Hold on now, I thought that labels were thieves and that she makes next to nothing under their thumb. What's this needs to eat thing? Where is all the cawing about how artists could make a better living the more they distanced themselves from the RIAA and big labels?
This *is* Courtney Love we're talking about, not U2.
What's that have to do with it? Are you saying that only big names can make it out in the wild alone?
Sometimes ideals take a back seat to being able to maintain your lifestyle.
According to this article she could be making more and living better as an administrative assistant in Pittsburgh than what she is as a rock star in LA (I honestly don't know where she lives, just my guess). If nothing else she could abandon the life that is robbing her of her cash... and didn't I read that she just made a few million from selling her share of the Nirvana rights?
Something here simply isn't making sense. So what do you really think the big lie is here? That she gets paid nothing or that she just likes to be a whore to the recording industry?
Where I work XP is simply the current standard and even if Vista existed beyond the 2010 release date slated for Vienna we may never consider it. We get in a few hundred PCs annually at my site and it's a small site amongst several and that's not counting our retail outlet stores which number a few thousand.
It's not that we're thumbing our noses at Vista but rather that XP is what works for us and is stable.
That's a funny spiel given that she now records for a label that is distributed by one of the "big four". I guess that says a lot about her integrity and commitment to her supposed cause. She hates the industry so much that she's giving it more money for doing even less for her than what they did before when she called it "piracy".
Ok, so you have this giant store of songs and movies but only one seeder. That's going to suck.
The real functionality of stuff like P2P ware and BT is that you have communities sharing these as needed. Single "server" type of distribution is fine only if you have boat loads of bandwidth and the facilities to keep it going 24/7.
I'm sure there are many who do keep it their stuff up all the time but your standard home connection doesn't handle scores of leachers too well.
You have a deliberately narrow experience, you implicitly insult everyone who would buy an iPhone, and yet Slashdot readers think you're insightful.
So you're saying that the majority of all iPhone users have extensive experience with a smart phone? If not than your statement is false. Period.
I neither insulted people who buy an iPhone in general nor did I say that no one with an iPhone has this experience. It's great to see people post their experience with both sets of phones, for those who have it, but the majority of the current iPhone user base is people who have known Motorola Razors, some unknown model of Nokia or LG and the iPhone. You can not tell me you don't think this is the case.
And how do you know the scope of my experience? Talk about insulting.
This is exactly what will happen. I own a number of real Apple Macs, but I also own a fancy quad-core 8GB Hackintosh. I can attest that even the most modern Hacktintosh creation (like mine, running an unmolested retail copy of Leopard) is most definitely not as seamless an experience as a real Mac is. I'm not going to get rid of the Hackintosh, but I can say with some authority that the experience is sufficiently inferior to owning a real Mac that I wouldn't put up with it if I didn't enjoy tinkering with PC's.
That's fair but according to what I've read here the PC in question from the third party isn't coming with vanilla OS X. I agree that the experience is likely to be different but I would hope that even you would agree that it has the potential to be vastly different than your own. Psystar could certainly be fly-by-night but there is also a good chance that they have the talent on their side to create something that offers a robust experience.
From what you're saying it's like saying the user experience of every Vista user who isn't using a Vista badged machine should be disqualified from having their opinions known. There are tons of people, mostly amateurs from the get go, who are trying to put Vista on 8 year old hardware and having a bad time with it. Maybe OSX can do this seamlessly, I don't know but from the aspects of Linux I've also found that running the latest Ubuntu on one of my 8 year old PCs to be a painful (to say the least) experience. Should I hold this against Unbuntu or Linux in general? IMHO, not really. While fanbois will rave about how their pet OSs work fine "out of the box" the truth seems to be a bit different.
which clearly people love as compared to other "smart" phones.
I have never met a single iPhone user who has had extensive use of a smart phone. Most iPhone users probably couldn't even come up with a somewhat accurate definition of a smart phone. Most probably know nothing about PalmOS or WindowsCE. Your remark is FUD, at best.
Does this qualify as fanboy bullshit? Why?
Because what you're saying really isn't "If you don't approve, you don't have to buy their stuff." What you're really saying is "When Apple can no longer control the hardware OSX will be another Vista." This may be true but that still doesn't hold water if it's legal. If a Mac is so superior that it is worth the money involved than people will not buy the clones and they will go under due to the alleged high standards of Apple. Otherwise it's just a bunch of lip service and deserves to wither on the vine.
I can understand people using no CD cracks and such but to claim that DRM is a reason to steal the whole game? Free is free guys, the genie is out of the bottle and pirates don't have those level of ethics.
