Again, I agree. It would be quite easy to justify larger advances in such a climate, and, being a geezer, I'd just as soon have it all now rather than piecemeal over the next fifty years.
As in all discussions regarding fixing Social Security, it comes down to the question: What does the transition look like?
I'm not advocating a copyright of 90 years. In fact, responding elsewhere in this thread, I indicated that I'd be happy to go along with a copyright of 14 years -- or none.
I don't expect the government to feed me; I expect those with whom I sign a contract for distribution of content to pay me. These publishers and studios have negotiated deals predicated upon the current term of copyright; what happens when we change that term on a Thursday afternoon, while simultaneously undercutting their ability to provide a secured means of distribution? I somehow doubt they will be sending me a check to cover the discrep...
Does digital distribution fundamentally affect distribution and the concept of copyright? Absolutely! I favor upgrading the means whereby all content is published (hopefully removing a number of fingers from the pie in the process) but none of the "radicals" have made it very clear to me how the money, once mailed in a check from Viacom or Houghton with a lovely itemization attached, will arrive after the Revolution.
Again, I don't expect the government to owe me a living, but being a bit anal retentive regarding finances, I just like to plan: will I be making more or less, for the same effort? Paid once, or intermittently over ten to fifty years? Hey, I'm open to suggestions, but all I seem to hear is "Screw the Distributors!" and, brother, that just doesn't fly with me.
Valenti's and Rosen's people have a legal covenant with the artists whose work they distribute to deliver it to consumers securely, on condition of payment. Can you fault them for being so rabid in this "Hack the Content!" climate?
If the coders want to rally around a project and make a difference, instead of tearing down the underpinnings of Copyright, might I suggest they devise a means whereby an MP3 or an MPEG file can be purchased online, "owned" by its purchaser insofar as he may make copies and transfer it on to multiple playback devices in his home, yet ensure that the file is non-transferrable to others across a network or through other consumer-accessible mass duplication processes. Now, THERE's your Holy Grail! Until that Grail is found, however, I tend to think that Distributors will continue to err on the side of short-changing Fair Use, and that consumers will continue to err on the side of theft.
...and the creators of the content who are making the stuff that's at the core of the firestorm will continue to scratch their heads...
Trolley cars were replaced by automobiles and buses. Writers, musicians and artists are being replaced by...? Civilization is moving beyond them to...?
Are writers and musicians over-paid? Is THAT your gripe? LOL!
(How's this post, Bunky? Short and un-wordy enough for you?)
I do not disagree with you. And would that the residuals from a single screenplay or story promise to feed me for the rest of my life! Maybe King or Clancy, at this stage in their careers, can claim that, but hardly any other scribe.
But I digress. The business as is, the payment schedules as currently contracted, assume longer copyright terms and secure transactions with consumers.
You say you want a Revolution? Well, alright, but give the industry an opportunity to develop compensations for the distribution structures which you would be tearing down. Bigger advances, a la bridge builders, in exchange for reduced residuals across digital platforms? I'm all ears!...but all anyone is showing me here is the hand that takes away, not the hand that gives.
I don't think Jefferson was too far off the mark in suggesting 14 years -- two-thirds of a generation -- as a valid copyright term. But knowing that every bit of money a creator is going to make on any given piece of content is going to be grossed in that fourteen year period will certainly change the timbre of the distribution deals cut.
Are the current distribution models for books, movies, and music bloated and archaic, in light of available digital technologies? IMO, yes. Both the movie and publishing industries are moving toward online distribution, and, as I mentioned in the previous post, the WGA HAS properly negotiated writer compensation for online distribution (the deal assumes some hacking of the downloads, by a factor of four times over DVD). But we're not there yet, and Happy-Boy there to whom I first responded, who is calling upon his coding brethren to rise up and tear down, just doesn't get it. He is as appreciated by the people creating the content he finds so valuable as is a hook by a fish.
In my utopia, we'd all be like the protagonist in K.W. Jeter's Farewell, Horizontal who syndicates his work with but a single, near-automated, middle-man. I think we are coming to that, and that it might even come to pass during my seven year-old's lifetime.
I am reminded of the punchline to the old joke: "What do you mean WE , paleface?"
Why do you not think there are "slashdotters" who stand to benefit from the DMCA? Do you think everyone on this board is a Linux SysAdmin born after 1980? Do you think everyone here receives stock options, a paid vacation, and a bi-weekly paycheck?
