What happened to the wit and just plan fun of old adventure games. Space quest, Kings quest, Freddy Farkas, Lesuire Suit Larry, Monkey Island, etc, etc. I want them all back. Dammit Sierra come out with some good adventure games.
While the majority of you are playing quake, i'm over at Adventure Game Studios downloading the lastest homemade VGA games.
Ok, i'll bite.
First off, you can't even spell the acronym correctly. It's MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) Secondly, about every 2 year old can get one.
Back in the beginning of april there was a slashdot article where "SCO has agreed to allow us to submit a list of questions ahead of time, and we will contain some of the highest moderated slashdot questions."
What happened? Were the question answered?
You are absolutely correct. Absolute Zero is based on extrapolated points and can't be reached. The closer you get to absolute zero, gases tend to liquify and quatum mechanics takes over. If it where up to Newton, all our atoms would explode, since their would be no way for the electrons to stay in orbit around the nucleus.
The past year has been one of the worst in the previous decade for the music industry. While factors beyond our control, such as the down-turn in the American economy, have no doubt contributed to this, the industry itself can certain not completely escape blame. In an attempt correct this, representatives from our member labels recently met to discuss ways of reforming the industry. The result of the meeting was a set of changes to current policies, outlined below, which, when implemented, we hope will pull the industry out of its current slump.
Our member labels will halt all plans to sell copy-restricted CDs. Restricting the use of CDs devalues the product, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy them. Also we believe that as time goes on, the public will realize, as we have, that due to the viral natural of distribution through file-sharing networks copy-restriction will never be effective at preventing online piracy but rather is indented to force our customers to buy the same music on multiple media.
We also vow to stop pursuing the companies behind file-sharing networks in court. In light of studies by reputable pollsters that have shown that most users of file-sharing networks reported that their music purchases increased in frequency, there seems to be little reason to continue spending millions in an attempt to shut down these services. Instead, we plan to propose to settle out of court in exchange for a royalty system based on a fraction of profit (only fair, given that these profits are derived in part from our products).
We will also stop lobbying politicians to impose draconian copyright laws on the American people. Last June, Rep. Rick Berman, who received more campaign donations from the entertainment industry than any other Congressperson, proposed legislation that would exempt rights-holders from anti-hacking law in order that they might exact vigilante-style justice on file-sharers. Initially we were thrilled at the display of the political might of our money, but later were sickened as we realized the implications for democracy in America. Morally, we cannot continue this manipulation of the political system.
In addition to the reasons just given, we also are doing both of the above, halting the lawsuits against the companies file-sharing services and stopping our coercive political contributions, in an attempt to restore consumer confidence in the music industry. Our customers will know longer will feel guilty after buying a CD, now knowing that the proceeds from their purchases will not be used to support causes that harm them and their peers.
To further convince consumers that the proceeds from their music purchases are well spent, we will be attempting to treat our talent more fairly. At the core of this effort will be the halting of collusion between labels on recording contracts. While overlooked by anti-trust law, the elimination of competition caused by collusion is just as harmful to the producers of content as it is to the consumers. No longer will artists be forced into signing contracts which reduce artist''s royalties for a multitude of arbitrary or antiquated reasons for if any label attempts such abuse, they''ll be certain to lose their talent to a competitor. We believe that this can be undertaken without damaging industry profitability. Firstly, the previously mentioned reduced legal and political expenditures will help to offset the cost. Secondly, we plan fix the sobering statistic that nine out of ten industry ventures end up failing recovering their costs. This figure would be unacceptable outside the entertainment industry and, while it was viable inside it due to the abuse of artists, there is no reason it should not be possible to vastly improve upon it.
Finally, we promise to stop trying to brainwash the world into thinking of music as property, something that an artist has an innate right to control, even after the media that embodies that music has changed hands. Rather, we will recognized only the original goal of copyright law in America, to benefit the average citizen by creating a incentive to produce creative works. We will also launch a publicity campaign to remind the public of this principle, unknown to many. We hope that upon learning that the true purpose of copyright law is to benefit them, average citizens will be more likely to respect it.
It is our hope that these policy changes will revitalize the industry and make it deserving of the unique place it holds within American culture.
if you go HERE it would seeem that the RIAA has changed its mind. This article is more likely bogus since the RIAA was hacked again yesterday and can be seen HERE. Its still very funny to read.
I think I need to clarify what I mean by scarcity in terms of computers and P2P.
