I understand that they got hold of an old Mac (circa 1986 or so) and Scotty, who spoke into the mouse, and hit a few keys. Immediately a rotating 3D representation of the formula appeared on the screen. It was a lot simpler than having to actually work it out for themselves.
There, fixed that for ya.
Dude, I could have mentioned Scotty, but there's no point in making a Star Trek reference be too obvious. Anyone that is in to Star Trek will get it and besides, you want people to have to think a little bit. More importantly, from an entertainment perspective, there are the more literal-minded folks here on Slashdot who just don't get it, and take you seriously. They go off explaining about how Apple Macintoshes from that era didn't have voice recognition and how you wouldn't talk into the mouse anyway and besides those old Macs didn't have the processing power to render the imagery shown in the movie. That's the kind of response I was hoping for, because it lets me feel powerful and important, given my obviously superior knowledge of Trek lore.
The problem here is that the RIAA is nothing but a figurehead, a lightning rod, a distraction, that draws the ire of all concerned and keeps us from recognizing the true enemy. What is the RIAA? What does it actually do? The RIAA has no business model, manufactures no product, produces no music, and sells nothing (other than a nice line of baloney.) They used to help define audio standards way back when (anyone remember the RIAA compensation curve?) That was then: today they are merely footsoldiers in the old-line publishers' ongoing battle to maintain the status-quo ante. In other words, it is the organizations for whom they work that need to make some changes: the RIAA can and will keep this up until their corporate masters issue new marching orders.
The RIAA is an ugly entity, to be sure, but like any weapon it can only shoot where it's pointed. The problem is the big content producers and rightsholders, who have proven themselves, time and time again, willing to go to any lengths to preserve their distribution system.
Your focus on trade is a red herring. Trade makes both participants richer. Otherwise, they wouldn't trade. Artificially limiting trade makes people poorer.
I disagree. That's too simplistic an answer, really. You only have to look at the current situation between China and the United States. The net effect of our trading with China, to date, has been their getting richer and our getting poorer. In essence we have a massive transfer of wealth to China, in exchange for... what, exactly? That's the question that nobody seems willing to answer, although we all know what it is. NOTHING. And no, what's on the shelf at Wal-mart doesn't count.
You are assuming that "trade" is automatically equitable and of benefit to both parties. That's a dangerous assumption. Interestingly enough, truly "free" trade among nations invariably results in one or more parties being completely screwed by another. Put it this way: free trade is like depending, for your very life, on another man's better nature.
Now that's risky... because he might not have one. You're better off having some defenses in place.
I tend to agree. Historically, large corporate dinosaurs rarely manage to successfully adapt to major phase changes in their core businesses. They're risk-averse statists by definition and change is conceptually foreign to them, because change involves the potential for failure. When you have stockholders who are accustomed to a certain level of return, you don't want to take risks because your investors might get nervous and take their money elsewhere. That encourages stability, but at the cost of flexibility.
Inevitably though, progress happens (that's even more true in the age of the Global Economy) and the old-line organizations will either progress with the rest of us, or become marginalized. Modern technology won't put them out of business, at least not in the near term (in spite of all the so-called "piracy" going on, in spite of all their plaintive cries of "it will destroy the industry" these people are turning profits that would make the CEOs of many more respectable corporations blush!) but it will sideline them, make them less important, less relevant to us. They really don't want that, and if they can survive this and still manage to come out on top it will be a neat trick. I'm not counting the big studios out, just yet, but their time to get with the program is limited.
Even so, I think many of the problems with music and movie sales have to do with competition for our spare time. We're all working longer hours than ever before, have less time to ourselves, and have so many things competing for our remaining attention span (Internet, cellphones, texting, instant messaging, cable TV, video games, all the other things people spend their free time on nowadays.) There's very little the media companies will be able to do about that... except maybe make their products more attractive to us so we'll see more reason to buy or watch them rather than, say browse the Web or chat with our friends.