Were I to personally come across anyone working "actively towards creating a content distribution system that destroys copyright" I would wring his acne-encrusted neck. I have a family to feed, son.
Of the $181.5 million paid to Writer's Guild members last year, $55.8 million came from residuals in homevideo, DVD, and Pay TV. 50 percent of WGA members are unemployed at any given moment; it's the residuals that pay for the groceries half the time. That's the business. You cannot with a straight face tell me that pirated (or "shared," to use the euphemism popular on campus) content does not/will not eat into that. (The occasional Star Wars fanboy who waits in line for a week, buys tickets for three consecutive showings, and downloads it from a server in Hong Kong across an eight hour period the next day notwithstanding...)
You want to write software and give it away for free? Be my guest, Bunky, but what, if I may ask, do you do for a living?
Lookit, just because music or graphic art or poetry or a video game or a motion picture can be digitally cloned and distributed does not mean that the creator of that piece of art should not be reimbursed any less than a sculptor who creates a one-off.
Am I "anti-digital?" Do I not want you to be able to download your movie from the 'Net? Of course not! In fact, you probably can't find a writer in all of Hollywood who does not want to see distribution-by-download succeed: 1.2 percent of download revenues -- roughly four times that for Pay TV and DVD -- go to the writers, based upon a contract negotiated last year.
Barring compensation through residuals commensurate with worldwide instantaneous distribution, writers need to have their contracts re-negotiated so as to receive a larger lump sum up front. The studios don't want to go that route, fine; all the more reason they need to secure the conditional access for the downloading of the entertainment. Understand that if the MPAA demonstrated any apathy or laxness in this area every creative union in the country would be marching on Valenti's house with torches and pitchforks.
You talk about "The MPAA" and "Valenti" like they are cigar-chomping moguls in shark-skin suits out of some bad melodrama. Whom do you think they represent? Who do you think empowers them? The MPAA allows itself to be colored as The Bad Guy so that George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry's widow and Peter Jackson don't have to be. That would be bad for the brand...
You don't think copyrights should last 90 years. Okay. What would be a more reasonable tenure? Is one year not enough? Fifty years too much? Why? I will be fascinated to read your rationale.
If artists don't want the member organizations within the MPAA and RIAA to handle the distribution of their work, they will not sign a contract with them. If consumers do not want to pay the price for the entertainment set by the distributor contracted by the artist, then the consumer need not buy that entertainment. If enough consumers do this, then the distributors will begin setting prices lower and/or artists will seek out alternate (possibly more direct) means of distribution.
That's how it works. Anything else is robbery with a soundtrack provided by the churlish whining of spoiled children. I say so, and so does the US federal government. And if you think you are going to rally a critical mass of the (voting) electorate sufficient to change those laws, well, good luck. You'll need a much taller soapbox than SlashDot, that's for sure.
Not to mention a much more credible lobbying presence than the EFF...!
>And, remember, he's making this decision FOR YOU.
You may be right, but I think overall I am seeing a recognition by the editors in general that the "SlashDot community" is much more diverse, and of divergent opinions, than they could have ever imagined a few years ago. Presumably they recognize both the entertainment and financial value of cultivating this diversity further.
I am seeing fewer and fewer stories introduced in the "I feel this way and am a nerd so you must feel the same way, right?" fashion. More and more of the editors have adopted a "We cull the news, you decide" attitude, and that's a good thing.
That's not to say I expect to see any stories detailing the philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation here anytime soon, but that almost cliched SlashDot sound of one hand clapping is becoming noticeably less deafening.
Real Question here, not a troll: What problem philosophically do the SlashDot Editors, or SlashDot Community, have with a registration-required site? Why would this prevent its inclusion as a source for editors' stories?
Is this another one of those generational things, like "music must be free," that I've never quite been able to wrap my mind around?
I'm over forty, so explain it to me slowly...
Re:Waiting For Slashdot To Close
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
You don't want to use Visual Studio, don't use it. Don't begrudge the SlashDot crew the opportunity to make some money, however. Do you want to pay for the privelege of using this site, a la Salon? Didn't think so.
For this reason, I took it as a sign this place would be around for a while to come. Money makes the world go 'round, Ace. Count on the juvenile knee-jerk-anti-MS epithets to get modded into the sub-basement as Chairman Gates picks up more and more of the weekly pizza lunches. Small price to pay, I'm figuring.
