Re:Negative review, but not (intentional) flamebai
on
LOTR: The Two Towers
·
· Score: 1
After reading the original Faramir/Frodo/Sam conversation again last night, I remain convinced that it could be cut down to a manageable size. "But what about the jarring cuts between that and Helm's Deep?", I hear people cry. Well, make the Faramir scene shorter, put it earlier...and then put Shelob back in! I would have much rather seen this movie end on a great Empire Strikes Back note than the "Oooh, something bad is gonna happen!" ending we were given.
Someone needs to watch Clerks. Hint: "37" doesn't refer to Frodo's age.
Re:You're wrong, DS9 was not a great Star Trek ser
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 1
Churchill had to allow Coventry to be bombed by the Germans while knowing about it in advance in order to not reveal that they'd cracked the German code.
Captain Sheridan mentioned this exact same story on Babylon 5, when he had to decide whether to reveal the existence of the Shadows or not. He basically made the same decision, and sacrificed millions of lives so they would have more time to prepare for the upcoming war. And Sisko did what, killed one Romulan? Oh no!
You know all that stuff you like about Deep Space 9? Babylon 5 has it all...and then some. You have internal conflict in DS9? There's more in B5. Plus, there's no guarantee that any of the B5 characters will make it to the end of the series. None. Check it out, if your mind is open to more than Trek.
Oh really? What if the artist has to sell his guitar in order to pay the rent? What if he has to work two jobs to support the wife and kids, and isn't getting enough sleep? How is he going to make music then? By taking money away from the artist, you might be hindering his ability to make music.
The sort of artist who just wants to reach as big an audience as possible...understandably doesn't have a big problem with seeing their stuff on P2P networks. P2P networks are a way to reach a bigger audience; I don't think anybody can find a serious argument against that.
And that's fine...if the artist chooses to go that route. However, for other people to illegally distribute his music, and choose that route for him, is wrong. You can't justify it by saying, "Oh, but since most artists won't be successful anyway, I'm really helping them!"
But again, most small-label artists have day jobs and can get food in their stomachs anyway. Most would like the ability to make a living off of music, but that has been hard for small-time artists a long time before P2P networks were around.
And by having their music distributed for free on P2P networks, it's just that much harder.
Downloading copyrighted works illegally circumvents the free market, and is not part of it. Artists have a right to determine the scarcity of their work if they want to.
The label pays a portion to the artist (even though it may only be a small portion). Therefore, if you are hurting a label, you are also hurting the artist. You could argue that the artist doesn't care if they lose money, but that's pretty much a self-serving argument. Given the choice, most artists would choose to make money rather than not make money. Get it?
I'm just saying that the artists that are in it for the music instead of the money generally seem to not care all that much.
You're basically assuming your own conclusion, since by definition, an artist who "isn't in it for the money" won't care about money. However, you also assume that artists either care about the music, or they care about the money. Who says it can't be both? Everyone cares if they have food in their stomachs, so money is a necessary part of life. Following your logic, those artists must not care about music. Sorry, but that logic doesn't fly. Some artists really care about music, and they care if they are losing money. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, it's possible for an artist to be successful and make lots of money.
I agree completely.
My point (and Tim O'Reilly's point), is that the vast majority of people who engage in creative work won't be financially successful....
For these people having their work shared doesn't cost them anything, there is no real market to be attacked by the existance of free distribution.
There are several problems with your theory. First of all, there is no way to tell ahead of time which artists will be financially successful, and which will not. Even presuming that some artists will not have any financial success, you are hurting the other artists who would be financially successful by taking away potential buyers. If someone has a perfect digital copy of a song, there is less incentive (some would say none) for that person to go out and buy the CD.
Secondly, you are presuming that financial success is an either-or proposition. Either an artist will be financially successful, or he won't make any money off of his works. What about the artists who make some money off of their works? What about the artist who might only sell $1000 worth of CDs in a year, but since his songs are being shared on the internet, he only sells $600 instead? Sure, his fan base is bigger, but he's $400 poorer. Is it worth it to the artist? You'll have to ask him. You can't automatically presume that it is worth it, and therefore you should not be making that decision for him.
Instead, the free distribution can support word of mouth about the artist, increasing their fan base. Given that they have no real hope making money, most artists would rather have a larger fan base than a smaller one.
There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to start. Let's see...