Yeah, I don't want to make the assumption that all of their logic is based only on these recent findings but when you only have a handful of examples and the majority are the model that they're thinking is correct I can't help but feel that it's the basis for certain ideas floating around today. I am not as much questioning their overall ideas on this as more to wonder if they have reason outside of these examples to come up with such a model. From where I sit one theory is as good as another as long as no one is putting the hard facts forward.
I find it amazing what they've found out so far but at the same time I know that the art of extrasolar planetary exploration is certainly at the early stages of a complex infancy. 10 years from now both of us will hopefully be able to find the humor in what we collectively think we know about the subject today.
Extensive computer simulation from basic principles. Not, "well, this theory more closely matches what we've recently observed, so it's more accurate".
Believe it or not, logical weaknesses that can be caught by the Slashdot crowd are almost always noticed by scientists. It's just that Slashdot doesn't read the articles.
I know this fairly well and am hoping that this isn't some kind of personal jab. I'm more wondering about the first sentence ("Extensive computer simulation from basic principles.") because this seems to be a strong grey area. From my meager understanding of the subject I'm wondering what has changed to bring about this revelation. Simply put, if the "basic principles" are being modified by current observance (which is what science 101 teaches us about the creation of a theory) than it stands to figure that the gas giant systems that have been found in recent times would play a big part in the current change of thought.
But on the surface it seems more to me that they're just saying that solar systems have a life cycle that is marked by the location of gas giants. I don't really think that means that our setup is rare.
But if I am misinterpreting the blurb and that is what they're proposing I would still say we need to hold our horses on any real judgement. We've found these solar systems because our current method of seeking these solar systems out is going to be more likely to find this kind of activity as opposed to what we have here at home. I think we're jumping the gun a bit on this one. I say let them work it out for a couple of more decades and even then we should be a bit more cautious about such sweeping statements.
I'll be honest and say that Willow is probably my favorite of the films listed.
Anyway...
He's known in the music industry as a one-hit-wonder. It's kind of sad in a way that there are so many artists with no real staying power who keep producing and producing and their initial fanbase keeps buying into their work, hoping and praying for another fantastic work to be released. I'm sure he'll be playing your local county fair soon. Sometimes it's better to just let things like this wither on the vine. Of course, it's only hindsight that gives us an understanding of who these people are.
Lucas has so much cashflow at this point that even if his fans abandon him he will continue to produce. We can do little but let the train wreck happen and hope that no innocent bystanders get caught up in it all.
It's artists like Lucas who make me feel that maybe it is a good thing that people like Harper Lee didn't work towards being a full-time writer instead of wondering why they didn't produce anything more.
Target shooting? There are over 90 million firearms owners in the US. There is somewhere in the area of 15-20 thousand shootings of other people each year. Are you saying the rest of us are doing something wrong in your eyes?
Even you mention a bridge between the concept. You, yourself, have already made your own original post a moot point. Oh well, glad we could talk our way through this one.
BTW: I do own a H&K-91 and no, I've never considered using it on a person in a real life situation.
What's interesting is that you don't see the different between reality and a simulation.
While there certainly are those who bloodlust, the majority of us do not think for one second of killing someone in a video game as real. I don't aim my H&K-91 in COD4 at [DMZ]Turkeyburger and think of actually killing the dweeb sitting behind his keyboard. At the same time I don't take personal offense at [DMZ]Turkeyburger killing me. It's a frigging game!
Real violence, on the other hand, causes a ripple throughout society of negative waves. It fosters other violence, it leaves people to grieve the victim and strips away the victims basic human rights. And some people are, Thank God, still sensitive to this. That's why it's not normal to put a few slugs into someone who slows down the check out line at the A&P or slice someone's throat because they're an easy target. These sensitive feelings translate into what we call morals.
For a very small number of people this line becomes blurred and they take the competitive and violent nature of the video game into real life. We call these people psychopaths. It's my humble opinion that these people were just looking for an excuse for their lack of morals to begin with but more and more it seems that they don't even look for an excuse.
So real violence does mostly bring about an emotional response. Video game violence normally doesn't. That's the nature of people today. Also consider that you've conveniently just slotted everyone reading these articles into the same little box. From your post we must all be gamers who don't mind a little bit of the old ultraviolence. While I agree that this is probably a norm for around here I think it's far from an absolute truth.
