offers instantaneous video delivery of professional media content, such as the latest popular music videos and movie trailers
It has video such as music videos and movie trailers.
Stripped of the hype and the usual misuse of "content" that's
what it is.
"Content" doesn't get delivered here; video does. Its content if any is another question. "Media content" is at best redundant but more likely means nothing. "Professional media content" means commercial; recorded for money, generally passed off as entertainment, more likely promotion.
You may watch video here. You may be entertained. Don't expect content. That's the short and sweet of it.
Space is so huge, and has so much stuff, and apparently so little life, that there's no reason for us to not use everything we can get our hands on
Oddly enough, that's exactly the plan that got us where we are today. The planet is ours to exploit! We'll never run out! Look, there's a whole New World, virtually untapped!
However this is all beside the point. The point is, you don't earn the right to spread out by trashing the place you have. And the argument that you need a new place because the one you have may be fragile, that conveniently ignores the major reason it's compromised, does not stand up to examination.
Exactly. The proposal is: establish multiple colonies of the species that needs it because it's so self-destructive.
So let's see: you trashed your apartment, so now you want to come live in my place?
How about this instead: a species gets the right to spread itself throughout the galaxy after it shows it takes good care of its home planet.
all it took was twelve years of overwhelming scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus on the effects of smoking long preceded public awareness. The tobacco industry ran the longest running, most expensive PR campaign in history to keep doubt alive.
They knew eventually it would fail, but it put off the day of reckoning for 30 years, and meanwhile the industry made about $100 billion a year in current dollars, and they liked those numbers.
Those numbers have presumably not escaped the notice of the extraction industries.
Consider a magazine with exactly one advertiser, entirely supported by that advertiser's dollars. These do exist. The "articles" are little different from the ads. The material identified as ads is at least presented honestly as persuasion, not information. The material identifed as articles is misrepresented as information when in fact it is persuasion.
Take a look at the helpful health video running in the waiting room at your eye doctor, dentist, etc. Same deal. They're not blurring the line, they're obliterating the line between advertising and information.
It will be no different in the supermarket. What advertising insiders call "short form programming" you will call ads.
If the entire video was identified as ads, it would at least be presented as what it is. But it won't be; half of it will be passed off as "information".
The result will be not just intrusive and annoying, it will be dishonest and misleading.
Business and entertainment content worth billions of dollars already flows...
No, the expression is worth that. The content has a different price tag, usually less, and is generally freely available. You can't copyright content, only expression.
Consumer advocates note that "credit cards may be the only consumer product on the market in which the terms of the deal can be arbitrarily changed by the seller after the sale is concluded"
Apparently RIAA is helping keep credit cards from being a unique product.
What this study's results reveal: the message is not getting through. We might reasonably conclude that this is as much about the WRITING as the reading.
I studied the homunculus and found that he matures at at 18. That's why maturity arrives in you at age 18.
In other words: this simply reeks of physiologizing. Maturity is a class of behaviors. If you want to know when it typically develops, get off your ass and measure that. What happens inside the skin adds nothing to the account.
What I find shocking: every reply I see in this thread implicitly concedes that use of a computer leaves the user open to accusations of theft of copyrighted material.
Why are we allowing this recording industry FUD to pass unchallenged?
OK, let me be the first to challenge it: using a computer, owning one, turning it on, are not evidence of a crime.
It is handy that this case has demonstrated the absurdity and ugliness of recent recording industry behavior.
But at no point should we be conceding that this leaves everyone who has used a computer somehow suspicious.
The fact is probably quite the other way around. My guess: most computer users have never listened to a recording for which they have not paid, or which does not otherwise fall into lawful use.
So why are we discussing this as if we conceded that computer use was a well known precursor to theft of intellectual property?
And by the way, I acknowledge that the recording industry owns its intellectual property, and that unauthorized distribution of same is theft, not "file sharing"; it's just plain theft, and I see no reason not to call a spade a spade here.
What I take exception to is the presumption that computer use is reason to suspect that theft.
