It's the grounds of the subpoena (or lack thereof) that people are referencing when they talk about the legality of the actions of the RIAA. They can request info on you from your ISP without a judge. If you've read *anything* at all on this thread about this, you would have known this.
Idiotic, rhetorical picking of nits will be sent to/dev/null. .
we cannot use language to make a point ("rhetorical"), even if is a small one, and expect you to listen? That's a bit severe.
Copyrights are the law, and these companies are doing what they should do, have every right to do, and what most rational beings have been asking them to: going after law breakers.What if I object to the existence of the companies to begin with? What if I object to copyright law as it stands? What if I want to see the whole music establishment collapse because it has brought us nothing but derivative crap while surpressing genuine creativity? What if the entire purpose of a copyright has been subverted by the establishment for their own commercial gain? At the expense of our very culture?
Furthermore, I ask you not to confuse Legality with Morality. And if for you "the Law" is by nature Moral (Might=Right), I would beg you to reconsider your position.
Better bring that list of labels to boycott to the store with you... Perhaps the Guiness Book of World Records will start carrying the record of "most RIAA labels memorized". Of course... you will be *hard pressed* to find any CD's in a store that isn't on one of these labels.
US teenagers smoke twice as much dank as Dutch kids do and its quasi-legal there.
One might say that one negative instance does not establish a rule.
That beside, I don't think that the current US tactics will help any. From what I understand, the war on drugs dates back to Nixon and is designed to "take care of the black problem without seeming to". Or so I've heard the semi-recently released tapes had indicated.
If society is genuinely concerned about kids being on drugs they should try to give kids a reason to value their lives. I don't mean that Boys Club bs either, but actual oppurtunities to do something. Yeah, you probably won't dent casual users, but I don't see that as that much of a problem anyways.
"people who pirate aren't customers". What does that have todo with anything? Can I kill your parents if you don't like them?
But if you did kill them (or the were otherwise murdered), we might cite the fact that you didn't like them as motive. That's what it has to "do with anything."
B) Intent also enters into sampleing under fair use. If I write a review of the new Harry Potter book that quotes from the scene when a certain character dies, and uses a quote to reveal the ending of a book, I could be sued if it seemed my intent was to get people not to buy the book. Extracting material from a work for the expressed purpose of damaging the commercial viability of the work is not allowed.
Although I agree with the gist of what you are saying, I don't thing this is strictly true. I could, for example, write an unfavorable review in which I quoted some small number of lines in order to lambast the writing style. This would quite directly affect it's commercial viability, yet would likely be covered under fair use.
I beleive the consideration of fair use would hinge upon what amount of quoting was strictly necessary for me to make my statement about the text versus how much I needlessly damaged it's commercial viability. Your particular example's legality would depend entirely on the presentation used. If the article made a point of saying, "here are the details of the book you may want to know, but I'm going to give them to know so you don't have to.." then it would probably be liable. If, however, it said, here's how the book ends (with minimal quote support), and this is why such an ending is to be ridiculed... then I don't think it would be held liable.
Personally, I'm rather distraught about the state of copyright protection, especially in regards to books such as these. If the book's commercial value can be destroyed by a few quoted lines (or even a few quotes *pages*) then this is no book. It is only a sick joke on the consumers, where its total value is not protected but *created* by copyright.
This assumes that marriage is the balm for all ills--that whatever social or psychological problems such a "tortured artist" has will automatically disappear. Personally, I think that marriage is just bound to bring such a person into closer conflict with whatever issues they are dealing with.
From my experience, I find marriage to have greatly increased my understanding of interpersonal relationships (and myself), which in turn has led to subtler, more insightful writing. Then again, I married a theatre student, so I have *tons* of time to work on my writing at home when she's pulling late nights at the theatre. She has also introduced me to a lot of ideas and art that I would not have found otherwise. I will also have the oportunity to spend some time in Russia (as she is Russian)...which again I think will lead to a broader understanding of people and culture...which in turn only helps my writing.
What surprises me is how the article does not seem to think that a spouse can be a *source* of inspiration, but rather, some sort of sink.
Nabokov.
Arguable the greatest writer of the Twentieth century. Married Vèra Slonim in 1925. Wrote Lolita in 1950's (don't remember exact time)... wrote Pale Fire (his masterwork) in 1961. He reportably had time to focus on his writing after the success and Lolita (film rights,sales, etc).
He also had a child, Dimitri, though I can find no reference mentioning when he was born.
This has as little to with the Turning Test as eating a bologna sandwich.
I mean, what *does* tests for intelligence have to do with the Turing test? The article didn't even mention Turing or explain what the Turning test is or how it applies to the current situation.
As for being erudite (you clever devil), journalists should know not to put background information into an article. It's bound to distract its readers.
If I follow your logic, you could also make a case that having different taxation laws in every state, city and town would reduce tax evasion.