There are certainly some people in government who are sympathetic to the RIAA because of legal bribes in the form of lobbyists and campaign contributions
And there are certainly some people in the government who swore to uphold the law even if they feel it isn't 100% correct. There is a system in place for changing laws that are out of line with the good of the people but the wanton breaking of laws isn't part of that system. It would be much different if any of this was done as a form of protest but none of it is. And even in protest it should only be done to show how absurd the law really is. If this kid was doing it in protest he would have proclaimed his guilt proudly along with some statement. Instead he, and most of his ilk, hide behind excuse after excuse and hope for the best. Anytime one of these people slips through the fingers of system you guys act like it's some great victory. The only victory from your camp should be a meaningful change to copyright law but next to none of you are active in this cause. Sure, lobbyists hold power but the people who proclaim to be for sensible copyright have a representation too but the vast majority of you have no interest in the legitimate fight, only the free music that's to be had.
The only answer is because it's illegal and in many cases, some people have interests in seeing the law enforced even when there's no real benefit to society in it. They fine you for posession because it's illegal, they don't think they like pot smokers, and they can.
The problem with marijuana at this point isn't the recreational user, for the most part, but the organizations that drug money keeps alive. The fact is that drug money keeps gangs together and keeps violence on the street. It's no different than the alcohol prohibition.
Marijuana laws are another area that I think a lot of people would be behind reform but sadly the violence on the streets and the other unwholesome activities of criminal organizations are going to continue to be fueled by casual users until marijuana is legally sold through regulated dealers.
And again, smoking a joint and listening to Pink Floyd in your living room isn't a legitimate form of protest.
They must have edited out when the aliens finally introduced themselves to the planet earth at the opening events. It was edited out by the evil bastard Bush. He wants to keep you in the dark about our new extra-terrestrial friends because they're going to do away with the oil industry and that's going to run the Bush family broke!
Or maybe techmuse's tin foil hat is just a little too tight...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm asking to have someone cite a source. Not to come up with numbers that they can't even confirm.
Or eventually, she just needs to eat.
Hold on now, I thought that labels were thieves and that she makes next to nothing under their thumb. What's this needs to eat thing? Where is all the cawing about how artists could make a better living the more they distanced themselves from the RIAA and big labels?
This *is* Courtney Love we're talking about, not U2.
What's that have to do with it? Are you saying that only big names can make it out in the wild alone?
Sometimes ideals take a back seat to being able to maintain your lifestyle.
According to this article she could be making more and living better as an administrative assistant in Pittsburgh than what she is as a rock star in LA (I honestly don't know where she lives, just my guess). If nothing else she could abandon the life that is robbing her of her cash... and didn't I read that she just made a few million from selling her share of the Nirvana rights?
Something here simply isn't making sense. So what do you really think the big lie is here? That she gets paid nothing or that she just likes to be a whore to the recording industry?
Where I work XP is simply the current standard and even if Vista existed beyond the 2010 release date slated for Vienna we may never consider it. We get in a few hundred PCs annually at my site and it's a small site amongst several and that's not counting our retail outlet stores which number a few thousand.
It's not that we're thumbing our noses at Vista but rather that XP is what works for us and is stable.
Can you please cite this whole "0.02" cents thing? I see tons of it around but no one ever sources it.
That's a funny spiel given that she now records for a label that is distributed by one of the "big four". I guess that says a lot about her integrity and commitment to her supposed cause. She hates the industry so much that she's giving it more money for doing even less for her than what they did before when she called it "piracy".
Ok, so you have this giant store of songs and movies but only one seeder. That's going to suck.
The real functionality of stuff like P2P ware and BT is that you have communities sharing these as needed. Single "server" type of distribution is fine only if you have boat loads of bandwidth and the facilities to keep it going 24/7.
I'm sure there are many who do keep it their stuff up all the time but your standard home connection doesn't handle scores of leachers too well.
You have a deliberately narrow experience, you implicitly insult everyone who would buy an iPhone, and yet Slashdot readers think you're insightful.
So you're saying that the majority of all iPhone users have extensive experience with a smart phone? If not than your statement is false. Period.
I neither insulted people who buy an iPhone in general nor did I say that no one with an iPhone has this experience. It's great to see people post their experience with both sets of phones, for those who have it, but the majority of the current iPhone user base is people who have known Motorola Razors, some unknown model of Nokia or LG and the iPhone. You can not tell me you don't think this is the case.
And how do you know the scope of my experience? Talk about insulting.
This is exactly what will happen. I own a number of real Apple Macs, but I also own a fancy quad-core 8GB Hackintosh. I can attest that even the most modern Hacktintosh creation (like mine, running an unmolested retail copy of Leopard) is most definitely not as seamless an experience as a real Mac is. I'm not going to get rid of the Hackintosh, but I can say with some authority that the experience is sufficiently inferior to owning a real Mac that I wouldn't put up with it if I didn't enjoy tinkering with PC's.