And what I find shocking: I see not one/. reply in this thread that identifies this presumption. No, everything I'm seeing pretty much goes along with it.
Right you are. Language does evolve, and English perhaps more than most languages. I find Fowler had the insight here: some changes are to be celebrated, some regretted, and some are simply change.
IMO the rampart use of "content" to refer to little more than bits for sale is regrettable because it's something of a bait-and-switch. The existing meaning implies you get something in those bits. The new usage gets to slide on that.
But yes, in 75 years a "table of contents" may be an archaic form; what, bits have a table?
After 50 years of "promising" new drugs, the 5 year survival rate for lung cancer is almost the same today as it was 50 years ago: about 15%. Even the treatments that work at all, usually measure success as adding a few months to the end of life. And they are not fun months.
The good news: about 90% of lung cancer is completely preventable. We have a vaccine for lung cancer. We know how to drastically reduce lung cancer. We have a proven method: fighting the tobacco industry. And we can win.
This industry with "more money than God," this industry that makes its money by engineering its product as a drug delivery device and pushing it to 14 year olds with literally billions of dollars of slick promotion, we can beat this industry. The glamor that this indusry has bought for its product through its massive advertising and product placement and sports sponsorships, we can defeat that too.
The record shows that when we defeat this industry, we save far more lives than any cancer drug that's ever arrived or is likely to.
Example: over the last few decades, lung cancer rates in California have dropped 20%. (Source: California DHS). Imagine if you had a drug that completely cured, in fact prevented, 20% of all lung cancer -- and this drug was cheap, had no side effects, and as an added bonus also prevented a dozen other types of cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Now that would be some great drug. Well, this is no drug, it's California's anti-tobacco campaign. Prevention works.
Slashdot Mirror
Warner to sell recordings on DVD. Audio. Recorded music.
It has video such as music videos and movie trailers.
Stripped of the hype and the usual misuse of "content" that's what it is.
"Content" doesn't get delivered here; video does. Its content if any is another question. "Media content" is at best redundant but more likely means nothing. "Professional media content" means commercial; recorded for money, generally passed off as entertainment, more likely promotion.
You may watch video here. You may be entertained. Don't expect content. That's the short and sweet of it.
Of course. Two ships X and Y are both fundmentally unseaworthy. I dispute that Y is more seaworthy than X.
Glengarry Glen Ross
True. Most species will be fine. Ours is unlikely to be one of them. But then, why should it?
Oddly enough, that's exactly the plan that got us where we are today. The planet is ours to exploit! We'll never run out! Look, there's a whole New World, virtually untapped!
However this is all beside the point. The point is, you don't earn the right to spread out by trashing the place you have. And the argument that you need a new place because the one you have may be fragile, that conveniently ignores the major reason it's compromised, does not stand up to examination.
How about this instead: a species gets the right to spread itself throughout the galaxy after it shows it takes good care of its home planet.
A capability available on operating systems 30 years ago.
I guess those operating systems shipped on time.
Scientific consensus on the effects of smoking long preceded public awareness. The tobacco industry ran the longest running, most expensive PR campaign in history to keep doubt alive.
They knew eventually it would fail, but it put off the day of reckoning for 30 years, and meanwhile the industry made about $100 billion a year in current dollars, and they liked those numbers.
Those numbers have presumably not escaped the notice of the extraction industries.
No, all of it will be advertising.
Consider a magazine with exactly one advertiser, entirely supported by that advertiser's dollars. These do exist. The "articles" are little different from the ads. The material identified as ads is at least presented honestly as persuasion, not information. The material identifed as articles is misrepresented as information when in fact it is persuasion.
Take a look at the helpful health video running in the waiting room at your eye doctor, dentist, etc. Same deal. They're not blurring the line, they're obliterating the line between advertising and information.
It will be no different in the supermarket. What advertising insiders call "short form programming" you will call ads. If the entire video was identified as ads, it would at least be presented as what it is. But it won't be; half of it will be passed off as "information".