Tax evasion is totally dissimilar. By *your* logic, a virus is only concerned in infecting the individual computer that someone writes it for. The benefit of diversity is that finding an appropriate target is a little more difficult. Furthermore, if a particular platform is particularly vulnerable, with proper diversity (and the standards to support it), it will likely be dropped.
I do agree that writing antivirus tools & virus reporting will be somewhat more complicated as well. However, simple propagating e-mail viruses will have a markedly decreased impact on the net infrastructure if the potential rate of infection is cut by a factor of 10 (hell, even a diversity in mail clients can help this).
As for spam...Yeah... I don't think it'd change a thing.
As for a previous comment about trojan's typically not destroying it's host (the comment seemed to imply that this was a good thing), I think that these trojans tend to spread so well precisely because it *doesn't* destroy the host--or at least doesn't destroy it quickly). It can't spread if it's host is dead or defunct or spread well if it has behavior that is quickly detected as a virus.
That should, of course, have been "A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man" and not "Portrait of a Young Artist". It's not one that I myself have read, but it's one that's often quoted to me when I talk with someone about Joyce. As far as you're comment about short stories (I assume you mean Dubliner's)... I think this may typically classify as "intellectually art" as well (though it depend on your definition).
when I normally talk about Joyce with people (whether brought up by me or the other person), it is *seldom* about dubliner's, and usually about Ulyssees. Occassionally about _Finegans Wake_--that "really great book that we all have heard the concept of but never read." I think that _Finegans Wake_ may embody what you are talking about... but this one is really way to the edge of the spectrum.
Thinking more on what you've said, I think there is a strong reaction against the elitism that has pervaded literature for some long. This is a reaction that I embrace. That doesn't mean I perceive the death of the "intellectual art" (or the "itellectual" for that matter), but that there has been a significant body of art that has been grossly overlooked just because it existed in the public sphere. I think this oversight was a natural reaction considering the commodification of art and the delicate sensibilities of the intelligentsia. To now say that intellectualism is dead is just another swing of the penduluum.
To bring this back to your original post: I really hope that people don't look back 100 years from now and study Zelda as a "piece of art". I wonder how dead their life, their understanding, their yearnings must be to undertake such a task. To hold it up as representative of human existence. Eie. Imagine someone finding solace (or understanding, or edification, or be just plain rocked throughout) by Mario stomping a gumba. If it were possible, what would be necessary of the person? What qualities? And what would those qualities mean for the person to posess?
This really quickly disintigrates into what the purpose and function of art really is...at any rate, we would expect something worthwhile to be that which does not diminish with experience (or diminishes less than others). Otherwise, our lives quickly become without value. Furthermore, It would seem odd that we would be inclined to grow into shallowness.
I maintain my disagreement with you, but I am happy to see more of an argument than what you first post afforded.
Well, let's see...
Joyce, for all his being the greatest novelist of the 20th century, is hardly touched outside of classes looking at modernists.
Hmm.. I've never formally studied english beyond freshman comp, but I've read him and loved it. I know many others who are the same way. From many disciplines: Musicians, Mathematicians, Dramatists, Authors, and even the occasional unemployed hippie.
And generally, if you're reading Joyce, you're reading some short stories at this point.
I'm talking specifically about people who've read Portrait of a Young Aritist, Ulysses, and might have touched Finnegans Wake.
Seneca is not read outside of classics departments.
A word of caution against categorical statements: I've never been affiliated with a classical department, yet I've read Medea. I imagine I'm not the only one.
Euripedes, while not necessarily popularly acclaimed, was writing for popular festivals all the same - I have trouble calling him intellectual. Also, of little interest outside Classics departments.
He may have written for the competitions at the Dionysus festivals, but they were very ill recieved. At any rate, this is immaterial. I call him "intellectual" due to his blatant didactism. Much like sophocles (who was well received). What resonates with modern audiences is Euripedes challenge of social conventions and focus on the individual's psychology.
Shaw, again, while didactic, was a tremendously popular writer in his time. Don't confuse your tastes with the tastes of the time. Checkov, likewise. Again, their popularity is immaterial. Does one have to be unpopular to be inetellectual? If one transcends the maxims of popular culture, does that *necessarily* make that work unpopular? Perhaps we should have a working definition of "intellectual art" before continuing this definition.
That aside, I'm not sure what you're getting at with: "Don't confuse your tastes with the tastes of the time". I personnally like Shaw and Checkov, I don't know what would lead you to believe otherwise.
Brecht is important in theatre, but his impact outside of that is minimal, and his impact in theatre is primarily as a theorist.
Brecht remains somewhat important in film. While mostly limited to these forms, his theory is rather pervasive. The difficultly in citing his extensive influence, is because his largest influences have been in performance.
Beckett will be reduced to Waiting for Godot - by far his most readable and popular play.