What is ultimately failing here is the "shove it down the consumer's throat and he'll take it because he doesn't have anywhere else to go" business method. We have plenty of other places to go for entertainment, now. If we can't have music because it's a. unappealing or b. too expensive... we'll find something else to do.
I had a relative who was badly injured in a crash with a Chinese gentleman who, it turned out later in court, had a fake insurance card and was in the country illegally. He also brought a translator to court with him to the initial hearing, claiming he only spoke Mandarin. My relative's attorney pointed out that, as a matter of record, the man had successfully answered the police in English when questioned immediately after the accident (from which he walked away uninjured, I might add.) The judge took a very dim view of everything the man said after that, and as it turned out he skipped back to China before the next court date. So, no chance of getting any reparations out of him.
In any event, this dimbulb plowed into her car and totaled it (as in ball of jagged metal, Jaws of Life and all that... she still suffers from her injuries and this happened almost ten years ago.) In the meantime, the auto insurance company (I won't say who it is but it's one of the biggest) refused to pay any of her medical bills, even though it was clearly in the contract. They even brought in an "expert witness" who claimed that the pain she was suffering was in no way related to the accident, even though all the painkillers she was taking were not prescribed until after the accident. She was out an incredible amount of money for physical therapy, drugs, and other treatments and had her credit rating destroyed.
She persisted though, and when it finally came to court a couple years later the judge was furious and told the insurance company lawyers to "Pay the woman!" So in the end she got a decent settlement, but had to go through a few years of abject misery because the damn insurance company refused to honor its agreement. They got to hold on to her money for a few extra years.
One thing they got was the minimum payments on your credit card is doubled so if someone might be having trouble making payments they now will certainly be delinquent and that will get the interest rate jacked up to 30%.
Usury (or at least, grandly unethical behavior or one kind or another) is surprising in its scope nowadays. Sound banking principles have gone right out the window, and groups like the RIAA are springing up in every industry. What is wrong with this country anyways? Where did we go wrong? The answer to that is complex (anything involving hundreds of millions of people is complex) but a lot of it can be traced back to Congress, and our inability to keep those corrupt little bloodsuckers in check. Oh, they're not all bad, but it doesn't take all of them to screw things up for the rest of us.
I understand that they got hold of an old Mac (circa 1986 or so), spoke into the mouse, and hit a few keys. Immediately a rotating 3D representation of the formula appeared on the screen.
It was a lot simpler than having to actually work it out for themselves.
You know, I'd like answers to a few questions that seem germane to this thread. I'm sure that all of you can help me out here.
1. Given that we are experiencing a continuously falling standard of living, a rapidly shrinking middle class, increased economic insecurity, and substantial dependence upon inimical foreign powers, how is America's participation in the Global Economy of benefit... to America? Is that participation worth what we are giving up in the process?
2. How does any nation which willingly disposes of its manufacturing sector and transitions to a "service economy" sustain itself and its people?
3. What the hell is a "service economy", anyway? When carried to its logical conclusion (e.g. minimal manufacturing and creation of wealth) is it not synonymous with "third world economy"?
Well, while I agree that recording technology has come a loooooong way in the past couple of decades, and there's much more capability available for a fraction of the traditional cost, don't discount the contribution of a recording engineer. The reality is this: it does take a lot of expertise to properly mix a complex recording. It's damn near as much of an art as producing music, and is an inextricable part of the process anyway.
Other than that, I tend to agree with you. Engineers and studio time are readily available, should one feel the need. It's not like the big studios have a monopoly on technical talent. Any way you slice it, there's no reason to go sign away your future to a bunch of pricks.
True enough, but what if you have a driver who is perfectly competent, in a top-of-the-line automobile traveling at high speed, and seriously out to get you?
I'll take the dangerous incompetent in either case, thank you very much. If he's a bumblefuck, while he'll try to get me... he might miss.