Whoever thought up the idea of MS having a booth at Linux World is a friggin' genius, and is probably getting a big bonus right about now. You need look no further than today's WIRED [ http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,54489,00.ht ml ] to see the positive spin this is all getting from the mainstream tech press....and, what, you think only MS-hating Linux-geeks frequent SlashDot? It ain't 1999 anymore. If you've been paying attention, you'll note this site is going a bit more mainstream in both the tech-news, the news-news, and the membership's postings. And with C-NET, et. al. going bankrupt, more power to 'em!
The quote you italicized is not directed at you. That was not clear; my apologies. I have no pressing need to demonize anyone.
I am impartial regarding operating systems. I am, however, partial to good debates and discussions, and I seem to see less and less of that here when the topic has anything to do with Microsoft.
You expressed some disappointment up top about not being able to "write a simple Microsoft joke these days" without getting flamed. What I am suggesting is that those individuals who perhaps feel a little less passionately about their Operating Systems than do you are losing their sense of humor in this area, and there are more of them around here. As the number of SlashDot members grows (along with the number of non-tech stories that are posted), more and more will obviously be from the "general populace" -- the "jock" analogy you questioned. More "general populace" members brings more Windows users brings less tolerance for Windows-bashing.
Again, I apologize if it appeared as though I was referring to you personally when I lamented the maturity vacuum in many of the pro-Linux/anti-MS posts I see here.
Is it "trendy" to be pro-MS? That's such a pejorative term. If in fact your "research" is valid, then my guess -- again as an impartial observer -- is that it is just a reaction to the general juvenile mean-spirited whining that seems to characterize the lions' share of the pro-Linux posts. People who use Windows who frequent the board and really don't care one way or the other re Operating Systems are perhaps growing weary of the badinage. And since these posts all seem as though they are written by 14-year olds, these OS-neutral guys are, like, WTF, don't _you_ tell _me_ what kind of OS to use, punk!
Because no one likes to think they are being made fun of by 14-year olds.
If the anti-Linux backlash _is_ real here (and I'm really not convinced it is), and such turnabout is bothersome to you, my suggestion would be to keep the pro-Linux threads a bit more mature, technical, and positive. And for God's sake, if you want to be taken seriously, lay off the Bill Gates ad hominems!
Remember, also, to the credit of Commander Taco and his crew, this board has grown to the extent that it is way more than just "News for Nerds." This is reflected in both the type of stories posted and in the growing membership. More and more jocks are joining the Chess Club, so the timbre of the after-school meetings may start to change a bit...
Are you kidding? Jeez, talk about "touchy touchy...!"
As an impartial observer who couldn't give a rat's patootie about Operating Systems (Is there any more boring topic in all the world? I mean, for me and 88 ga-billion other people, it's "Does my Word Processor work? Does my Spreadsheet work? Yes? Good! Now get outta here, I got work to do..."), allow me to point out that any slack you perceive MS receiving on this board is purely the product of your over-caffeinated imagination.
The degree to which MS (and Bill Gates personally!) is slammed hereabouts is comical, boarding on Monty Python-esque. That's not to say the quality of the jibes is always worth the price of admission, but the sheer tsunami-level volume is usually good for a chuckle.
I hope for your sake, however, that the success of your Open Source Movement (did I get that right?) does not require many average joe's having to take these juvenile anti-MS tirades seriously, 'cause if so, it's doomed. With very few exceptions, it all looks like High School kids arguing over whose music is better, Britney Spears or MegaDeth.
("Britney Spears or MegaDeth" -- did I get that right?)
>how in the hell am I going to find music that I LIKE?
Jesus H. God, how did people live before the Internet?!?
Kid, I'm 42 years old, and you cannot imagine how soft, pampered, and whiney you sound. I'm not saying that I agree with all the tactics of the RIAA or MPAA, but please consider toning down the cry-babying if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who was out of diapers when MTV launched.
Nobody has a God-given or constitutional right to Entertainment. The forefathers bequeathed us a right to Pursue happiness, not have it necessarily dumped in our laps.
The copyright holders hold the copyrights because the artists have signed these over to them. The artists have signed these over to them because of the value (real or perceived) which the copyright holder brings to the relationship. Arguably the most important benefit is that of Distribution. A writer wants to get his book onto the shelves at B&N, a comic book artist wants to be grouped with a writer and get his work onto a newsstand. The copyright holders -- Houton-Mifflin, Marvel -- provide those means.