1) That theory only applies to artists who wouldn't make any money off of their works, and there's no way to know that for certain. Maybe they would have made some money, but file sharing took that small amount of revenue away.
2) If you share files by all artists, then maybe it will help those who wouldn't have made any money. However, it also harms those artists who would have made money. Is helping some worth harming the others? I don't think so.
3) You're forgetting that if an artist doesn't think he'll ever make any money, he can choose to increase his own fan base by making his songs publicly available. Why should other people make that decision for him, when he can make that decision himself?
(And the larger fan base may eventually reach critical mass to support a full time career at it.)
I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the artist who had to sell his guitar to pay his rent. "Hey, you may be flat broke and starving, but look at the large fan base you have! Don't you want to start a full-time career now?" And then of course, he starts the full-time career...and sees his profits eaten away by piracy.
See the problem with your theory? You claim that piracy helps the little guy become more successful...but once he becomes successful, he starts making money, and the piracy damages his profits. Catch-22.
That leaves the most successful artists (that is, the minority). Will file sharing destroy them? Perhaps, but we don't know yet.
Again, it's not an either-or situation. It's not a question of will an author be destroyed or won't he. Maybe an artist won't be destroyed, but he'll make a little less money, he won't be able to afford some things, maybe he'll stop recording his songs when he can't balance his budget. But it is provable that software piracy does eat into the profits of some artists. I personally know someone who is very into music, but only owns about 10 CDs. He has tons of MP3s, however. If he couldn't pirate songs, maybe he wouldn't purchase all of them on CDs, but he would buy some of them. Thus, sales are lost.
Authors whose work is freely shared on the Baen Free Library [baen.com] actually see boosted in sales when a book is made freely available. Tim O'Reilly has noted that the free availability of his books on various sites has not significantly harmed his income.
Great! And if authors want to follow that same path, they are welcome to do so. However, no one should force them to make their works freely available.
Creating "art" is an insanely risky way to try and make a living. The vast majority of artists who try fail.
And with rampant piracy, that increases the likelihood that an artist will fail.
The more sane artists instead get a "real" job to support themselves while they try to build up a large enough fan base to support themselves.
And with piracy, there is more likelihood that they will be able to build up a fan base, but less likelihood that they will be able to support themselves.
My point is not that you should go make illegal copies of works. I strongly support purchasing legal copies from artists to support them. My point multifold: 1) Filesharing is not as dangerous and its made out to be. The actual damages appear to be far smaller than threatened. 2) Artists (both big and small) should seriously consider freely distributing some or all of their works to build up fans.
I agree. But that decision should be up to the artist, not the file swappers.
This must be why noone complains about overpriced cd's. People want to pay this much. Sounds logical to me.
People who are willing to pay for CDs pay that amount, and those who aren't, don't. The seller has the right to charge whatever he wants. Why is that so confusing?
Everybody deserves the right to charge for their work based on what they feel it is worth. If people pirate the music of others, then they are circumventing that right.
There's nothing wrong with expecting to make a living off music (or writing code, or books, or whatever), the problem arises when you expect to make millions off it.
So what's wrong with wanting to make millions? If there is a demand for a product or service you are providing, then what's the problem?
Some artists (most of the so-called nu-metal scene spring to mind) seem to be more interested in the money than the music, just like many dotcommers were more interested in the money than the technology. That's when it crosses the line between wanting economic security and petty greed.
Oh please. One man's economic security is another man's "petty greed." If you earn the money, then you have a right to it. Period. It's too easy to say, "Well, I have a right to what I earn, but that guy over there has too much money!" There is nothing wrong with making money. For every person who you point to and say, "That guy makes too much money," there is someone else who is saying the same thing about you.
Some artists just want to make music, and it'd be a bonus if it's enjoyed by lots of people. These tend to be the folks who don't give a flying fuck about their music being traded on P2P networks (although they often release through small labels, who are hit harder by filesharing than Sony and BMG -- let's face it, many filesharing fans don't buy what they've already downloaded).
Wow, you managed to contradict yourself all in the same sentence! Yes, artists want their music to be shared with others, but they also deserve to be paid if people listen to and enjoy that music. It's easy to download music and say, "Why are the artists complaining? They should just be happy that I'm listening to their music at all!" It's more difficult to be a starving musician who can't pay the rent that month, and seeing a huge legion of fans who say, "Wow, great music! I'm sure glad I didn't have to pay for it!"