You think? How about End Game? You think Waiting for Godot is more readable? I also find it telling that you call a play readable. It is, after all, meant to be performed. I would agree that this is definately true of his novels...
As for your last set of examples... have you noticed how poetry as a whole is dying out in the academy? As is popular to dryly point out now, it's the only form with more practitioners than readers. Pound's star fell fast after his fascism. e.e. cummings doesn't show his face past high school much. Blake and Thoreau are probably your two best examples, but I wonder how anti-popular they were.
The "canon" as it were is busting rather largely. "Classics" are hardly read in universities, especially not those considered to have the best English programs. The field is splitting largely between popular culture people and theory people, with those interested in historical periods increasingly focusing on "minor" texts of the period instead of the canon.
Some interesting points. You probably have a much better grasp at what is going on in the English departments than I do, so I can't really dispute these points. However, I don't think it's fair to say that this has extended to all of society. I also would think it's unfair to say that people outside of English d
Is 100 year what you consider to be lasting? In that case how about James Joyce (Damn near makes the 100 yr mark Ulysses 1922).
Or how about Seneca? It's argued that his plays weren't even meant to be performed.
Greek society *hated* Euripides, but now is a favorite among modern scholars.
How about Bernard Shaw? Can you *be* more didactic? For god's sake Nothing happens in his plays.
Sammuel Becket hasn't had enough time yet...but I guarantee he will.
Of course, you can't forget Checkov.
do you really think Bertolt Brecht is not going to last, sure it's been more like 50+ for him....but he's still around and going strong and has shaken modern theatre to it's bones (look at Angel's in American--definately not-"intellectual art" for an example of Brecht's wide reaching influence).
Or are these not "intellectual to you?"
Is William Blake and Henry David Thoreaux intellectual?
How about Ezra Pound and e. e. cummings?
Joseph Conrad? Jesus crist he'll philosophize for half a damn novel about Lord Jim's intentions&judgment... but he's still around, isn't he?
How can you, as a *English grad student* say this? Sure if you define "intellectual art" as that which merely purports to be intellectual, but without any merit... then yeah. It won't last. But there's a word for this, and it's not "intellectual art". It's called pretentious.
I know this is redundant, but it needs repeating since almost no one has paid attention. This really looks like spyware. Try going to http://www.p5115.tdko.com and see for yourself. I'm sure you recognize these sorts of sites. Notice that all links go to lop.com. A quick goolge search will reveal this info about lop.com.
It's no wonder nobody took him seriously. Sorry guy.
Your bicycle anology is backwards, the profits are not in the bikes. The money is to be made in the accessories and services provided.
Where's your support? Here's mine:
Some small owner/operator bicycle shops attribute over 15 percent of their revenue to repairs. Generally, industry studies have shown that sales of new bikes represent 45 percent of a typical bike shop's business, parts and accessories - 25 percent, service - 22 percent and second-hand bike sales - eight percent. (from http://www.ebc.com.au/product/product.asp?loc=1,35,7).
As for gross margins on bicycles,
Doyle said that industry-wide it ranges between 33 and 34 percent, there are no signs that's about to change.(from http://www.bicycleretailer.com/bicycleretailer/bus iness_resources/article_display_resources.jsp?vnu_ content_id=1122253)
45% is substantail business. Loosing a significant chunk out of 45% of your business will kill you. Period.
Now, assuming a 33% margin on 45% of total revenue, and furthermore, assuming the remaining business is pure profit, this is still accounts for ~21% of total profits. Now, using a more likely figure of a 50% margin on the remaining 55% of non-bike-sales revenue, we have sales of bikes comprising a little over 35% of profits. This is not taking into account that fact that someone who bought a bike from a shop is likely to return for accessories and service from the very same shop. *Even disregarding this fact*, 35% of profits are important for the shop to hold up. This also doesn't include the second hand bike sales (another 8% of total business) which are likely to have an even higher profit margin than the 33% cited for new bikes.
Granted, I may have somewhat overestimated the sale of bicycles. But frankly, I didn't expect you to be such an ass about it. I would also like to point out how you seem to have likewise grossly *underestimated* the profit magins on a bicycle. It is *not* typically 20%.
Welcome to the world of retail.
You fucking dick. Don't patronize me.
There's no denying the fact that large chains have hurt small business. I wonder about anyone who tries to argue otherwise. I really doubt you're arguing against me becuase you disagree.
As to Tucson, it is very spread out. Takes over an hour to drive North to South or East to West across town (exluding interstate of course). So? It's still a metropolitan area of nearly 900,000 people. That's a *very* large city. Surely you know that larger cities are better able to support specialty shops because there will still be enough people to shop at them even if most people go to larger chains? I mean, what the fuck are you trying to say?