Digital distribution of encoded video and audio and subsequent grass roots distribution en masse across the 'Net threatens the core contribution that the copyright holder provides the artist. The copyright holder is justifiably scared. "If the artist can achieve global distribution to his audience on his own through the 'Net," the distributor worries, "what does he need me for?" And as a creator of content, I say, yeah, that's a good question.
But you rabid anti-**AA kooks are just as frightening to the artists as you are to the distributors! I personally think that most recording artists would be happy to forego traditional truck-and-jewelcase distribution in favor of a digital model. Unfortunately, the loudest noise from the anti-tradition side is not from anyone proposing any solution that ensures that Joe Sixpack will compensate the artist if Joe acquires a copy of his song/book/movie/picture. All the creator hears is "The **AA Sucks!" (Umm, yeah, he knows that already, much more clearly than you could possibly imagine) or the nails-on-blackboard sound of "Information Must Be Free!" or the clueless musings of computer science students speculating about how many free copies of a song or a poem he is entitled to distribute online.
Guys, The World is Not Against You. Take your fists out of the air and your feet out of your mouth long enough to get on the same page, and recognize that one single distribution scheme may not work for every artist. What makes sense for Britney Spears may not make sense for Trent Reznor or Mick Jagger, and what makes sense for David Weber ( http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/03/231423 2&mode=thread&tid=149 ) almost certainly does not work for Harlan Ellison (see below).
And for the sake of your cause, stop whining like spoiled children! Your background music and summer read is someone else's kid's college fund.
Sorry for the rant. If, however, you want more, I suggest you check out http://harlanellison.com/kick/kick_rls.htm
Nobody doles out a textual spanking like the legendary Mr. Ellison.
Re:Would you like to by an Atlas?
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 1
Pfft. And if Europeans wanted to be appear more cultured, they would bathe more regularly.
See? I can advance negative stereotypes as well as anyone. It's pretty cowardly, makes me look like a fourteen year old, and accomplishes nothing of value, but I can do it.
Stick to the topic, back up your views with some numbers, or give it a rest, mate. You'll find the tolerance level for prejudice pretty low on this board, among US and non-US posters alike.
Re:Would you like to by an Atlas?
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 1
Just answer the man's question and try to avoid the epithets.
But before you do, check out a story on the cover of today's (8/8) Wall Street Journal. That writer has already done the research -- for just about all the European countries -- and the numbers show that by no stretch of the imagination does the average Western European work nearly as much as the average American. It is so extreme that this "leisure culture" (which has only been in effect since the 1970's, apparently) is threatening Europe's ability to compete in the global economy. The article cites a number of companies who, rather than open new factories locally, have done so in places like Brazil and South Africa.
If someone wants to argue, on, say, a philosophical level, that it is better for us as a species to have more leisure, or that Europeans have a "better" culture than Americans becasue they work less, that's a valid debate.
But it is indisputable that, on the average, across the year, Americans work much harder than their European counterparts and that the American economy has been better as a result of it.
No worries, though, mate: The article also went into some detail about how various Europeans governments and unions, having recognized the problem, are in the process of reversing laws and policies gone awry post WWII. Y'all gonna be slaving away and keeping pace with Uncle Sam again real soon!
I think you would also find that the work place becomes more productive as well.
Spam then enters the realm of "legitimate" (paper) junk mail, which is to say, the junk mailer needs to think a bit harder about his recipients, and the junk mailer's client needs to take a more active effort in creating a viable mailing list.
They are the modern equivalent of a dot-friggin'-DIARY! They are DIARIES! Fourteen-year old girls have been keeping them and clutching them close to their self-important breast since Victorian times.
A class of software has come along that makes the keeping of a diary easy (a good idea, for those inclined to be diarists) and also publish them on the Web for all to see (an idea so absolutely fey and bizarre as to border on the incomprehensible to any heterosexual man born before 1965).
The only thing more amazing about the large group of people taking the time to document their day-to-day lives on the Web is the second large group of people who take time out of their day-to-day lives to read what the first group is writing. Let the circle-jerk be unbroken! Once admonished by family and counselor to "Get a Life!," these "early-adopters" have responded by stitching that life to their virtual sleeves. "Look, Ma! I've got an URL, and I'm getting 30 hits a day. I'm somebody! Aren't you proud of me, Ma?"
Guys, call me old fashioned, but I just don't care what a sysAdmin in Poughkeepsie had for breakfast, or how the barista on the late-shift in the third Tacoma Starbucks fared at his college reunion last week. There are just four or five thousand other sources for news and entertainment that I am likely to scope out first. What can I say?