Say there is a graphics company and they need photoshop. Without it they fail as a company. What happens when Adobe cannot produce anymore cds to put photoshop on because plastic has gotten to expensive and scarce. Within the internet and P2P networks there is no reliance on matrials. You could make an infinite amount of copies of software without cost or without plastic or other matrials. So in this sense scarcity no longer exsists. Sure computer bits aren't food, but what happens when ws do get that nanotechnology to reproduce it without the need of scarce matrials. Maybe what I'm really trying to answer is, how much compensation should a person or company get if they invent software. What is the initial cost, since reproduction is free. If there is a lot of supply, prices go down. Does this mean that prices go to zero since there is an infinite supply?
I've been reading how people are blaming the music industry for having an outdated business model, which I think is true. But is it the music industry's fault or is it that capitalism cannot handle the technology? What computers and P2P systems have eliminated is scarcity, the basic problem in economics. How will the economy handle technology that can replicate a physical object? Once people have the ability to make a copy of everything, does that mean we still need an economy.
Just some thoughts. I'm no economics major. I would like to know what the rest of you think?
It seems to me that this project will never work. There are to many forces at play. The elevator would probable snap in half do to all the strain. If we did manage to build it there would be a HUGE problem: Earth's rotation would slow down, forcing us toward the Sun. Imagine the Earth as an ice skater in rotation. The person keeps their arms close to their body to rotate fast. What happens when the person's arms raise away from their body? They slow down. It is a simple concept of centripetal acceleration. The elevator would act as an arm of the Earth, thus causing it to slow down.
Slashdot Mirror
the implementation of the evil bit! MUHAHAHAHA
What happened to the wit and just plan fun of old adventure games. Space quest, Kings quest, Freddy Farkas, Lesuire Suit Larry, Monkey Island, etc, etc. I want them all back. Dammit Sierra come out with some good adventure games. While the majority of you are playing quake, i'm over at Adventure Game Studios downloading the lastest homemade VGA games.
Not only does it suck, you can get internet access.
If they can patent/trademark/copyright all the notes used in music, they will be able to own the RIAA.
The have: C#,F#
Left: A,A#,B,C,D,D#,E,F,G,G#
Can't wait for the other 10 programming languages
The real question is how much paper needs to be burned to produce the power required to keep your 3Ghz computer on 24/7 to read slashdot.
you can play nes games under emulation within linux on an xbox with DarcNES or iNES
Billy Gates has
There is a simple answer to this question - it is easier to end the movie period
If Neo can destroy the matrix then the robots don't have any power, therefore the robots die. And thats how Matrix Revolutions ends.
Sorry for the spoiler if it wasn't already obvious
Ok, i'll bite. First off, you can't even spell the acronym correctly. It's MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) Secondly, about every 2 year old can get one.
All it means is don't hold the fire button for 8 minutes straight
Back in the beginning of april there was a slashdot article where "SCO has agreed to allow us to submit a list of questions ahead of time, and we will contain some of the highest moderated slashdot questions."
What happened? Were the question answered?
Then I better move to Canada.
I always enjoy this page, especially when I'm really bored!
You are absolutely correct. Absolute Zero is based on extrapolated points and can't be reached. The closer you get to absolute zero, gases tend to liquify and quatum mechanics takes over. If it where up to Newton, all our atoms would explode, since their would be no way for the electrons to stay in orbit around the nucleus.
If I told you, it wouldn't be a surpise.
Now all I need is a way to convert piss into water, just like Kevin Costner did on his boat :)
If Microsoft can't beat them, they just buy them.
A New Vision for the Recording Industry
The past year has been one of the worst in the previous decade for the music industry. While factors beyond our control, such as the down-turn in the American economy, have no doubt contributed to this, the industry itself can certain not completely escape blame. In an attempt correct this, representatives from our member labels recently met to discuss ways of reforming the industry. The result of the meeting was a set of changes to current policies, outlined below, which, when implemented, we hope will pull the industry out of its current slump.
Our member labels will halt all plans to sell copy-restricted CDs. Restricting the use of CDs devalues the product, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy them. Also we believe that as time goes on, the public will realize, as we have, that due to the viral natural of distribution through file-sharing networks copy-restriction will never be effective at preventing online piracy but rather is indented to force our customers to buy the same music on multiple media.
