I think the idea is not to thwart, but to provide punishment for it.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, I'm not saying it's right. I think the mentality might be along the lines of "Yah well it sure sucks that we weren't able to bust Al Capone on anything but IRS dodging."
It's very possible that they're looking for ways to define 'accomplice'. Let me put it another way: Lots of people were involved in executing 9-11. But besides the hijackers (that died), how can we punish the other people involved? Well, if they used illegal encyrption to communicate, they could be arrested and pulled out of the plan of the next attack.
Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm explaining what their reasoning probably is, I'm not saying that I support it or that it'd even work. I'm saying that I could see some old powerful fart using reasoning like that.
The editors are there to choose which stories go up. Think about their job for a sec: 'Read a bunch of story submissions and pick one that's interesting.' The FAQ basically says that they want to get the stories up quickly, not that every story goes up pristine and perfect.
I can imagine that going through all the stories in the submission queue is mind-numbing at best. Having to correct grammar and spelling etc is not going to make that any more fun. Besides, that's what the comments section is for.
They say they have a copy editor that works on the spelling/grammar etc. Actually, that does shine an interesting light on this topic though, doesn't it? How much you wanna bet their spell checker mistook 'XEON' for 'XENON'?
I think it's fine to expect that from the article itself. To expect that in the summary that's submitted by individuals is akin to expecting it from from every single person who comments on Slashdot.
If ya understand them, don't wince. I can understand the inchs vs. centimeters thing earlier, but Xeon vs. Xenon isn't that ambiguous.
"Sure, who cares about plot or character development? We've got a server farm!"
Normally I'd agree with you, but since it's based on a book all that stuff's accounted for. At least we know that they have the CPU horsepower to render out some wild stuff.
Personally, though, I'd rather know that they hired super-talented animators. Them'z worth heaps more than the most powerful render farm.
You know, many people have informed me of that, you are the only one who has done it tactfully. For that, I thank you.
I do use that button sometimes. Unfortunately, sometimes when I run into the 120 second limit and things get farqed. Oh well. T'was an interesting day karma wise. One post alone (the one about blondes not knowing the difference...) so far has had 13 moderations. Fun stuff, eh?:)
Again, thanks for being polite, it is in such short supply here.
"I'm not saying there aren't some great singles on those albums - the "Ziggy Stardust" song itself is a great single - but with a lot of classic albums, "downloading a couple of singles" to see if you'll like it is like watching a couple of scenes from a movie to see if it's good. You're missing a big part of the experience!"
I see what you're saying, but I'm talking about figuring out whether or not the experience is worth the money. I'm not talking about replacing it with MP3s, but using MP3s as a teaser. The "watching a couple of scenes to see if it's good" comment touches on basically what I'm talking about.
I think you make a really good point, though, that MP3s do not devalue an album. The RIAA should know this by now. There is plenty of reason to buy a CD even if you have MP3s of all the music. When those guys figure that out, Mp3s will be given away freely to encourage CD purchase, just like songs are played freely on the radio.
Chumbawumba knows this. They have some of their songs available for free on their site, I think it's chumba.com. If you've never heard their music (or anything besides the 'I get knocked down' song that wasy played to death), go check it out. You may wanna buy an album at that point.
And I do apologize for being snide with you earlier.
There are people out there who want cell phone restrictions with safety in mind, and there are people out there who want cell phone restrictions with predjudice in mind. "I dont like cell phones, so I want them jammed" -- is an attitude Ive heard a lot on Slashdot. That is how I read your post and why Im apologizing now. I basically pre-biased what you said.
I was just being silly, but you are making a good point.
It might be worth downloading one or two of these songs to a.) find out what all this is about (I never heard of Ziggy Stardust) and b.) see if the album is worthwhile to the younger generation.
*Shrug* Maybe my sarcasm wasn't so sarcastic. Heh.
Don't worry about it dude, I was mod bombed. heh. 3 of my posts in this thread were modded down as 'OffTopic' all within a minute of each other. Somebody out there just doesn't like me today and burned their mod points to 'teach me a lesson'. Too bad they won't reveal who they are. The word 'coward' springs to mind.
Joke's on them, though: They used up all their mod points, and I'm still posting at +2 heh.
"That's basically what I said in my previous posts."
Here's what you said:
"Or perhaps justified anger for people who needlessly endanger people around them by doing something that has been proven unsafe and violates the law in several places?"
I bolded the part that makes me think you were focused on cell phones. If you had replaced 'something' with 'things' then I wouldn't have responded the way I did.