Use a straight Gnutella client. Take Phex, for example... it's open source, GPL'ed, available from SourceForge. It asks you on installation if you want to share anything: just say "No".
Well, as others have pointed out it's better (from a civil liberties perspective) to have these people be wasteful and incompetent than highly effective and dangerous.
Well, yes and no. The issue isn't the damages, per se (if it were, I'd be slightly more accepting of the RIAA's behavior.) It's about abusing the court system to scare people to death, screw them over to the maximum extent allowed by law (and further, if possible), in an apparently vain effort to discourage an activity their masters don't like.
Believe me, they would cheerfully do that to downloaders too, if they could. Apparently that's a lot harder to pull off.
And even though the photo was registered with the copyright office, not a single lawyer was willing to speak with him. He has contacted literally dozens of lawyers, none of whom are willing to take the case on without him putting a heck of a lot of money up front.
Lawyers have to look at the potential payoff (what are the chances of winning a lawsuit, and if they do win, will any award be worth the risk?) The fact he's been turned down repeatedly indicates that the publishers have all the guns, so much power than they can steal with impunity. And that's too bad, because it's just one more indication that copyright law only works for the big boys. They're absolutely terrified of us when it comes to what the Internet allows us to do... but one-on-one... yeah, "fuck you" is about their level. Hypocrites, all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
It worked, it worked!
I understand that they got hold of an old Mac (circa 1986 or so) and Scotty, who spoke into the mouse, and hit a few keys. Immediately a rotating 3D representation of the formula appeared on the screen. It was a lot simpler than having to actually work it out for themselves.
There, fixed that for ya.
Dude, I could have mentioned Scotty, but there's no point in making a Star Trek reference be too obvious. Anyone that is in to Star Trek will get it and besides, you want people to have to think a little bit. More importantly, from an entertainment perspective, there are the more literal-minded folks here on Slashdot who just don't get it, and take you seriously. They go off explaining about how Apple Macintoshes from that era didn't have voice recognition and how you wouldn't talk into the mouse anyway and besides those old Macs didn't have the processing power to render the imagery shown in the movie. That's the kind of response I was hoping for, because it lets me feel powerful and important, given my obviously superior knowledge of Trek lore.
Now the joke is ruined. Oh well.
The problem here is that the RIAA is nothing but a figurehead, a lightning rod, a distraction, that draws the ire of all concerned and keeps us from recognizing the true enemy. What is the RIAA? What does it actually do? The RIAA has no business model, manufactures no product, produces no music, and sells nothing (other than a nice line of baloney.) They used to help define audio standards way back when (anyone remember the RIAA compensation curve?) That was then: today they are merely footsoldiers in the old-line publishers' ongoing battle to maintain the status-quo ante. In other words, it is the organizations for whom they work that need to make some changes: the RIAA can and will keep this up until their corporate masters issue new marching orders.
The RIAA is an ugly entity, to be sure, but like any weapon it can only shoot where it's pointed. The problem is the big content producers and rightsholders, who have proven themselves, time and time again, willing to go to any lengths to preserve their distribution system.
Second largest economy, I think you meant.
Your focus on trade is a red herring. Trade makes both participants richer. Otherwise, they wouldn't trade. Artificially limiting trade makes people poorer.
... what, exactly? That's the question that nobody seems willing to answer, although we all know what it is. NOTHING. And no, what's on the shelf at Wal-mart doesn't count.
... because he might not have one. You're better off having some defenses in place.
I disagree. That's too simplistic an answer, really. You only have to look at the current situation between China and the United States. The net effect of our trading with China, to date, has been their getting richer and our getting poorer. In essence we have a massive transfer of wealth to China, in exchange for
You are assuming that "trade" is automatically equitable and of benefit to both parties. That's a dangerous assumption. Interestingly enough, truly "free" trade among nations invariably results in one or more parties being completely screwed by another. Put it this way: free trade is like depending, for your very life, on another man's better nature.