Now, if you remember the original point I was making (which it seems you've become distracted from)... I was pointing out how there isn't really much *choice* in Wal-Mart. Yes, they have a wide variety of goods. However, when considering any particular type of merchandise, they have a *much smaller* selection of goods than a specialty store (and won't even think about special orders of merchandise they don't carry). Now, this is a problem becuase when Wal-Mart kills these other stores off (and they *DO*--why the hell would communities try to keep them out, as you were so quick to point out?--Do you realize how fucking inconsistent you are?--why the hell would you even point this out if you didn't think it held some sort of merit?--Why don't you think about what you're saying instead of focusing on how to make me look stupid), these outlets for these specialty goods no longer exist. Getting ahold of these items, then, can be *extremely* difficult. Luckily, the pervasiveness of the internet *may* solve some of these problems, though there is still nothing like being able to go to a store front when you need help.
Remember, we (American consumer) made Wal-Mart what it is today.
How astute.
The last place I lived was a mid-size college town (Tucson AZ) that had 2 Wal-Mart stores. 1 in the NW and 1 in the East side of town. There is more than enough stores to go to that are not Wal-Mart. Sure there is no K-Mart... but who cares? They sucked, and their business tripped because of it. The small local shops are doing quite well. They can all offer things Wal-Mart can not, good personal service.
Your cable anology is lame. Go to Fry's (computer store) and try to buy a bicycle. At least I can go to Wal-Mart's website and buy a computer (or a patch cable that I can make into a crossover cable). Big fricking deal.
The point I was trying to make (but a bit too lazy to have made) is that Wal-Mart sells a wide vareity of general goods (including computer merchandise). Many local businesses rely on two types of customers: those searching for specialty merchandise, and those who need more popular goods. For example, in a bike shop, you are likely to find more than just bikes, but you will also find a lot of accessories to go with the bikes (helmets,pads,locks,innertubes, tire patch kits, etc. etc. etc.). Nevertheless, most of the money the shop is likely to make is from the bikes. However, when someone can just go to Wal-Mart to buy a bike (and many do), this will obviously cut into their profits. By loosing their primary income, they may well be forced to close. After the more specialized stores closed, wal-mart is now the only place to buy a bike or any bicycle equipment. As you know, there will likely be less of a selection of bicycles & accessories. This is my point.
Now, my cable analogy is nothing like trying to buy a bicycle from Fry's. Fry's doesn't sell bicycle helmets, inner tubes, etc; but Wal-Mart *does* sell straight-though cables, printers, monitors, and computers, and many other peripherals, cables, etc.
You call Tucson, AZ a mid sized town!!!! We obviously have different ideas of mid-sized. I was thinking mid-sized as in "mode", you seem to be thinking of some median (perhaps more accurate, but it's not what I was thinking). I'm from a town of about 15,000. Wal-Mart (and now Office Depot) has *killed* the only local computer hardware store we had....
At least I can go to Wal-Mart's website and buy a computer (or a patch cable that I can make into a crossover cable). Big fricking deal. How icredibly special.
On the contrary, Utopia does exist, and you can play it. However,I'm sure you meant "utopia".
Most communities are not allowing Wal-Mart to move in.
Replace "most" with "some", and I'd be inclined to believe you. As it stands now, most communities already have let Wal-Mart move in.
Considering the shear number of goods available in a new Wal-Mart SuperCenter... they kinda believe in choice
O.k. Go buy a Cat5 crossover cable. An item any mom and pop computer supply store would carry. What? No cable? Is this too specialized for Walmart? Too bad if they kill the small stores that would carry it. Or, how about trying to build theatrical costumes with fabric supplies from Wal-Mart. Sure, a large enough community will still have the speciality stores, but a mid-sized college town is totally fucked.
We use Novell Groupwise for shared calendering, e-mail and various other facilities. It's really a powerfull little fscker that can do way more than what we need it for.
defenders of the open internet
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
I can't help but read the following line from the position paper personally:
Damage to the open-source community would matter, because we are both today's principal source of innovation in software and the
guardians and maintainers of the open Internet.
I wonder if the next generation of hackers will be able to do the same. I don't mean this as an attack against the *ability* of the up-and-coming...but I don't know if the neophites will be able to stand against a market if that market is openly hostile towards them. Will I (or others entering the field) ever have a chance at becoming "an old hand" that has been critical to the development of the market? Will we ever have the chance to be so initimately involved that we can protect "the open internet"? Or will these gods and legends eventually pass on, leaving the kindom to a weakened progeny--weakened because they did have the experience of building what they defend--who are left to the mercy of corporate marauders?
I am both inspired and disheartened, and am left to consider my place in computer science more than ever.
Isn't this the point of the article? Thanks for pointing it out to the less discerning of the readers. Though, I must admit, the article was sparse on actual remedies or even any ideas in general.
Did you know that offering access to an illegally duplicated copyrighted song could cost you over $150,000 in damages plus legal fees if a record company sues you for copyright infringement and wins?