I find some small solace by looking on the bright side: at least blogs are predominantly text/HTML. These bloggers could just as easily be training webcams on their cats and puppies, with the resulting bandwidth monopolization bringing the Internet -- and perhaps Western Civilization -- to a screeching halt.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I agree. It would be quite easy to justify larger advances in such a climate, and, being a geezer, I'd just as soon have it all now rather than piecemeal over the next fifty years.
As in all discussions regarding fixing Social Security, it comes down to the question: What does the transition look like?
I don't expect the government to feed me; I expect those with whom I sign a contract for distribution of content to pay me. These publishers and studios have negotiated deals predicated upon the current term of copyright; what happens when we change that term on a Thursday afternoon, while simultaneously undercutting their ability to provide a secured means of distribution? I somehow doubt they will be sending me a check to cover the discrep...
Does digital distribution fundamentally affect distribution and the concept of copyright? Absolutely! I favor upgrading the means whereby all content is published (hopefully removing a number of fingers from the pie in the process) but none of the "radicals" have made it very clear to me how the money, once mailed in a check from Viacom or Houghton with a lovely itemization attached, will arrive after the Revolution.
Again, I don't expect the government to owe me a living, but being a bit anal retentive regarding finances, I just like to plan: will I be making more or less, for the same effort? Paid once, or intermittently over ten to fifty years? Hey, I'm open to suggestions, but all I seem to hear is "Screw the Distributors!" and, brother, that just doesn't fly with me.
Valenti's and Rosen's people have a legal covenant with the artists whose work they distribute to deliver it to consumers securely, on condition of payment. Can you fault them for being so rabid in this "Hack the Content!" climate?
If the coders want to rally around a project and make a difference, instead of tearing down the underpinnings of Copyright, might I suggest they devise a means whereby an MP3 or an MPEG file can be purchased online, "owned" by its purchaser insofar as he may make copies and transfer it on to multiple playback devices in his home, yet ensure that the file is non-transferrable to others across a network or through other consumer-accessible mass duplication processes. Now, THERE's your Holy Grail! Until that Grail is found, however, I tend to think that Distributors will continue to err on the side of short-changing Fair Use, and that consumers will continue to err on the side of theft.
You don't get it.
You really, really don't get it, do you?
Trolley cars were replaced by automobiles and buses. Writers, musicians and artists are being replaced by...? Civilization is moving beyond them to...?
Are writers and musicians over-paid? Is THAT your gripe? LOL!
(How's this post, Bunky? Short and un-wordy enough for you?)
But I digress. The business as is, the payment schedules as currently contracted, assume longer copyright terms and secure transactions with consumers.
You say you want a Revolution? Well, alright, but give the industry an opportunity to develop compensations for the distribution structures which you would be tearing down. Bigger advances, a la bridge builders, in exchange for reduced residuals across digital platforms? I'm all ears!
I don't think Jefferson was too far off the mark in suggesting 14 years -- two-thirds of a generation -- as a valid copyright term. But knowing that every bit of money a creator is going to make on any given piece of content is going to be grossed in that fourteen year period will certainly change the timbre of the distribution deals cut.
Are the current distribution models for books, movies, and music bloated and archaic, in light of available digital technologies? IMO, yes. Both the movie and publishing industries are moving toward online distribution, and, as I mentioned in the previous post, the WGA HAS properly negotiated writer compensation for online distribution (the deal assumes some hacking of the downloads, by a factor of four times over DVD). But we're not there yet, and Happy-Boy there to whom I first responded, who is calling upon his coding brethren to rise up and tear down, just doesn't get it. He is as appreciated by the people creating the content he finds so valuable as is a hook by a fish.
In my utopia, we'd all be like the protagonist in K.W. Jeter's Farewell, Horizontal who syndicates his work with but a single, near-automated, middle-man. I think we are coming to that, and that it might even come to pass during my seven year-old's lifetime.
I am reminded of the punchline to the old joke: "What do you mean WE , paleface?"
Why do you not think there are "slashdotters" who stand to benefit from the DMCA? Do you think everyone on this board is a Linux SysAdmin born after 1980? Do you think everyone here receives stock options, a paid vacation, and a bi-weekly paycheck?
Were I to personally come across anyone working "actively towards creating a content distribution system that destroys copyright" I would wring his acne-encrusted neck. I have a family to feed, son.