The result will be not just intrusive and annoying, it will be dishonest and misleading.
I've been waiting for a Microsoft OS with less holes for 24 years.
At this point one may reasonably ask whether to wait longer or look elsewhere.
Unless someone is throwing cartridges at us, games don't impact us.
What we might reasonably ask is how games affect us.
No, the expression is worth that. The content has a different price tag, usually less, and is generally freely available. You can't copyright content, only expression.
Apparently RIAA is helping keep credit cards from being a unique product.
What if it was a really fancy probe?
Sort-crossing. Category mistake. Eternally popular.
What this study's results reveal: the message is not getting through. We might reasonably conclude that this is as much about the WRITING as the reading.
Writing well is hard work.
Be nice to your readers. Do the hard work.
In other words: this simply reeks of physiologizing. Maturity is a class of behaviors. If you want to know when it typically develops, get off your ass and measure that. What happens inside the skin adds nothing to the account.
Why are we allowing this recording industry FUD to pass unchallenged?
OK, let me be the first to challenge it: using a computer, owning one, turning it on, are not evidence of a crime.
It is handy that this case has demonstrated the absurdity and ugliness of recent recording industry behavior.
But at no point should we be conceding that this leaves everyone who has used a computer somehow suspicious.
The fact is probably quite the other way around. My guess: most computer users have never listened to a recording for which they have not paid, or which does not otherwise fall into lawful use.
So why are we discussing this as if we conceded that computer use was a well known precursor to theft of intellectual property?
And by the way, I acknowledge that the recording industry owns its intellectual property, and that unauthorized distribution of same is theft, not "file sharing"; it's just plain theft, and I see no reason not to call a spade a spade here.
What I take exception to is the presumption that computer use is reason to suspect that theft.
And what I find shocking: I see not one /. reply in this thread that identifies this presumption. No, everything I'm seeing pretty much goes along with it.
They don't have to. The content is free. It's the expression that's copyrighted.
What he means, of course, is aggregators aren't paying for the articles, the news, the writing, the copy, the expression.
No reason to stop inhaling those anthrax spores! Enjoy! Ha ha!
So very funny. Or maybe not.
IMO the rampart use of "content" to refer to little more than bits for sale is regrettable because it's something of a bait-and-switch. The existing meaning implies you get something in those bits. The new usage gets to slide on that.
But yes, in 75 years a "table of contents" may be an archaic form; what, bits have a table?
BTW I second that call to break away from that computer and take a walk.
But there's no reason to pretend obesity is a killer just like tobacco. It's not even in the same league.
The good news: about 90% of lung cancer is completely preventable. We have a vaccine for lung cancer. We know how to drastically reduce lung cancer. We have a proven method: fighting the tobacco industry. And we can win.
This industry with "more money than God," this industry that makes its money by engineering its product as a drug delivery device and pushing it to 14 year olds with literally billions of dollars of slick promotion, we can beat this industry. The glamor that this indusry has bought for its product through its massive advertising and product placement and sports sponsorships, we can defeat that too.
The record shows that when we defeat this industry, we save far more lives than any cancer drug that's ever arrived or is likely to.
Example: over the last few decades, lung cancer rates in California have dropped 20%. (Source: California DHS). Imagine if you had a drug that completely cured, in fact prevented, 20% of all lung cancer -- and this drug was cheap, had no side effects, and as an added bonus also prevented a dozen other types of cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Now that would be some great drug. Well, this is no drug, it's California's anti-tobacco campaign. Prevention works.
You mean get Disney to release more media. Or entertainment. Or movies. Or shows. Or video. Or programming.
The content if any of Disney's programming is freely available. It's the expression that Disney owns.
Would you say "books that create content"?
How about "encylopedias that create content"?
How about newspapers? Radio stations? Newswire services? Trade rags?
In fact, none of them "create content". At most they display items that may have content of some sort.
It really doesn't help to confuse the messenger with the message, or the speaker with the messenger, or the message with the facts.