Others want the fame, riches and glory associated with the popular media representation of a musician, and will happily sell their souls to the highest bidder to fulfill that particular dream.
And if souls are in demand, then they have a right to sell theirs.
Most of the music I listen to is published by small labels, and I don't use P2P because I want to help keep the small labels alive.
But you're here defending P2P networks, because artists "shouldn't care" if their files are shared? Hm, contradicting yourself again.
You seem to view artistry and making money as an either-or situation. It's not. Yes, I agree that artists have a passion for creation, and feel like they must create. However, they also live in the real world, and they realize that if they die of starvation, then they won't be able to create any more. Therefore, they try to earn money from their creations. Sure, they could give their creations away, and maybe get a larger fan base, but then they wouldn't make any money.
However, that doesn't mean that anyone who asks for money isn't a "real artist." And what about artists who are so talented, and have such a high demand for their products, that they end up making a lot of money as a result? Does that mena they aren't "real artists"? Does that mean that they don't deserve that money, because a "real artist" wouldn't have asked for payment? No. Contrary to what you may believe, artists do have a "make money or give away work" choice, and since most artists live in the real world, they have to make money based on their work. That doesn't mean that they aren't real artists; it just means that they are realistic, and not as idealistic. Ideally, an artist would be able to share all of his works with everyone for free, and still be able to live comfortably. Realistically, it doesn't happen.
Remember, just because you must do something, that doesn't also mean that you can't make money off of it. And it doesn't mean that, if they have the talent and the demand for their work, other people should feel free to go ahead and steal their works, since a "real artist" shouldn't care about money.
How exactly is being a musician any different from being a firefighter or a teacher?
They are the same thing. A firefighter makes what people are willing to pay him, just like a musician does.
There is a very bad precedent set, which says you will make bajilions of dollars if you become a famous musician.
Why is that a bad precedent? If famous musicians are making that much, then obviously that's what the free market has determined. Of course, for every famous musician, there are thousands and thousands of unsuccessful musicians, so you could hardly argue that musicians as a whole are overpaid.
I don't buy this argument about how Britney Spears has to pay bills which total 20 million dollars a year, or how Dr Dre has to have 5 mansions in Bahamas (and they still bitch about piracy).
Oh! I didn't realize that people are only allowed to make the minimum amount necessary to pay their bills. When did that law go into effect?
That's a simple case of overvaluation.
It's called a free market. It's called supply and demand. What you're talking about is the simple class envy that is permeating the country. Oh no, some people make more money than you do, and you think they're "overvalued"? Get over it. They're providing a service, and people are willing to pay more for that service. They deserve whatever they can get, just like everybody else.
After hearing the unabridged audiobook of Hitchhiker's read by Douglas Adams (fantastic, by the way...check out Audible.com if you want to buy it on MP3), I remainly firmly convinced that Mel Gibson should play Zaphod Beeblebrox.
And I agree with the idea of casting Tony Slattery as Ford Prefect. Brilliant.
Nothing is completely safe. There are risks associated with everything.
Yes, but some things are riskier than others. Most of the things you listed (train wreck, earthquake, meteorite, lightning) are things that A) have a very VERY low chance of occurring and B) are not caused by any particular action on the part of the victim. By contrast, HIV and AIDS are a much more common occurrence, and are mostly related to decisions that are made. If you avoid unsafe sex and shared needles, your risk of catching HIV goes down drastically. Just because life is full of risks, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't worry about things that we can prevent.
When it sounds like somebody's being absurd, ask them questions instead of assuming your interpretation is correct.
Okay, since it sounds like you're being absurd, I'll ask a question: If prevention is not the best way to stopping AIDS today, then what is? What other method of stopping AIDS exists, today, that is better than prevention?
You are absolutely right! Education doesn't work in all cases, so why bother with education at all? Not everyone chooses abstinence or safe sex, so why even recommend them? After all, if we can't guarantee that a solution will work 100% of the time, then why bother? All it will do is save millions of lives, but hey, what's the big deal?
Right now, education is the best way to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. If we ignore education while hoping for a cure, then we are risking millions of lives in the process.
Well, there are some of us who do have sex regularly, who have no chance of getting HIV. It's called monogamy with a non-infected partner. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are people who are "getting it" regularly who are not at risk.
I can't speak for the other two technologies you mentioned. However, since they were demo'ed by two other CEOs, I don't see how their non-existence can be used against Jobs.