Of the $181.5 million paid to Writer's Guild members last year, $55.8 million came from residuals in homevideo, DVD, and Pay TV. 50 percent of WGA members are unemployed at any given moment; it's the residuals that pay for the groceries half the time. That's the business. You cannot with a straight face tell me that pirated (or "shared," to use the euphemism popular on campus) content does not/will not eat into that. (The occasional Star Wars fanboy who waits in line for a week, buys tickets for three consecutive showings, and downloads it from a server in Hong Kong across an eight hour period the next day notwithstanding...)
You want to write software and give it away for free? Be my guest, Bunky, but what, if I may ask, do you do for a living?
Lookit, just because music or graphic art or poetry or a video game or a motion picture can be digitally cloned and distributed does not mean that the creator of that piece of art should not be reimbursed any less than a sculptor who creates a one-off.
Am I "anti-digital?" Do I not want you to be able to download your movie from the 'Net? Of course not! In fact, you probably can't find a writer in all of Hollywood who does not want to see distribution-by-download succeed: 1.2 percent of download revenues -- roughly four times that for Pay TV and DVD -- go to the writers, based upon a contract negotiated last year.
Barring compensation through residuals commensurate with worldwide instantaneous distribution, writers need to have their contracts re-negotiated so as to receive a larger lump sum up front. The studios don't want to go that route, fine; all the more reason they need to secure the conditional access for the downloading of the entertainment. Understand that if the MPAA demonstrated any apathy or laxness in this area every creative union in the country would be marching on Valenti's house with torches and pitchforks.
You talk about "The MPAA" and "Valenti" like they are cigar-chomping moguls in shark-skin suits out of some bad melodrama. Whom do you think they represent? Who do you think empowers them? The MPAA allows itself to be colored as The Bad Guy so that George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry's widow and Peter Jackson don't have to be. That would be bad for the brand...
You don't think copyrights should last 90 years. Okay. What would be a more reasonable tenure? Is one year not enough? Fifty years too much? Why? I will be fascinated to read your rationale.
If artists don't want the member organizations within the MPAA and RIAA to handle the distribution of their work, they will not sign a contract with them. If consumers do not want to pay the price for the entertainment set by the distributor contracted by the artist, then the consumer need not buy that entertainment. If enough consumers do this, then the distributors will begin setting prices lower and/or artists will seek out alternate (possibly more direct) means of distribution.
That's how it works. Anything else is robbery with a soundtrack provided by the churlish whining of spoiled children. I say so, and so does the US federal government. And if you think you are going to rally a critical mass of the (voting) electorate sufficient to change those laws, well, good luck. You'll need a much taller soapbox than SlashDot, that's for sure.
Not to mention a much more credible lobbying presence than the EFF...!
>And, remember, he's making this decision FOR YOU.
You may be right, but I think overall I am seeing a recognition by the editors in general that the "SlashDot community" is much more diverse, and of divergent opinions, than they could have ever imagined a few years ago. Presumably they recognize both the entertainment and financial value of cultivating this diversity further.
I am seeing fewer and fewer stories introduced in the "I feel this way and am a nerd so you must feel the same way, right?" fashion. More and more of the editors have adopted a "We cull the news, you decide" attitude, and that's a good thing.
That's not to say I expect to see any stories detailing the philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation here anytime soon, but that almost cliched SlashDot sound of one hand clapping is becoming noticeably less deafening.
Real Question here, not a troll: What problem philosophically do the SlashDot Editors, or SlashDot Community, have with a registration-required site? Why would this prevent its inclusion as a source for editors' stories?
Is this another one of those generational things, like "music must be free," that I've never quite been able to wrap my mind around?
I'm over forty, so explain it to me slowly...
You don't want to use Visual Studio, don't use it. Don't begrudge the SlashDot crew the opportunity to make some money, however. Do you want to pay for the privelege of using this site, a la Salon? Didn't think so.
t ml ] to see the positive spin this is all getting from the mainstream tech press. ...and, what, you think only MS-hating Linux-geeks frequent SlashDot? It ain't 1999 anymore. If you've been paying attention, you'll note this site is going a bit more mainstream in both the tech-news, the news-news, and the membership's postings. And with C-NET, et. al. going bankrupt, more power to 'em!
For this reason, I took it as a sign this place would be around for a while to come. Money makes the world go 'round, Ace. Count on the juvenile knee-jerk-anti-MS epithets to get modded into the sub-basement as Chairman Gates picks up more and more of the weekly pizza lunches. Small price to pay, I'm figuring.