Understanding what you mean now, I think we totally agree. I am just not a big fan on placing more emphasis on cell phone usage when the things I mentioned earlier score way higher on the statistics. Get what I mean? All I'm after is proper prioritization.
To put it another way, I don't want them banning cell phone use without banning car stereo use if car stereos cause considerably more accidents than cell phones. If they ban car stereos and THEN ban cell phones in cars, that's not nearly as offensive to me. I remember reading somewhere that 20% of accidents were car stereo related vs. only 3% caused by cell phones. Assuming those stats are even close to true, then it seems to me that Cell phones should get much less attention until the radio issue is resolved.:)
I find that amusing. Some moderator thought that this comment was 'OffTopic'. To that moderator, let me quote something from the Slashdot FAQ:
"If You Can't Be Deep, Be Funny: If you don't have something truly developing to the topic, some humor is welcome. Humor is lacking in our lives and will continue to be promoted. Remember though, what rips your sides out may be completely inane to somebody else."
It can be found under the question: "How can I improve my karma?"
I would highly recommend that whoever modded me down take a look at that FAQ first.
A blonde woman doesn't get much respect from her boss because he thinks she is stupid. So she decides to study a few things and see if she can earn his respect. A few days later, she passes her boss's office and asks him to name a state, and she'll tell him the capital of it. He says "Okay... Wyoming."
The woman paused for a moment to recall the answer. Suddenly her eyes lit up, she had the answer at last: "W?"
"Or perhaps justified anger for people who needlessly endanger people around them by doing something that has been proven unsafe and violates the law in several places?"
You mean like eating in the car, changing the radio, or running red lights? The first two aren't outlawed, and the third has little being done about it. Either you're really really angry at all those people or you're unjustifiably angry at cell phone users.
Slashdot Mirror
"I no longer believe in your sig."
I didn't realize I had a following. I guess people are still looking for leadership after Babylon 5 went off the air.
I think the idea is not to thwart, but to provide punishment for it.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, I'm not saying it's right. I think the mentality might be along the lines of "Yah well it sure sucks that we weren't able to bust Al Capone on anything but IRS dodging."
It's very possible that they're looking for ways to define 'accomplice'. Let me put it another way: Lots of people were involved in executing 9-11. But besides the hijackers (that died), how can we punish the other people involved? Well, if they used illegal encyrption to communicate, they could be arrested and pulled out of the plan of the next attack.
Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm explaining what their reasoning probably is, I'm not saying that I support it or that it'd even work. I'm saying that I could see some old powerful fart using reasoning like that.
My....mutha.. is... a ... big... HEY!! >:I
Or the result of a Spell Checker...
The editors are there to choose which stories go up. Think about their job for a sec: 'Read a bunch of story submissions and pick one that's interesting.' The FAQ basically says that they want to get the stories up quickly, not that every story goes up pristine and perfect.
I can imagine that going through all the stories in the submission queue is mind-numbing at best. Having to correct grammar and spelling etc is not going to make that any more fun. Besides, that's what the comments section is for.
They say they have a copy editor that works on the spelling/grammar etc. Actually, that does shine an interesting light on this topic though, doesn't it? How much you wanna bet their spell checker mistook 'XEON' for 'XENON'?
I think it's fine to expect that from the article itself. To expect that in the summary that's submitted by individuals is akin to expecting it from from every single person who comments on Slashdot.
If ya understand them, don't wince. I can understand the inchs vs. centimeters thing earlier, but Xeon vs. Xenon isn't that ambiguous.
I doubt it. My karma's 'excellent'.
"Sure, who cares about plot or character development? We've got a server farm!"
Normally I'd agree with you, but since it's based on a book all that stuff's accounted for. At least we know that they have the CPU horsepower to render out some wild stuff.
Personally, though, I'd rather know that they hired super-talented animators. Them'z worth heaps more than the most powerful render farm.
"Xenon is an element. Xeon is an expensive CPU. I see "Intel Xenon" too many times at work. Please not on Slashdot too"
It's really funny how people posting on a public forum act like it's really painful to see bad spelling and grammar.
You know, many people have informed me of that, you are the only one who has done it tactfully. For that, I thank you.
:)
I do use that button sometimes. Unfortunately, sometimes when I run into the 120 second limit and things get farqed. Oh well. T'was an interesting day karma wise. One post alone (the one about blondes not knowing the difference...) so far has had 13 moderations. Fun stuff, eh?
Again, thanks for being polite, it is in such short supply here.
Yes he does.