As for the utility of Bluetooth synchronization, I think that being able to have your desktop database automatically update to your phone, wirelessly, sounds like a great idea! The other ones (onscreen notification of incoming calls, for example) are nice, but not as compelling.
When I was sold an iBook, part of the package was "free access to iTools" and "free updates as they become available". Nothing there said it was temporary....
Well, nothing said it was permanent either. You were never promised "lifetime access to iTools." And again, iTools access was not a specific part of your iBook purchase; it was simply an added benefit for Macintosh owners. Or to put it another way: If you buy a computer that says, "Lets you access your favorite web sites!", and then your favorite web sites disappear, are you going to complain to the computer manufacturer that those web sites were "part of the package"?
When I was sold an iBook, I was given three coupons for free upgrades to the operating system. Part of my concern was that it is a young operating system. I was repeatedly reassured that these coupons were my ticket for free upgrades.
Apparently you were misinformed. That is unfortunate. Hopefully Apple will train its salespeople better in the future.
Mac OS X 10.1.5 is not self-contained. The operating system is not complete and fully stable.
You are obviously using some definition of the word "self-contained" that I am unaware of. No operating system will ever be fully stable. However, as of right now, it is self-contained in that it does not require anything external to continue working. You admit that it works "fairly well," so what's the problem? Printer updates will also probably be made available. Those are independent from the OS version.
But, while 10.1.5 may not be self-contained, 10.1.5 with a commitment to upgrades as they become available is self contained. This is what I have lost.
Again, I find it hard to believe that you were promised unlimited free upgrades. Bug fixes and new features often go hand in hand, simply because it would be impossible to test all bug fixes without any of the new applications and features built in. Apple has to live in the real world, just like the rest of us.
What I object to is that Apple changed their deal with me after I committed.
Again, what "deal"? Your imaginary "deal" where Apple promises to make online services free for life? Where Apple promises to distribute free software updates until your OS is "complete and fully stable"? Sorry, but life doesn't work that way.
I was sold on the idea that Apple takes care of its customers, and that everything "just works" and that there are "no surprises".
Apple does take care of its customers. However, it is naive to imagine that they would take care of all customers indefinitely, for free.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading the original Faramir/Frodo/Sam conversation again last night, I remain convinced that it could be cut down to a manageable size. "But what about the jarring cuts between that and Helm's Deep?", I hear people cry. Well, make the Faramir scene shorter, put it earlier...and then put Shelob back in! I would have much rather seen this movie end on a great Empire Strikes Back note than the "Oooh, something bad is gonna happen!" ending we were given.
Someone needs to watch Clerks. Hint: "37" doesn't refer to Frodo's age.
Churchill had to allow Coventry to be bombed by the Germans while knowing about it in advance in order to not reveal that they'd cracked the German code.
Captain Sheridan mentioned this exact same story on Babylon 5, when he had to decide whether to reveal the existence of the Shadows or not. He basically made the same decision, and sacrificed millions of lives so they would have more time to prepare for the upcoming war. And Sisko did what, killed one Romulan? Oh no!
You know all that stuff you like about Deep Space 9? Babylon 5 has it all...and then some. You have internal conflict in DS9? There's more in B5. Plus, there's no guarantee that any of the B5 characters will make it to the end of the series. None. Check it out, if your mind is open to more than Trek.
You're not taking away his ability to make music.
Oh really? What if the artist has to sell his guitar in order to pay the rent? What if he has to work two jobs to support the wife and kids, and isn't getting enough sleep? How is he going to make music then? By taking money away from the artist, you might be hindering his ability to make music.
The sort of artist who just wants to reach as big an audience as possible...understandably doesn't have a big problem with seeing their stuff on P2P networks. P2P networks are a way to reach a bigger audience; I don't think anybody can find a serious argument against that.
And that's fine...if the artist chooses to go that route. However, for other people to illegally distribute his music, and choose that route for him, is wrong. You can't justify it by saying, "Oh, but since most artists won't be successful anyway, I'm really helping them!"
But again, most small-label artists have day jobs and can get food in their stomachs anyway. Most would like the ability to make a living off of music, but that has been hard for small-time artists a long time before P2P networks were around.
And by having their music distributed for free on P2P networks, it's just that much harder.
Downloading copyrighted works illegally circumvents the free market, and is not part of it. Artists have a right to determine the scarcity of their work if they want to.