Now that's risky
I tend to agree. Historically, large corporate dinosaurs rarely manage to successfully adapt to major phase changes in their core businesses. They're risk-averse statists by definition and change is conceptually foreign to them, because change involves the potential for failure. When you have stockholders who are accustomed to a certain level of return, you don't want to take risks because your investors might get nervous and take their money elsewhere. That encourages stability, but at the cost of flexibility.
... except maybe make their products more attractive to us so we'll see more reason to buy or watch them rather than, say browse the Web or chat with our friends.
... we'll find something else to do.
Inevitably though, progress happens (that's even more true in the age of the Global Economy) and the old-line organizations will either progress with the rest of us, or become marginalized. Modern technology won't put them out of business, at least not in the near term (in spite of all the so-called "piracy" going on, in spite of all their plaintive cries of "it will destroy the industry" these people are turning profits that would make the CEOs of many more respectable corporations blush!) but it will sideline them, make them less important, less relevant to us. They really don't want that, and if they can survive this and still manage to come out on top it will be a neat trick. I'm not counting the big studios out, just yet, but their time to get with the program is limited.
Even so, I think many of the problems with music and movie sales have to do with competition for our spare time. We're all working longer hours than ever before, have less time to ourselves, and have so many things competing for our remaining attention span (Internet, cellphones, texting, instant messaging, cable TV, video games, all the other things people spend their free time on nowadays.) There's very little the media companies will be able to do about that
What is ultimately failing here is the "shove it down the consumer's throat and he'll take it because he doesn't have anywhere else to go" business method. We have plenty of other places to go for entertainment, now. If we can't have music because it's a. unappealing or b. too expensive
I mean they make the hard drives people load their MP3s on ...
Not anymore. I believe they sold that division to Hitachi in 2003, although they still retain a significant stake in it.
I had a relative who was badly injured in a crash with a Chinese gentleman who, it turned out later in court, had a fake insurance card and was in the country illegally. He also brought a translator to court with him to the initial hearing, claiming he only spoke Mandarin. My relative's attorney pointed out that, as a matter of record, the man had successfully answered the police in English when questioned immediately after the accident (from which he walked away uninjured, I might add.) The judge took a very dim view of everything the man said after that, and as it turned out he skipped back to China before the next court date. So, no chance of getting any reparations out of him.
... she still suffers from her injuries and this happened almost ten years ago.) In the meantime, the auto insurance company (I won't say who it is but it's one of the biggest) refused to pay any of her medical bills, even though it was clearly in the contract. They even brought in an "expert witness" who claimed that the pain she was suffering was in no way related to the accident, even though all the painkillers she was taking were not prescribed until after the accident. She was out an incredible amount of money for physical therapy, drugs, and other treatments and had her credit rating destroyed.
In any event, this dimbulb plowed into her car and totaled it (as in ball of jagged metal, Jaws of Life and all that
She persisted though, and when it finally came to court a couple years later the judge was furious and told the insurance company lawyers to "Pay the woman!" So in the end she got a decent settlement, but had to go through a few years of abject misery because the damn insurance company refused to honor its agreement. They got to hold on to her money for a few extra years.
That happens more often than you might think.
One thing they got was the minimum payments on your credit card is doubled so if someone might be having trouble making payments they now will certainly be delinquent and that will get the interest rate jacked up to 30%.
There's a word for that, it is called usury.
Usury (or at least, grandly unethical behavior or one kind or another) is surprising in its scope nowadays. Sound banking principles have gone right out the window, and groups like the RIAA are springing up in every industry. What is wrong with this country anyways? Where did we go wrong? The answer to that is complex (anything involving hundreds of millions of people is complex) but a lot of it can be traced back to Congress, and our inability to keep those corrupt little bloodsuckers in check. Oh, they're not all bad, but it doesn't take all of them to screw things up for the rest of us.