That's fair but according to what I've read here the PC in question from the third party isn't coming with vanilla OS X. I agree that the experience is likely to be different but I would hope that even you would agree that it has the potential to be vastly different than your own. Psystar could certainly be fly-by-night but there is also a good chance that they have the talent on their side to create something that offers a robust experience.
From what you're saying it's like saying the user experience of every Vista user who isn't using a Vista badged machine should be disqualified from having their opinions known. There are tons of people, mostly amateurs from the get go, who are trying to put Vista on 8 year old hardware and having a bad time with it. Maybe OSX can do this seamlessly, I don't know but from the aspects of Linux I've also found that running the latest Ubuntu on one of my 8 year old PCs to be a painful (to say the least) experience. Should I hold this against Unbuntu or Linux in general? IMHO, not really. While fanbois will rave about how their pet OSs work fine "out of the box" the truth seems to be a bit different.
which clearly people love as compared to other "smart" phones.
I have never met a single iPhone user who has had extensive use of a smart phone. Most iPhone users probably couldn't even come up with a somewhat accurate definition of a smart phone. Most probably know nothing about PalmOS or WindowsCE. Your remark is FUD, at best.
Does this qualify as fanboy bullshit? Why?
Because what you're saying really isn't "If you don't approve, you don't have to buy their stuff." What you're really saying is "When Apple can no longer control the hardware OSX will be another Vista." This may be true but that still doesn't hold water if it's legal. If a Mac is so superior that it is worth the money involved than people will not buy the clones and they will go under due to the alleged high standards of Apple. Otherwise it's just a bunch of lip service and deserves to wither on the vine.
There is a saying that says you can go from liberal to conservative in 20 years without chaging an ideal.
Being the son of two Kennedy-era Democrats I can only tell you how true it is.
Please. If it doesn't have the name "George A. Ramero" on it, it's not a real zombie movie.
Boycotting doesn't mean you just don't buy but you also tell them why you're not buying.
And if you pirate it you're telling the producer he needs it more. Boycotting is the only legitimate form of protest in this case, IMHO.
Honesty and didn't post AC? Wow! I'm seriously impressed.
It's refreshing to see that you're not a punk about it. I may not agree with you but something has to be said for the moxie you've displayed.
I can understand people using no CD cracks and such but to claim that DRM is a reason to steal the whole game? Free is free guys, the genie is out of the bottle and pirates don't have those level of ethics.
Yeah, I don't want to make the assumption that all of their logic is based only on these recent findings but when you only have a handful of examples and the majority are the model that they're thinking is correct I can't help but feel that it's the basis for certain ideas floating around today. I am not as much questioning their overall ideas on this as more to wonder if they have reason outside of these examples to come up with such a model. From where I sit one theory is as good as another as long as no one is putting the hard facts forward.
I find it amazing what they've found out so far but at the same time I know that the art of extrasolar planetary exploration is certainly at the early stages of a complex infancy. 10 years from now both of us will hopefully be able to find the humor in what we collectively think we know about the subject today.
Extensive computer simulation from basic principles. Not, "well, this theory more closely matches what we've recently observed, so it's more accurate".
Believe it or not, logical weaknesses that can be caught by the Slashdot crowd are almost always noticed by scientists. It's just that Slashdot doesn't read the articles.
I know this fairly well and am hoping that this isn't some kind of personal jab. I'm more wondering about the first sentence ("Extensive computer simulation from basic principles.") because this seems to be a strong grey area. From my meager understanding of the subject I'm wondering what has changed to bring about this revelation. Simply put, if the "basic principles" are being modified by current observance (which is what science 101 teaches us about the creation of a theory) than it stands to figure that the gas giant systems that have been found in recent times would play a big part in the current change of thought.
and a more-accuracy theory of solar system formation
Ok, but how do they determine this entire "more-accuracy" concept?
Diamond formation requires life? I never knew this.
And just for the record, I'm not an atheist but I do respect their ideas on things. It certainly doesn't hurt.
I didn't RTFA, but I will when I get home.
But on the surface it seems more to me that they're just saying that solar systems have a life cycle that is marked by the location of gas giants. I don't really think that means that our setup is rare.
But if I am misinterpreting the blurb and that is what they're proposing I would still say we need to hold our horses on any real judgement. We've found these solar systems because our current method of seeking these solar systems out is going to be more likely to find this kind of activity as opposed to what we have here at home. I think we're jumping the gun a bit on this one. I say let them work it out for a couple of more decades and even then we should be a bit more cautious about such sweeping statements.