The label pays a portion to the artist (even though it may only be a small portion). Therefore, if you are hurting a label, you are also hurting the artist. You could argue that the artist doesn't care if they lose money, but that's pretty much a self-serving argument. Given the choice, most artists would choose to make money rather than not make money. Get it?
I'm just saying that the artists that are in it for the music instead of the money generally seem to not care all that much.
You're basically assuming your own conclusion, since by definition, an artist who "isn't in it for the money" won't care about money. However, you also assume that artists either care about the music, or they care about the money. Who says it can't be both? Everyone cares if they have food in their stomachs, so money is a necessary part of life. Following your logic, those artists must not care about music. Sorry, but that logic doesn't fly. Some artists really care about music, and they care if they are losing money. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, it's possible for an artist to be successful and make lots of money.
...
For these people having their work shared doesn't cost them anything, there is no real market to be attacked by the existance of free distribution.
I agree completely.
My point (and Tim O'Reilly's point), is that the vast majority of people who engage in creative work won't be financially successful.
There are several problems with your theory. First of all, there is no way to tell ahead of time which artists will be financially successful, and which will not. Even presuming that some artists will not have any financial success, you are hurting the other artists who would be financially successful by taking away potential buyers. If someone has a perfect digital copy of a song, there is less incentive (some would say none) for that person to go out and buy the CD.
Secondly, you are presuming that financial success is an either-or proposition. Either an artist will be financially successful, or he won't make any money off of his works. What about the artists who make some money off of their works? What about the artist who might only sell $1000 worth of CDs in a year, but since his songs are being shared on the internet, he only sells $600 instead? Sure, his fan base is bigger, but he's $400 poorer. Is it worth it to the artist? You'll have to ask him. You can't automatically presume that it is worth it, and therefore you should not be making that decision for him.
Instead, the free distribution can support word of mouth about the artist, increasing their fan base. Given that they have no real hope making money, most artists would rather have a larger fan base than a smaller one.
There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to start. Let's see...
1) That theory only applies to artists who wouldn't make any money off of their works, and there's no way to know that for certain. Maybe they would have made some money, but file sharing took that small amount of revenue away.
2) If you share files by all artists, then maybe it will help those who wouldn't have made any money. However, it also harms those artists who would have made money. Is helping some worth harming the others? I don't think so.
3) You're forgetting that if an artist doesn't think he'll ever make any money, he can choose to increase his own fan base by making his songs publicly available. Why should other people make that decision for him, when he can make that decision himself?
(And the larger fan base may eventually reach critical mass to support a full time career at it.)
I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the artist who had to sell his guitar to pay his rent. "Hey, you may be flat broke and starving, but look at the large fan base you have! Don't you want to start a full-time career now?" And then of course, he starts the full-time career...and sees his profits eaten away by piracy.
See the problem with your theory? You claim that piracy helps the little guy become more successful...but once he becomes successful, he starts making money, and the piracy damages his profits. Catch-22.
That leaves the most successful artists (that is, the minority). Will file sharing destroy them? Perhaps, but we don't know yet.
Again, it's not an either-or situation. It's not a question of will an author be destroyed or won't he. Maybe an artist won't be destroyed, but he'll make a little less money, he won't be able to afford some things, maybe he'll stop recording his songs when he can't balance his budget. But it is provable that software piracy does eat into the profits of some artists. I personally know someone who is very into music, but only owns about 10 CDs. He has tons of MP3s, however. If he couldn't pirate songs, maybe he wouldn't purchase all of them on CDs, but he would buy some of them. Thus, sales are lost.
Authors whose work is freely shared on the Baen Free Library [baen.com] actually see boosted in sales when a book is made freely available. Tim O'Reilly has noted that the free availability of his books on various sites has not significantly harmed his income.
Great! And if authors want to follow that same path, they are welcome to do so. However, no one should force them to make their works freely available.
Creating "art" is an insanely risky way to try and make a living. The vast majority of artists who try fail.
And with rampant piracy, that increases the likelihood that an artist will fail.
The more sane artists instead get a "real" job to support themselves while they try to build up a large enough fan base to support themselves.
And with piracy, there is more likelihood that they will be able to build up a fan base, but less likelihood that they will be able to support themselves.
My point is not that you should go make illegal copies of works. I strongly support purchasing legal copies from artists to support them. My point multifold: 1) Filesharing is not as dangerous and its made out to be. The actual damages appear to be far smaller than threatened. 2) Artists (both big and small) should seriously consider freely distributing some or all of their works to build up fans.