Most record companies and movie studios now employ firms to act as "Internet Watchdogs". These firms have various ways of looking for illegal copies of songs, movies, games, software, and other copyrighted works. Recently, record companies and movie
studios have stepped up their efforts to crack down on illegal sharing of copyrighted songs and movies.
Just last week, the Recording Industry Association of America filed lawsuits against four college students for allegedly offering access to copyrighted music files within their campus networks. The lawsuits, according to an April 4, 2003 article in
The Chronicle of Higher Education, ask for damages of $150,000 per recording. The lawsuits were filed directly against the four students; the universities attended by the students were not named as defendants, and received no prior notice of the pending lawsuits.
Sharing copyrighted works without the express consent of the copyright owners is illegal, even when the sharing is only within the campus network and no money is exchanged for the works. As an illegal act, sharing copyrighted works is also against University policy. Students in violation of this policy will be subject to campus disciplinary procedures.
and my relpy, sent from the safe anonymity of a yahoo account:
I don't appreciate receiving these preemptive threats. I wish Central would get the RIAA's dick out of their mouth and stop sending their propaganda through campus-wide e-mails. I would be surprised to find a student who *isn't* aware of the recent lawsuit, or who *isn't* aware of the RIAA's attempt to crack down on copyright infringement. This is not a public service announcement. Stop acting like it is.
I wish I attended a school that had a broader sense of integrity than enforcing outmoded copy restrictions through abusive scare tactics only so that they will be seen as a "cooperative agent" by the RIAA.
Fuck you, buddy. I'll have none of it.
and the school's response:
You would be surprised to know how many students do not know about this problem, it is our intention to try to make sure that they do not get into trouble. I am sorry that you do not see the value in this approach.
Now, I know this guy was "just doing his job", and I most likely gave him an unjustly bad day. However, I was flat pissed that they were doing this. I don't even download songs and I was feeling targeted. Best I can say for the guy who sent this out at our school, is at least he took my abuse well.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the grounds of the subpoena (or lack thereof) that people are referencing when they talk about the legality of the actions of the RIAA. They can request info on you from your ISP without a judge. If you've read *anything* at all on this thread about this, you would have known this.
we cannot use language to make a point ("rhetorical"), even if is a small one, and expect you to listen? That's a bit severe.
Copyrights are the law, and these companies are doing what they should do, have every right to do, and what most rational beings have been asking them to: going after law breakers.What if I object to the existence of the companies to begin with? What if I object to copyright law as it stands? What if I want to see the whole music establishment collapse because it has brought us nothing but derivative crap while surpressing genuine creativity? What if the entire purpose of a copyright has been subverted by the establishment for their own commercial gain? At the expense of our very culture?
Furthermore, I ask you not to confuse Legality with Morality. And if for you "the Law" is by nature Moral (Might=Right), I would beg you to reconsider your position.
Sites? Why do you say sites? Caveat lector!
Better bring that list of labels to boycott to the store with you... Perhaps the Guiness Book of World Records will start carrying the record of "most RIAA labels memorized". Of course... you will be *hard pressed* to find any CD's in a store that isn't on one of these labels.
US teenagers smoke twice as much dank as Dutch kids do and its quasi-legal there.
One might say that one negative instance does not establish a rule.
That beside, I don't think that the current US tactics will help any. From what I understand, the war on drugs dates back to Nixon and is designed to "take care of the black problem without seeming to". Or so I've heard the semi-recently released tapes had indicated.
If society is genuinely concerned about kids being on drugs they should try to give kids a reason to value their lives. I don't mean that Boys Club bs either, but actual oppurtunities to do something. Yeah, you probably won't dent casual users, but I don't see that as that much of a problem anyways.
But if you did kill them (or the were otherwise murdered), we might cite the fact that you didn't like them as motive. That's what it has to "do with anything."
I'm sorry, but as long as you are still speaking (and trying to persuade), it is rhetoric.
Although I agree with the gist of what you are saying, I don't thing this is strictly true. I could, for example, write an unfavorable review in which I quoted some small number of lines in order to lambast the writing style. This would quite directly affect it's commercial viability, yet would likely be covered under fair use.
I beleive the consideration of fair use would hinge upon what amount of quoting was strictly necessary for me to make my statement about the text versus how much I needlessly damaged it's commercial viability. Your particular example's legality would depend entirely on the presentation used. If the article made a point of saying, "here are the details of the book you may want to know, but I'm going to give them to know so you don't have to.." then it would probably be liable. If, however, it said, here's how the book ends (with minimal quote support), and this is why such an ending is to be ridiculed... then I don't think it would be held liable.
Personally, I'm rather distraught about the state of copyright protection, especially in regards to books such as these. If the book's commercial value can be destroyed by a few quoted lines (or even a few quotes *pages*) then this is no book. It is only a sick joke on the consumers, where its total value is not protected but *created* by copyright.