"I'm not saying there aren't some great singles on those albums - the "Ziggy Stardust" song itself is a great single - but with a lot of classic albums, "downloading a couple of singles" to see if you'll like it is like watching a couple of scenes from a movie to see if it's good. You're missing a big part of the experience!"
I see what you're saying, but I'm talking about figuring out whether or not the experience is worth the money. I'm not talking about replacing it with MP3s, but using MP3s as a teaser. The "watching a couple of scenes to see if it's good" comment touches on basically what I'm talking about.
I think you make a really good point, though, that MP3s do not devalue an album. The RIAA should know this by now. There is plenty of reason to buy a CD even if you have MP3s of all the music. When those guys figure that out, Mp3s will be given away freely to encourage CD purchase, just like songs are played freely on the radio.
Chumbawumba knows this. They have some of their songs available for free on their site, I think it's chumba.com. If you've never heard their music (or anything besides the 'I get knocked down' song that wasy played to death), go check it out. You may wanna buy an album at that point.
I appreciate it, thank you. :)
Thanks for the info. *will read it soon*
:)
And I do apologize for being snide with you earlier.
There are people out there who want cell phone restrictions with safety in mind, and there are people out there who want cell phone restrictions with predjudice in mind. "I dont like cell phones, so I want them jammed" -- is an attitude Ive heard a lot on Slashdot. That is how I read your post and why Im apologizing now. I basically pre-biased what you said.
I think we're all cool now.
"Or have I missed the point too."
I was just being silly, but you are making a good point.
It might be worth downloading one or two of these songs to a.) find out what all this is about (I never heard of Ziggy Stardust) and b.) see if the album is worthwhile to the younger generation.
*Shrug* Maybe my sarcasm wasn't so sarcastic. Heh.
Hmm, I think you missed the point of my post, let me explain:
Try this link:
g gy+stardust&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.google.com/search?q=who+the+fuck+is+zi
So when should I get on Kazaa to get this album? Later tonight? Heh.
Don't worry about it dude, I was mod bombed. heh. 3 of my posts in this thread were modded down as 'OffTopic' all within a minute of each other. Somebody out there just doesn't like me today and burned their mod points to 'teach me a lesson'. Too bad they won't reveal who they are. The word 'coward' springs to mind.
Joke's on them, though: They used up all their mod points, and I'm still posting at +2 heh.
"That's basically what I said in my previous posts."
:)
Here's what you said:
"Or perhaps justified anger for people who needlessly endanger people around them by doing something that has been proven unsafe and violates the law in several places?"
I bolded the part that makes me think you were focused on cell phones. If you had replaced 'something' with 'things' then I wouldn't have responded the way I did.
Understanding what you mean now, I think we totally agree. I am just not a big fan on placing more emphasis on cell phone usage when the things I mentioned earlier score way higher on the statistics. Get what I mean? All I'm after is proper prioritization.
To put it another way, I don't want them banning cell phone use without banning car stereo use if car stereos cause considerably more accidents than cell phones. If they ban car stereos and THEN ban cell phones in cars, that's not nearly as offensive to me. I remember reading somewhere that 20% of accidents were car stereo related vs. only 3% caused by cell phones. Assuming those stats are even close to true, then it seems to me that Cell phones should get much less attention until the radio issue is resolved.
That's possible. Had the moderation been 'Overrated' (and I did get one of those) I wouldn't have posted that.
I find that amusing. Some moderator thought that this comment was 'OffTopic'. To that moderator, let me quote something from the Slashdot FAQ:
"If You Can't Be Deep, Be Funny: If you don't have something truly developing to the topic, some humor is welcome. Humor is lacking in our lives and will continue to be promoted. Remember though, what rips your sides out may be completely inane to somebody else."
It can be found under the question: "How can I improve my karma?"
I would highly recommend that whoever modded me down take a look at that FAQ first.
"No, those of us who hate Windows are very much aware of why we hate it."
I doubt that. There is a large portion of Slashdot that hates Windows just because it's the cool thing to hate.
A blonde woman doesn't get much respect from her boss because he thinks she is stupid. So she decides to study a few things and see if she can earn his respect. A few days later, she passes her boss's office and asks him to name a state, and she'll tell him the capital of it. He says "Okay... Wyoming."
The woman paused for a moment to recall the answer. Suddenly her eyes lit up, she had the answer at last: "W?"
"Or perhaps justified anger for people who needlessly endanger people around them by doing something that has been proven unsafe and violates the law in several places?"
You mean like eating in the car, changing the radio, or running red lights? The first two aren't outlawed, and the third has little being done about it. Either you're really really angry at all those people or you're unjustifiably angry at cell phone users.