Whoever thought up the idea of MS having a booth at Linux World is a friggin' genius, and is probably getting a big bonus right about now. You need look no further than today's WIRED [ http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,54489,00.h
The quote you italicized is not directed at you. That was not clear; my apologies. I have no pressing need to demonize anyone.
I am impartial regarding operating systems. I am, however, partial to good debates and discussions, and I seem to see less and less of that here when the topic has anything to do with Microsoft.
You expressed some disappointment up top about not being able to "write a simple Microsoft joke these days" without getting flamed. What I am suggesting is that those individuals who perhaps feel a little less passionately about their Operating Systems than do you are losing their sense of humor in this area, and there are more of them around here. As the number of SlashDot members grows (along with the number of non-tech stories that are posted), more and more will obviously be from the "general populace" -- the "jock" analogy you questioned. More "general populace" members brings more Windows users brings less tolerance for Windows-bashing.
Again, I apologize if it appeared as though I was referring to you personally when I lamented the maturity vacuum in many of the pro-Linux/anti-MS posts I see here.
You need to get a hobby, son.
Is it "trendy" to be pro-MS? That's such a pejorative term. If in fact your "research" is valid, then my guess -- again as an impartial observer -- is that it is just a reaction to the general juvenile mean-spirited whining that seems to characterize the lions' share of the pro-Linux posts. People who use Windows who frequent the board and really don't care one way or the other re Operating Systems are perhaps growing weary of the badinage. And since these posts all seem as though they are written by 14-year olds, these OS-neutral guys are, like, WTF, don't _you_ tell _me_ what kind of OS to use, punk!
Because no one likes to think they are being made fun of by 14-year olds.
If the anti-Linux backlash _is_ real here (and I'm really not convinced it is), and such turnabout is bothersome to you, my suggestion would be to keep the pro-Linux threads a bit more mature, technical, and positive. And for God's sake, if you want to be taken seriously, lay off the Bill Gates ad hominems!
Remember, also, to the credit of Commander Taco and his crew, this board has grown to the extent that it is way more than just "News for Nerds." This is reflected in both the type of stories posted and in the growing membership. More and more jocks are joining the Chess Club, so the timbre of the after-school meetings may start to change a bit...
Are you kidding? Jeez, talk about "touchy touchy...!"
As an impartial observer who couldn't give a rat's patootie about Operating Systems (Is there any more boring topic in all the world? I mean, for me and 88 ga-billion other people, it's "Does my Word Processor work? Does my Spreadsheet work? Yes? Good! Now get outta here, I got work to do..."), allow me to point out that any slack you perceive MS receiving on this board is purely the product of your over-caffeinated imagination.
The degree to which MS (and Bill Gates personally!) is slammed hereabouts is comical, boarding on Monty Python-esque. That's not to say the quality of the jibes is always worth the price of admission, but the sheer tsunami-level volume is usually good for a chuckle.
I hope for your sake, however, that the success of your Open Source Movement (did I get that right?) does not require many average joe's having to take these juvenile anti-MS tirades seriously, 'cause if so, it's doomed. With very few exceptions, it all looks like High School kids arguing over whose music is better, Britney Spears or MegaDeth.
("Britney Spears or MegaDeth" -- did I get that right?)
>how in the hell am I going to find music that I LIKE?
3 2&mode=thread&tid=149 ) almost certainly does not work for Harlan Ellison (see below).
Jesus H. God, how did people live before the Internet?!?
Kid, I'm 42 years old, and you cannot imagine how soft, pampered, and whiney you sound. I'm not saying that I agree with all the tactics of the RIAA or MPAA, but please consider toning down the cry-babying if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who was out of diapers when MTV launched.
Nobody has a God-given or constitutional right to Entertainment. The forefathers bequeathed us a right to Pursue happiness, not have it necessarily dumped in our laps.
The copyright holders hold the copyrights because the artists have signed these over to them. The artists have signed these over to them because of the value (real or perceived) which the copyright holder brings to the relationship. Arguably the most important benefit is that of Distribution. A writer wants to get his book onto the shelves at B&N, a comic book artist wants to be grouped with a writer and get his work onto a newsstand. The copyright holders -- Houton-Mifflin, Marvel -- provide those means.
Digital distribution of encoded video and audio and subsequent grass roots distribution en masse across the 'Net threatens the core contribution that the copyright holder provides the artist. The copyright holder is justifiably scared. "If the artist can achieve global distribution to his audience on his own through the 'Net," the distributor worries, "what does he need me for?" And as a creator of content, I say, yeah, that's a good question.