I agree. But that decision should be up to the artist, not the file swappers.
This must be why noone complains about overpriced cd's. People want to pay this much. Sounds logical to me.
People who are willing to pay for CDs pay that amount, and those who aren't, don't. The seller has the right to charge whatever he wants. Why is that so confusing?
Everybody deserves the right to charge for their work based on what they feel it is worth. If people pirate the music of others, then they are circumventing that right.
There's nothing wrong with expecting to make a living off music (or writing code, or books, or whatever), the problem arises when you expect to make millions off it.
So what's wrong with wanting to make millions? If there is a demand for a product or service you are providing, then what's the problem?
Some artists (most of the so-called nu-metal scene spring to mind) seem to be more interested in the money than the music, just like many dotcommers were more interested in the money than the technology. That's when it crosses the line between wanting economic security and petty greed.
Oh please. One man's economic security is another man's "petty greed." If you earn the money, then you have a right to it. Period. It's too easy to say, "Well, I have a right to what I earn, but that guy over there has too much money!" There is nothing wrong with making money. For every person who you point to and say, "That guy makes too much money," there is someone else who is saying the same thing about you.
Some artists just want to make music, and it'd be a bonus if it's enjoyed by lots of people. These tend to be the folks who don't give a flying fuck about their music being traded on P2P networks (although they often release through small labels, who are hit harder by filesharing than Sony and BMG -- let's face it, many filesharing fans don't buy what they've already downloaded).
Wow, you managed to contradict yourself all in the same sentence! Yes, artists want their music to be shared with others, but they also deserve to be paid if people listen to and enjoy that music. It's easy to download music and say, "Why are the artists complaining? They should just be happy that I'm listening to their music at all!" It's more difficult to be a starving musician who can't pay the rent that month, and seeing a huge legion of fans who say, "Wow, great music! I'm sure glad I didn't have to pay for it!"
Others want the fame, riches and glory associated with the popular media representation of a musician, and will happily sell their souls to the highest bidder to fulfill that particular dream.
And if souls are in demand, then they have a right to sell theirs.
Most of the music I listen to is published by small labels, and I don't use P2P because I want to help keep the small labels alive.
But you're here defending P2P networks, because artists "shouldn't care" if their files are shared? Hm, contradicting yourself again.
You seem to view artistry and making money as an either-or situation. It's not. Yes, I agree that artists have a passion for creation, and feel like they must create. However, they also live in the real world, and they realize that if they die of starvation, then they won't be able to create any more. Therefore, they try to earn money from their creations. Sure, they could give their creations away, and maybe get a larger fan base, but then they wouldn't make any money.
However, that doesn't mean that anyone who asks for money isn't a "real artist." And what about artists who are so talented, and have such a high demand for their products, that they end up making a lot of money as a result? Does that mena they aren't "real artists"? Does that mean that they don't deserve that money, because a "real artist" wouldn't have asked for payment? No. Contrary to what you may believe, artists do have a "make money or give away work" choice, and since most artists live in the real world, they have to make money based on their work. That doesn't mean that they aren't real artists; it just means that they are realistic, and not as idealistic. Ideally, an artist would be able to share all of his works with everyone for free, and still be able to live comfortably. Realistically, it doesn't happen.
Remember, just because you must do something, that doesn't also mean that you can't make money off of it. And it doesn't mean that, if they have the talent and the demand for their work, other people should feel free to go ahead and steal their works, since a "real artist" shouldn't care about money.
How exactly is being a musician any different from being a firefighter or a teacher?
They are the same thing. A firefighter makes what people are willing to pay him, just like a musician does.
There is a very bad precedent set, which says you will make bajilions of dollars if you become a famous musician.
Why is that a bad precedent? If famous musicians are making that much, then obviously that's what the free market has determined. Of course, for every famous musician, there are thousands and thousands of unsuccessful musicians, so you could hardly argue that musicians as a whole are overpaid.
I don't buy this argument about how Britney Spears has to pay bills which total 20 million dollars a year, or how Dr Dre has to have 5 mansions in Bahamas (and they still bitch about piracy).
Oh! I didn't realize that people are only allowed to make the minimum amount necessary to pay their bills. When did that law go into effect?
That's a simple case of overvaluation.
