucking iPAQ, okay? Are you happy now?
BOFH1: What a l00zer.
BOFH2: Good grief.
Probably because someone entered the number in Excel ... it "fixes" .10 to .1; you don't even have to ask!
I like to think of the phrase "I could care less" as shorthand for "I could care less if I bothered to make the effort".
Reminds me of the spanish phrase "me vale un huevo", meaning literally "it's worth an egg to me", espressing the same sentiment as the english "I could care less". Since "huevos" is also slang for (ahem) balls, the phrase has the same kind of reverse meaning as the English slang.
Point being? Do expect inconsistencies in slang; that's part of the fun.
Er
Having failed on both counts, I'll just sign off now. Cheers!
Try this: Go to a busy intersection in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Wear a low-cut dress (trust me, this will work regardless of gender). Start passing out leaflets saying the government is corrupt, and should abdicate, and that people should be allowed to do/act/say/pray as they please.
You will have many years to Reflect on how things might have played out differently if you'd pushed your pamphlets in, say, New York City.
That is what the first amendment means anymore.