From my experience, I find marriage to have greatly increased my understanding of interpersonal relationships (and myself), which in turn has led to subtler, more insightful writing. Then again, I married a theatre student, so I have *tons* of time to work on my writing at home when she's pulling late nights at the theatre. She has also introduced me to a lot of ideas and art that I would not have found otherwise. I will also have the oportunity to spend some time in Russia (as she is Russian)...which again I think will lead to a broader understanding of people and culture...which in turn only helps my writing.
What surprises me is how the article does not seem to think that a spouse can be a *source* of inspiration, but rather, some sort of sink.
Nabokov. Arguable the greatest writer of the Twentieth century. Married Vèra Slonim in 1925. Wrote Lolita in 1950's (don't remember exact time)... wrote Pale Fire (his masterwork) in 1961. He reportably had time to focus on his writing after the success and Lolita (film rights,sales, etc). He also had a child, Dimitri, though I can find no reference mentioning when he was born.
This has as little to with the Turning Test as eating a bologna sandwich.
I mean, what *does* tests for intelligence have to do with the Turing test? The article didn't even mention Turing or explain what the Turning test is or how it applies to the current situation.
As for being erudite (you clever devil), journalists should know not to put background information into an article. It's bound to distract its readers.
Tax evasion is totally dissimilar. By *your* logic, a virus is only concerned in infecting the individual computer that someone writes it for. The benefit of diversity is that finding an appropriate target is a little more difficult. Furthermore, if a particular platform is particularly vulnerable, with proper diversity (and the standards to support it), it will likely be dropped.
I do agree that writing antivirus tools & virus reporting will be somewhat more complicated as well. However, simple propagating e-mail viruses will have a markedly decreased impact on the net infrastructure if the potential rate of infection is cut by a factor of 10 (hell, even a diversity in mail clients can help this).
As for spam...Yeah... I don't think it'd change a thing.
As for a previous comment about trojan's typically not destroying it's host (the comment seemed to imply that this was a good thing), I think that these trojans tend to spread so well precisely because it *doesn't* destroy the host--or at least doesn't destroy it quickly). It can't spread if it's host is dead or defunct or spread well if it has behavior that is quickly detected as a virus.
That should, of course, have been "A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man" and not "Portrait of a Young Artist". It's not one that I myself have read, but it's one that's often quoted to me when I talk with someone about Joyce. As far as you're comment about short stories (I assume you mean Dubliner's)... I think this may typically classify as "intellectually art" as well (though it depend on your definition).
when I normally talk about Joyce with people (whether brought up by me or the other person), it is *seldom* about dubliner's, and usually about Ulyssees. Occassionally about _Finegans Wake_--that "really great book that we all have heard the concept of but never read." I think that _Finegans Wake_ may embody what you are talking about... but this one is really way to the edge of the spectrum.
Thinking more on what you've said, I think there is a strong reaction against the elitism that has pervaded literature for some long. This is a reaction that I embrace. That doesn't mean I perceive the death of the "intellectual art" (or the "itellectual" for that matter), but that there has been a significant body of art that has been grossly overlooked just because it existed in the public sphere. I think this oversight was a natural reaction considering the commodification of art and the delicate sensibilities of the intelligentsia. To now say that intellectualism is dead is just another swing of the penduluum.
To bring this back to your original post: I really hope that people don't look back 100 years from now and study Zelda as a "piece of art". I wonder how dead their life, their understanding, their yearnings must be to undertake such a task. To hold it up as representative of human existence. Eie. Imagine someone finding solace (or understanding, or edification, or be just plain rocked throughout) by Mario stomping a gumba. If it were possible, what would be necessary of the person? What qualities? And what would those qualities mean for the person to posess?
This really quickly disintigrates into what the purpose and function of art really is...at any rate, we would expect something worthwhile to be that which does not diminish with experience (or diminishes less than others). Otherwise, our lives quickly become without value. Furthermore, It would seem odd that we would be inclined to grow into shallowness.
And generally, if you're reading Joyce, you're reading some short stories at this point.
I'm talking specifically about people who've read Portrait of a Young Aritist, Ulysses, and might have touched Finnegans Wake.
Seneca is not read outside of classics departments.
A word of caution against categorical statements: I've never been affiliated with a classical department, yet I've read Medea. I imagine I'm not the only one.
Euripedes, while not necessarily popularly acclaimed, was writing for popular festivals all the same - I have trouble calling him intellectual. Also, of little interest outside Classics departments.
He may have written for the competitions at the Dionysus festivals, but they were very ill recieved. At any rate, this is immaterial. I call him "intellectual" due to his blatant didactism. Much like sophocles (who was well received). What resonates with modern audiences is Euripedes challenge of social conventions and focus on the individual's psychology.