Let's see, it's a new way to map the network, a new map ... I've got it! We'll call it "NMAP"!
More likely he'll run afoul of the previous generation of global computing: The Forbin Project.
Because she was innnocent.
... it's too bad that it wasn't enough.
That's the best answer of all
I understand that they got hold of an old Mac (circa 1986 or so), spoke into the mouse, and hit a few keys. Immediately a rotating 3D representation of the formula appeared on the screen.
It was a lot simpler than having to actually work it out for themselves.
Like Michael Walthius, for example. You may not like his music, but he's doing exactly what you're talking about.
You know, I'd like answers to a few questions that seem germane to this thread. I'm sure that all of you can help me out here.
... to America? Is that participation worth what we are giving up in the process?
1. Given that we are experiencing a continuously falling standard of living, a rapidly shrinking middle class, increased economic insecurity, and substantial dependence upon inimical foreign powers, how is America's participation in the Global Economy of benefit
2. How does any nation which willingly disposes of its manufacturing sector and transitions to a "service economy" sustain itself and its people?
3. What the hell is a "service economy", anyway? When carried to its logical conclusion (e.g. minimal manufacturing and creation of wealth) is it not synonymous with "third world economy"?
Well, while I agree that recording technology has come a loooooong way in the past couple of decades, and there's much more capability available for a fraction of the traditional cost, don't discount the contribution of a recording engineer. The reality is this: it does take a lot of expertise to properly mix a complex recording. It's damn near as much of an art as producing music, and is an inextricable part of the process anyway.
Other than that, I tend to agree with you. Engineers and studio time are readily available, should one feel the need. It's not like the big studios have a monopoly on technical talent. Any way you slice it, there's no reason to go sign away your future to a bunch of pricks.
... simply removing it could cause huge disruptions.
You mean that suddenly I won't be receiving junk mail, spam and telemarketing calls?
I'm all for it.
I agree ... the first time I heard about the Department of Homeland Security, I immediately thought of Nazi Germany.
That probably should have told us something at the time.
True enough, but what if you have a driver who is perfectly competent, in a top-of-the-line automobile traveling at high speed, and seriously out to get you?
... he might miss.
I'll take the dangerous incompetent in either case, thank you very much. If he's a bumblefuck, while he'll try to get me
Use a straight Gnutella client. Take Phex, for example ... it's open source, GPL'ed, available from SourceForge. It asks you on installation if you want to share anything: just say "No".
Well, as others have pointed out it's better (from a civil liberties perspective) to have these people be wasteful and incompetent than highly effective and dangerous.
Well, yes and no. The issue isn't the damages, per se (if it were, I'd be slightly more accepting of the RIAA's behavior.) It's about abusing the court system to scare people to death, screw them over to the maximum extent allowed by law (and further, if possible), in an apparently vain effort to discourage an activity their masters don't like.
Believe me, they would cheerfully do that to downloaders too, if they could. Apparently that's a lot harder to pull off.
Or is it all just a ruse, to lull you into a false sense of security?
A false sense of Homeland security, which is what some 280-odd million Americans already have.
I wouldn't want to be the guy who's in charge of monitoring sensory data from something called "the bore hole". that sounds like a really tedious job.
... those things can be really dangerous when you piss them off.
Better that than "the boar hole"
And even though the photo was registered with the copyright office, not a single lawyer was willing to speak with him. He has contacted literally dozens of lawyers, none of whom are willing to take the case on without him putting a heck of a lot of money up front.
... but one-on-one ... yeah, "fuck you" is about their level. Hypocrites, all of them.
Lawyers have to look at the potential payoff (what are the chances of winning a lawsuit, and if they do win, will any award be worth the risk?) The fact he's been turned down repeatedly indicates that the publishers have all the guns, so much power than they can steal with impunity. And that's too bad, because it's just one more indication that copyright law only works for the big boys. They're absolutely terrified of us when it comes to what the Internet allows us to do