It's called a free market. It's called supply and demand. What you're talking about is the simple class envy that is permeating the country. Oh no, some people make more money than you do, and you think they're "overvalued"? Get over it. They're providing a service, and people are willing to pay more for that service. They deserve whatever they can get, just like everybody else.
After hearing the unabridged audiobook of Hitchhiker's read by Douglas Adams (fantastic, by the way...check out Audible.com if you want to buy it on MP3), I remainly firmly convinced that Mel Gibson should play Zaphod Beeblebrox.
And I agree with the idea of casting Tony Slattery as Ford Prefect. Brilliant.
Hm. Sounds like an image ploy to me.
From TRON to Babylon 5. .
That's what I thought.
Nothing is completely safe. There are risks associated with everything.
Yes, but some things are riskier than others. Most of the things you listed (train wreck, earthquake, meteorite, lightning) are things that A) have a very VERY low chance of occurring and B) are not caused by any particular action on the part of the victim. By contrast, HIV and AIDS are a much more common occurrence, and are mostly related to decisions that are made. If you avoid unsafe sex and shared needles, your risk of catching HIV goes down drastically. Just because life is full of risks, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't worry about things that we can prevent.
When it sounds like somebody's being absurd, ask them questions instead of assuming your interpretation is correct.
Okay, since it sounds like you're being absurd, I'll ask a question: If prevention is not the best way to stopping AIDS today, then what is? What other method of stopping AIDS exists, today, that is better than prevention?
You are absolutely right! Education doesn't work in all cases, so why bother with education at all? Not everyone chooses abstinence or safe sex, so why even recommend them? After all, if we can't guarantee that a solution will work 100% of the time, then why bother? All it will do is save millions of lives, but hey, what's the big deal?
Right now, education is the best way to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. If we ignore education while hoping for a cure, then we are risking millions of lives in the process.
Well, there are some of us who do have sex regularly, who have no chance of getting HIV. It's called monogamy with a non-infected partner. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are people who are "getting it" regularly who are not at risk.
So, where can we find this 3D OpenGL teapot demo?
I can't speak for the other two technologies you mentioned. However, since they were demo'ed by two other CEOs, I don't see how their non-existence can be used against Jobs.
As for the utility of Bluetooth synchronization, I think that being able to have your desktop database automatically update to your phone, wirelessly, sounds like a great idea! The other ones (onscreen notification of incoming calls, for example) are nice, but not as compelling.
When I was sold an iBook, part of the package was "free access to iTools" and "free updates as they become available". Nothing there said it was temporary....
Well, nothing said it was permanent either. You were never promised "lifetime access to iTools." And again, iTools access was not a specific part of your iBook purchase; it was simply an added benefit for Macintosh owners. Or to put it another way: If you buy a computer that says, "Lets you access your favorite web sites!", and then your favorite web sites disappear, are you going to complain to the computer manufacturer that those web sites were "part of the package"?
When I was sold an iBook, I was given three coupons for free upgrades to the operating system. Part of my concern was that it is a young operating system. I was repeatedly reassured that these coupons were my ticket for free upgrades.
Apparently you were misinformed. That is unfortunate. Hopefully Apple will train its salespeople better in the future.
Mac OS X 10.1.5 is not self-contained. The operating system is not complete and fully stable.
You are obviously using some definition of the word "self-contained" that I am unaware of. No operating system will ever be fully stable. However, as of right now, it is self-contained in that it does not require anything external to continue working. You admit that it works "fairly well," so what's the problem? Printer updates will also probably be made available. Those are independent from the OS version.
But, while 10.1.5 may not be self-contained, 10.1.5 with a commitment to upgrades as they become available is self contained. This is what I have lost.
Again, I find it hard to believe that you were promised unlimited free upgrades. Bug fixes and new features often go hand in hand, simply because it would be impossible to test all bug fixes without any of the new applications and features built in. Apple has to live in the real world, just like the rest of us.
What I object to is that Apple changed their deal with me after I committed.
Again, what "deal"? Your imaginary "deal" where Apple promises to make online services free for life? Where Apple promises to distribute free software updates until your OS is "complete and fully stable"? Sorry, but life doesn't work that way.
I was sold on the idea that Apple takes care of its customers, and that everything "just works" and that there are "no surprises".
Apple does take care of its customers. However, it is naive to imagine that they would take care of all customers indefinitely, for free.
Naive? Maybe.
My sentiments exactly.
Excuse me? Exactly which iMac has an LCD in a CRT case? Do you even know anything about Macs?