But you rabid anti-**AA kooks are just as frightening to the artists as you are to the distributors! I personally think that most recording artists would be happy to forego traditional truck-and-jewelcase distribution in favor of a digital model. Unfortunately, the loudest noise from the anti-tradition side is not from anyone proposing any solution that ensures that Joe Sixpack will compensate the artist if Joe acquires a copy of his song/book/movie/picture. All the creator hears is "The **AA Sucks!" (Umm, yeah, he knows that already, much more clearly than you could possibly imagine) or the nails-on-blackboard sound of "Information Must Be Free!" or the clueless musings of computer science students speculating about how many free copies of a song or a poem he is entitled to distribute online.
Guys, The World is Not Against You. Take your fists out of the air and your feet out of your mouth long enough to get on the same page, and recognize that one single distribution scheme may not work for every artist. What makes sense for Britney Spears may not make sense for Trent Reznor or Mick Jagger, and what makes sense for David Weber ( http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/03/23142
And for the sake of your cause, stop whining like spoiled children! Your background music and summer read is someone else's kid's college fund.
Sorry for the rant. If, however, you want more, I suggest you check out http://harlanellison.com/kick/kick_rls.htm
Nobody doles out a textual spanking like the legendary Mr. Ellison.
Pfft. And if Europeans wanted to be appear more cultured, they would bathe more regularly.
See? I can advance negative stereotypes as well as anyone. It's pretty cowardly, makes me look like a fourteen year old, and accomplishes nothing of value, but I can do it.
Stick to the topic, back up your views with some numbers, or give it a rest, mate. You'll find the tolerance level for prejudice pretty low on this board, among US and non-US posters alike.
Just answer the man's question and try to avoid the epithets.
But before you do, check out a story on the cover of today's (8/8) Wall Street Journal. That writer has already done the research -- for just about all the European countries -- and the numbers show that by no stretch of the imagination does the average Western European work nearly as much as the average American. It is so extreme that this "leisure culture" (which has only been in effect since the 1970's, apparently) is threatening Europe's ability to compete in the global economy. The article cites a number of companies who, rather than open new factories locally, have done so in places like Brazil and South Africa.
If someone wants to argue, on, say, a philosophical level, that it is better for us as a species to have more leisure, or that Europeans have a "better" culture than Americans becasue they work less, that's a valid debate.
But it is indisputable that, on the average, across the year, Americans work much harder than their European counterparts and that the American economy has been better as a result of it.
No worries, though, mate: The article also went into some detail about how various Europeans governments and unions, having recognized the problem, are in the process of reversing laws and policies gone awry post WWII. Y'all gonna be slaving away and keeping pace with Uncle Sam again real soon!
Absolutely! I agree completely.
I think you would also find that the work place becomes more productive as well.
Spam then enters the realm of "legitimate" (paper) junk mail, which is to say, the junk mailer needs to think a bit harder about his recipients, and the junk mailer's client needs to take a more active effort in creating a viable mailing list.
They are the modern equivalent of a dot-friggin'-DIARY! They are DIARIES! Fourteen-year old girls have been keeping them and clutching them close to their self-important breast since Victorian times.
A class of software has come along that makes the keeping of a diary easy (a good idea, for those inclined to be diarists) and also publish them on the Web for all to see (an idea so absolutely fey and bizarre as to border on the incomprehensible to any heterosexual man born before 1965).
The only thing more amazing about the large group of people taking the time to document their day-to-day lives on the Web is the second large group of people who take time out of their day-to-day lives to read what the first group is writing. Let the circle-jerk be unbroken! Once admonished by family and counselor to "Get a Life!," these "early-adopters" have responded by stitching that life to their virtual sleeves. "Look, Ma! I've got an URL, and I'm getting 30 hits a day. I'm somebody! Aren't you proud of me, Ma?"
Guys, call me old fashioned, but I just don't care what a sysAdmin in Poughkeepsie had for breakfast, or how the barista on the late-shift in the third Tacoma Starbucks fared at his college reunion last week. There are just four or five thousand other sources for news and entertainment that I am likely to scope out first. What can I say?
I find some small solace by looking on the bright side: at least blogs are predominantly text/HTML. These bloggers could just as easily be training webcams on their cats and puppies, with the resulting bandwidth monopolization bringing the Internet -- and perhaps Western Civilization -- to a screeching halt.