We also vow to stop pursuing the companies behind file-sharing networks in court. In light of studies by reputable pollsters that have shown that most users of file-sharing networks reported that their music purchases increased in frequency, there seems to be little reason to continue spending millions in an attempt to shut down these services. Instead, we plan to propose to settle out of court in exchange for a royalty system based on a fraction of profit (only fair, given that these profits are derived in part from our products).
We will also stop lobbying politicians to impose draconian copyright laws on the American people. Last June, Rep. Rick Berman, who received more campaign donations from the entertainment industry than any other Congressperson, proposed legislation that would exempt rights-holders from anti-hacking law in order that they might exact vigilante-style justice on file-sharers. Initially we were thrilled at the display of the political might of our money, but later were sickened as we realized the implications for democracy in America. Morally, we cannot continue this manipulation of the political system.
In addition to the reasons just given, we also are doing both of the above, halting the lawsuits against the companies file-sharing services and stopping our coercive political contributions, in an attempt to restore consumer confidence in the music industry. Our customers will know longer will feel guilty after buying a CD, now knowing that the proceeds from their purchases will not be used to support causes that harm them and their peers.
To further convince consumers that the proceeds from their music purchases are well spent, we will be attempting to treat our talent more fairly. At the core of this effort will be the halting of collusion between labels on recording contracts. While overlooked by anti-trust law, the elimination of competition caused by collusion is just as harmful to the producers of content as it is to the consumers. No longer will artists be forced into signing contracts which reduce artist''s royalties for a multitude of arbitrary or antiquated reasons for if any label attempts such abuse, they''ll be certain to lose their talent to a competitor. We believe that this can be undertaken without damaging industry profitability. Firstly, the previously mentioned reduced legal and political expenditures will help to offset the cost. Secondly, we plan fix the sobering statistic that nine out of ten industry ventures end up failing recovering their costs. This figure would be unacceptable outside the entertainment industry and, while it was viable inside it due to the abuse of artists, there is no reason it should not be possible to vastly improve upon it.
Finally, we promise to stop trying to brainwash the world into thinking of music as property, something that an artist has an innate right to control, even after the media that embodies that music has changed hands. Rather, we will recognized only the original goal of copyright law in America, to benefit the average citizen by creating a incentive to produce creative works. We will also launch a publicity campaign to remind the public of this principle, unknown to many. We hope that upon learning that the true purpose of copyright law is to benefit them, average citizens will be more likely to respect it.
It is our hope that these policy changes will revitalize the industry and make it deserving of the unique place it holds within American culture.
Maybe the EFF wrote it up for the hackers, and then they posted it :)
if you go HERE it would seeem that the RIAA has changed its mind. This article is more likely bogus since the RIAA was hacked again yesterday and can be seen HERE. Its still very funny to read.
Instead of the gun displaying the blue screen of death, it fires the gun
It's only time before you can purchase a Hilary Rosen RIAA iPod.
I think I need to clarify what I mean by scarcity in terms of computers and P2P.
Say there is a graphics company and they need photoshop. Without it they fail as a company. What happens when Adobe cannot produce anymore cds to put photoshop on because plastic has gotten to expensive and scarce. Within the internet and P2P networks there is no reliance on matrials. You could make an infinite amount of copies of software without cost or without plastic or other matrials. So in this sense scarcity no longer exsists. Sure computer bits aren't food, but what happens when ws do get that nanotechnology to reproduce it without the need of scarce matrials. Maybe what I'm really trying to answer is, how much compensation should a person or company get if they invent software. What is the initial cost, since reproduction is free. If there is a lot of supply, prices go down. Does this mean that prices go to zero since there is an infinite supply?
I've been reading how people are blaming the music industry for having an outdated business model, which I think is true. But is it the music industry's fault or is it that capitalism cannot handle the technology? What computers and P2P systems have eliminated is scarcity, the basic problem in economics. How will the economy handle technology that can replicate a physical object? Once people have the ability to make a copy of everything, does that mean we still need an economy.
Just some thoughts. I'm no economics major. I would like to know what the rest of you think?
It seems to me that this project will never work. There are to many forces at play. The elevator would probable snap in half do to all the strain. If we did manage to build it there would be a HUGE problem: Earth's rotation would slow down, forcing us toward the Sun. Imagine the Earth as an ice skater in rotation. The person keeps their arms close to their body to rotate fast. What happens when the person's arms raise away from their body? They slow down. It is a simple concept of centripetal acceleration. The elevator would act as an arm of the Earth, thus causing it to slow down.