I'll be honest and say that Willow is probably my favorite of the films listed.
Anyway...
He's known in the music industry as a one-hit-wonder. It's kind of sad in a way that there are so many artists with no real staying power who keep producing and producing and their initial fanbase keeps buying into their work, hoping and praying for another fantastic work to be released. I'm sure he'll be playing your local county fair soon. Sometimes it's better to just let things like this wither on the vine. Of course, it's only hindsight that gives us an understanding of who these people are.
Lucas has so much cashflow at this point that even if his fans abandon him he will continue to produce. We can do little but let the train wreck happen and hope that no innocent bystanders get caught up in it all.
It's artists like Lucas who make me feel that maybe it is a good thing that people like Harper Lee didn't work towards being a full-time writer instead of wondering why they didn't produce anything more.
Target shooting? There are over 90 million firearms owners in the US. There is somewhere in the area of 15-20 thousand shootings of other people each year. Are you saying the rest of us are doing something wrong in your eyes?
Even you mention a bridge between the concept. You, yourself, have already made your own original post a moot point. Oh well, glad we could talk our way through this one.
BTW: I do own a H&K-91 and no, I've never considered using it on a person in a real life situation.
What's interesting is that you don't see the different between reality and a simulation.
While there certainly are those who bloodlust, the majority of us do not think for one second of killing someone in a video game as real. I don't aim my H&K-91 in COD4 at [DMZ]Turkeyburger and think of actually killing the dweeb sitting behind his keyboard. At the same time I don't take personal offense at [DMZ]Turkeyburger killing me. It's a frigging game!
Real violence, on the other hand, causes a ripple throughout society of negative waves. It fosters other violence, it leaves people to grieve the victim and strips away the victims basic human rights. And some people are, Thank God, still sensitive to this. That's why it's not normal to put a few slugs into someone who slows down the check out line at the A&P or slice someone's throat because they're an easy target. These sensitive feelings translate into what we call morals.
For a very small number of people this line becomes blurred and they take the competitive and violent nature of the video game into real life. We call these people psychopaths. It's my humble opinion that these people were just looking for an excuse for their lack of morals to begin with but more and more it seems that they don't even look for an excuse.
So real violence does mostly bring about an emotional response. Video game violence normally doesn't. That's the nature of people today. Also consider that you've conveniently just slotted everyone reading these articles into the same little box. From your post we must all be gamers who don't mind a little bit of the old ultraviolence. While I agree that this is probably a norm for around here I think it's far from an absolute truth.
There are certainly some people in government who are sympathetic to the RIAA because of legal bribes in the form of lobbyists and campaign contributions
And there are certainly some people in the government who swore to uphold the law even if they feel it isn't 100% correct. There is a system in place for changing laws that are out of line with the good of the people but the wanton breaking of laws isn't part of that system. It would be much different if any of this was done as a form of protest but none of it is. And even in protest it should only be done to show how absurd the law really is. If this kid was doing it in protest he would have proclaimed his guilt proudly along with some statement. Instead he, and most of his ilk, hide behind excuse after excuse and hope for the best. Anytime one of these people slips through the fingers of system you guys act like it's some great victory. The only victory from your camp should be a meaningful change to copyright law but next to none of you are active in this cause. Sure, lobbyists hold power but the people who proclaim to be for sensible copyright have a representation too but the vast majority of you have no interest in the legitimate fight, only the free music that's to be had.
The only answer is because it's illegal and in many cases, some people have interests in seeing the law enforced even when there's no real benefit to society in it. They fine you for posession because it's illegal, they don't think they like pot smokers, and they can.
The problem with marijuana at this point isn't the recreational user, for the most part, but the organizations that drug money keeps alive. The fact is that drug money keeps gangs together and keeps violence on the street. It's no different than the alcohol prohibition.
Marijuana laws are another area that I think a lot of people would be behind reform but sadly the violence on the streets and the other unwholesome activities of criminal organizations are going to continue to be fueled by casual users until marijuana is legally sold through regulated dealers.
And again, smoking a joint and listening to Pink Floyd in your living room isn't a legitimate form of protest.
They must have edited out when the aliens finally introduced themselves to the planet earth at the opening events. It was edited out by the evil bastard Bush. He wants to keep you in the dark about our new extra-terrestrial friends because they're going to do away with the oil industry and that's going to run the Bush family broke!
Or maybe techmuse's tin foil hat is just a little too tight...
Wake me up when there is some real news.