Shaw, again, while didactic, was a tremendously popular writer in his time. Don't confuse your tastes with the tastes of the time. Checkov, likewise. Again, their popularity is immaterial. Does one have to be unpopular to be inetellectual? If one transcends the maxims of popular culture, does that *necessarily* make that work unpopular? Perhaps we should have a working definition of "intellectual art" before continuing this definition.
That aside, I'm not sure what you're getting at with: "Don't confuse your tastes with the tastes of the time". I personnally like Shaw and Checkov, I don't know what would lead you to believe otherwise.
Brecht is important in theatre, but his impact outside of that is minimal, and his impact in theatre is primarily as a theorist. Brecht remains somewhat important in film. While mostly limited to these forms, his theory is rather pervasive. The difficultly in citing his extensive influence, is because his largest influences have been in performance.
Beckett will be reduced to Waiting for Godot - by far his most readable and popular play.
You think? How about End Game? You think Waiting for Godot is more readable? I also find it telling that you call a play readable. It is, after all, meant to be performed. I would agree that this is definately true of his novels...
As for your last set of examples... have you noticed how poetry as a whole is dying out in the academy? As is popular to dryly point out now, it's the only form with more practitioners than readers. Pound's star fell fast after his fascism. e.e. cummings doesn't show his face past high school much. Blake and Thoreau are probably your two best examples, but I wonder how anti-popular they were.
The "canon" as it were is busting rather largely. "Classics" are hardly read in universities, especially not those considered to have the best English programs. The field is splitting largely between popular culture people and theory people, with those interested in historical periods increasingly focusing on "minor" texts of the period instead of the canon.
Some interesting points. You probably have a much better grasp at what is going on in the English departments than I do, so I can't really dispute these points. However, I don't think it's fair to say that this has extended to all of society. I also would think it's unfair to say that people outside of English d
Is 100 year what you consider to be lasting? In that case how about James Joyce (Damn near makes the 100 yr mark Ulysses 1922).
Or how about Seneca? It's argued that his plays weren't even meant to be performed.
Greek society *hated* Euripides, but now is a favorite among modern scholars.
How about Bernard Shaw? Can you *be* more didactic? For god's sake Nothing happens in his plays.
Sammuel Becket hasn't had enough time yet...but I guarantee he will.
Of course, you can't forget Checkov.
do you really think Bertolt Brecht is not going to last, sure it's been more like 50+ for him....but he's still around and going strong and has shaken modern theatre to it's bones (look at Angel's in American--definately not-"intellectual art" for an example of Brecht's wide reaching influence).
Or are these not "intellectual to you?"
Is William Blake and Henry David Thoreaux intellectual?
How about Ezra Pound and e. e. cummings?
Joseph Conrad? Jesus crist he'll philosophize for half a damn novel about Lord Jim's intentions&judgment... but he's still around, isn't he?
How can you, as a *English grad student* say this? Sure if you define "intellectual art" as that which merely purports to be intellectual, but without any merit... then yeah. It won't last. But there's a word for this, and it's not "intellectual art". It's called pretentious.
On further investigation it seems that all traffic through tdko.com is redirected to www.lop.com.
I know this is redundant, but it needs repeating since almost no one has paid attention. This really looks like spyware. Try going to http://www.p5115.tdko.com and see for yourself. I'm sure you recognize these sorts of sites. Notice that all links go to lop.com. A quick goolge search will reveal this info about lop.com.
It's no wonder nobody took him seriously. Sorry guy.
Where's your support? Here's mine:
As for gross margins on bicycles,
45% is substantail business. Loosing a significant chunk out of 45% of your business will kill you. Period.
Now, assuming a 33% margin on 45% of total revenue, and furthermore, assuming the remaining business is pure profit, this is still accounts for ~21% of total profits. Now, using a more likely figure of a 50% margin on the remaining 55% of non-bike-sales revenue, we have sales of bikes comprising a little over 35% of profits. This is not taking into account that fact that someone who bought a bike from a shop is likely to return for accessories and service from the very same shop. *Even disregarding this fact*, 35% of profits are important for the shop to hold up. This also doesn't include the second hand bike sales (another 8% of total business) which are likely to have an even higher profit margin than the 33% cited for new bikes.
Granted, I may have somewhat overestimated the sale of bicycles. But frankly, I didn't expect you to be such an ass about it. I would also like to point out how you seem to have likewise grossly *underestimated* the profit magins on a bicycle. It is *not* typically 20%.
Welcome to the world of retail. You fucking dick. Don't patronize me.
There's no denying the fact that large chains have hurt small business. I wonder about anyone who tries to argue otherwise. I really doubt you're arguing against me becuase you disagree.
As to Tucson, it is very spread out. Takes over an hour to drive North to South or East to West across town (exluding interstate of course). So? It's still a metropolitan area of nearly 900,000 people. That's a *very* large city. Surely you know that larger cities are better able to support specialty shops because there will still be enough people to shop at them even if most people go to larger chains? I mean, what the fuck are you trying to say?
Now, if you remember the original point I was making (which it seems you've become distracted from)... I was pointing out how there isn't really much *choice* in Wal-Mart. Yes, they have a wide variety of goods. However, when considering any particular type of merchandise, they have a *much smaller* selection of goods than a specialty store (and won't even think about special orders of merchandise they don't carry). Now, this is a problem becuase when Wal-Mart kills these other stores off (and they *DO*--why the hell would communities try to keep them out, as you were so quick to point out?--Do you realize how fucking inconsistent you are?--why the hell would you even point this out if you didn't think it held some sort of merit?--Why don't you think about what you're saying instead of focusing on how to make me look stupid), these outlets for these specialty goods no longer exist. Getting ahold of these items, then, can be *extremely* difficult. Luckily, the pervasiveness of the internet *may* solve some of these problems, though there is still nothing like being able to go to a store front when you need help.
The loss of small retailers that were only in
How astute.
The last place I lived was a mid-size college town (Tucson AZ) that had 2 Wal-Mart stores. 1 in the NW and 1 in the East side of town. There is more than enough stores to go to that are not Wal-Mart. Sure there is no K-Mart... but who cares? They sucked, and their business tripped because of it. The small local shops are doing quite well. They can all offer things Wal-Mart can not, good personal service. Your cable anology is lame. Go to Fry's (computer store) and try to buy a bicycle. At least I can go to Wal-Mart's website and buy a computer (or a patch cable that I can make into a crossover cable). Big fricking deal.
...
At least I can go to Wal-Mart's website and buy a computer (or a patch cable that I can make into a crossover cable). Big fricking deal.
The point I was trying to make (but a bit too lazy to have made) is that Wal-Mart sells a wide vareity of general goods (including computer merchandise). Many local businesses rely on two types of customers: those searching for specialty merchandise, and those who need more popular goods. For example, in a bike shop, you are likely to find more than just bikes, but you will also find a lot of accessories to go with the bikes (helmets,pads,locks,innertubes, tire patch kits, etc. etc. etc.). Nevertheless, most of the money the shop is likely to make is from the bikes. However, when someone can just go to Wal-Mart to buy a bike (and many do), this will obviously cut into their profits. By loosing their primary income, they may well be forced to close. After the more specialized stores closed, wal-mart is now the only place to buy a bike or any bicycle equipment. As you know, there will likely be less of a selection of bicycles & accessories. This is my point.
Now, my cable analogy is nothing like trying to buy a bicycle from Fry's. Fry's doesn't sell bicycle helmets, inner tubes, etc; but Wal-Mart *does* sell straight-though cables, printers, monitors, and computers, and many other peripherals, cables, etc. You call Tucson, AZ a mid sized town!!!! We obviously have different ideas of mid-sized. I was thinking mid-sized as in "mode", you seem to be thinking of some median (perhaps more accurate, but it's not what I was thinking). I'm from a town of about 15,000. Wal-Mart (and now Office Depot) has *killed* the only local computer hardware store we had.
How icredibly special.
On the contrary, Utopia does exist, and you can play it. However,I'm sure you meant "utopia".
Most communities are not allowing Wal-Mart to move in.
Replace "most" with "some", and I'd be inclined to believe you. As it stands now, most communities already have let Wal-Mart move in.
Considering the shear number of goods available in a new Wal-Mart SuperCenter... they kinda believe in choice
O.k. Go buy a Cat5 crossover cable. An item any mom and pop computer supply store would carry. What? No cable? Is this too specialized for Walmart? Too bad if they kill the small stores that would carry it. Or, how about trying to build theatrical costumes with fabric supplies from Wal-Mart. Sure, a large enough community will still have the speciality stores, but a mid-sized college town is totally fucked.
We use Novell Groupwise for shared calendering, e-mail and various other facilities. It's really a powerfull little fscker that can do way more than what we need it for.
I wonder if the next generation of hackers will be able to do the same. I don't mean this as an attack against the *ability* of the up-and-coming...but I don't know if the neophites will be able to stand against a market if that market is openly hostile towards them. Will I (or others entering the field) ever have a chance at becoming "an old hand" that has been critical to the development of the market? Will we ever have the chance to be so initimately involved that we can protect "the open internet"? Or will these gods and legends eventually pass on, leaving the kindom to a weakened progeny--weakened because they did have the experience of building what they defend--who are left to the mercy of corporate marauders?
I am both inspired and disheartened, and am left to consider my place in computer science more than ever.
Isn't this the point of the article? Thanks for pointing it out to the less discerning of the readers. Though, I must admit, the article was sparse on actual remedies or even any ideas in general.
Oh, yeah... and of course I am still taking it.
The bastard couldn't even send me a nasty letter back so that I could stay pissed.
What gall.
and my relpy, sent from the safe anonymity of a yahoo account: