This is, of course, NO excuse for piracy. Although I do think it is sad that we live in a society which demeans art by making it a commodity, I will respect those laws. I am not trying to justify film piracy here... only pointing out how sad it is that there is a price on viewing art.
Creativity and inspiration should be (and can be (and is, if you are childish enough:))) free.
Apparently, LucasFilms was not happy to find out that PM videos were being distributed over the 'net; they hired a mean team of badass lawyers to take care...
Well, I was "not too happy" with the general suck of the new movie... can I sue for that?
Seriously, though... I've always felt than art should be done for arts' sake. Art as expression, not as market campaigns, will still surely capture our imaginations. Given the same state of integrity, it will surely serve us well. (neil peart) I'm opposed to the idea of a movie which can make the gratutious sums that this one did... however, given the society we live in, the laws must be obeyed.
All I can say is that if I ever made a movie, I'd be happy that people were taking the time to download it on modems... that's a sign that I made a good piece of art.
But then again, I've never been much of a capitalist.
OK, I stated my end point incorrectly. Adults have the "freedom" to let this kind of useless junk into their lives. That is absurd, but a price of freedom.
I suppose the final statement here is that I don't think kids should see these movies. But I think adults are immature and animalistic for being entertained by this stuff. So, no one should be going to these movies... not just kids. And since we live in a society which denies basic freedom to kids, I want to exploit this fact as much as possible and keep the kids out of these movies... and not watching the evening news, and not reading Time or Newsweek, and...
Damn. Catch 22. I've broken it down to the great divide. Idealism versus reality... If you try to live out your ideals in reality, you become opressive or ineffective. If you give in to reality, you cease to matter. Life is irrelevant if you let it be lived for you.
What happened to righteousness? Did we ever have it, anyway? Is it just plain unrealistic to do what is right for the sake of its rightness? I don't care what movies you watch if you do this.
But if you do... please tell me how. It would serve us a lot better than complaining about petty social issues.
But a world of typicality (is that a word?) soon becomes boring. I have to say you're wrong on this one, friend, even though I know the flames will probably pour in as a result of my saying so.
I read a comment yesterday that claimed that an adult should be allowed to make the choice for their child to see an R-rated movie, claiming that only that adult would have to put up with it. That is not so... in fact, that is an arrogant and eliteist claim. We live in a society which demands social interaction, and it is rude to place yourself above that at the cost of society. Sure, I'm probably a communist, but an open source advocating communist at that:).
I will firmly state that not only should children not see movies like SP, Something about Mary, Debbie Does Dallas, and Star Wars: Phantom Menace (only because that one SUCKS); but furthermore, these pieces of trash with no social value should not be made. In fact, the directors who concieve them should be ashamed that they ever dreamed of such a thing. These movies insult art.
Wow. I'm a fascist communist now. Remember that I am speaking of ideals and not legislation here... I don't think it should be illegal for these to be made... I am only stating that I wish there was enough integrity and righteousness in the world that these movies weren't made. I would rather have a million crap films made a year and be able to say what I want to say... but if I'm wishing, I wish that I could still say what I want to say and NOT have to put up with this pulp fiction which demeans the very being of art.
So, I'm a fascist communist who drifts too much in thought. What I'm saying here is do what you want, say what you want, let your kids get screwed up as you see fit. But, please keep others in mind when you do so. And when you hit the "Reply" key to flame me, try to remember to convince me why I should let my (future) children grow up any faster than they have to.
Wow. Do you ever get the feeling that you have said a lot of words, but not said anything? Sorry I can't make a better point for what I believe. I guess I'm just a fascist communist who's thoughts drift and has no eloquence.
After wading through all the crap flame about the article in search for an intelligent comment about Katz's article, I realized the true horror of the situation. The television, which transmits data like any other medium, has become the "real-life" entertainment box... that is, the ambiguous "Industry" has realized that fictional entertainment doesn't sell as well as real-life stories. Of course, many people think this is sickening, so they turn to other sources for news.
Reading comments like "This is the first I've heard about this..." make me worry (although I think many of them must be lying... even Geeks in Space did that live report... brilliant) However, if this is true, it means most television, newspaper, and magizine media are forgetting that they are public servants.
The solution? It's what we all want (or what we all should want), but it's the most ambiguous part of all of this. Some say all we need is the data, and we'll process it ourselves. Others (like the modern newsmedia) process the data for us, and we react to their reports the way they want us to. One is cold and inhuman, the other seems warm and squishy but is vaugely totalitarian. Like most things in life, we need a balance. It's hard to define in words, but we need to be humane, remembering that the end result is the people that the data affects, and not the data itself.
I don't like it, for two reasons that come to mind immediately:
1) It shouldn't be as public as it is. Remember the movie Sneakers? I'd like it to be more like that... hackers actually hired by the companies they are breaking into, rather than random acts of violence by geeks who are bitter that Bill's operating system sells better than theirs. Granted, Windows has some serious security issues, but this isn't a mature way to publicize them, and the majority of people will be annoyed with the hackers rather than with Microsoft. It doesn't go too far to point out the problems.
2) It targets Windows. How many programs out there are actually designed to attack "other" operating systems? How well would the default install of Linux stand up to a program designed to exploit its security flaws? Granted, you can hack it... but what good is an OS that is only good to hackers? I'd like to see a port of Linux with the ease of Caldera which has impeccable security. Until then, we can laugh at MS, but it's a hollow victory.
// in cowboyneal's defense, this function is probabaly applicable to all geeks... I must admit I'd like to see a large rubber CmdrTaco figure with a straw coming out of his head.
Of course, I knew I would get comments like this when I first posted. Unfortunately, they do not provide reasons for me to change my mind.
You do not have to be best friends with your co-workers, you do not have to "schmooze" or betray your ethics kissing up. However, there is something to be said for humanity, the simple act of communication. The best part of my job is when I find a level on which I can communicate to my co-workers where they do not think I am talking down to them. Just the other day, I lent a CD to an older woman who works here because she didn't seem to like me, and therefore wouldn't let me do my job as effectively as I could have. Since I lent her the CD, she has been helping me to do my job more efficiently, thereby getting more work done. More like the "business" transaction you are talking about.
The long and the short of it is this: Life is not enjoyable unless you make it so. Isolation is a choice; I've tried it, and find interpersonal communication far more appealing (and profitable, if you are really enough of a pig to believe capital is the ultimate goal of a job). I come home every night satisfied, and wake up wanting to go to work.
No code, no product... true enough. But these days, there are good coders with personalities. Geeks and "suits" alike. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying geeks don't have personalities. However, many of them hide these...
I'm getting away from my point. Live, communicate, be yourself for others or you are no one. You are not conforming to the desires of the "suits," you are fulfilling your potential as a human.
Or hide behind your fears, I guess it's worked for you so far... It's your choice. But be careful not to let your choice leave you with no more choices.
Might the solution be more obvious, yet difficult, than we are willing to admit? Not wanting to be a technophobe, but I have always been fond of the kind of job where you are in direct personal communication with your employer and asscosiates. Instead of blaming the problem on the "suits," why not come out of our geek comfort zone and be sociable?
I'm not talking about giving up on your personality, or outlook on life. But if you are unable to interact with others, you have no real business criticizing others who have the same problem. Get in touch with your potential employer, show him/her you have balls... better yet, that you have a personality, that you not only need a job, but actually want to work.
That will always get you a job. Maybe not the first one you look to, but always something. One should only try to change the world around oneself if one has a noble goal... antisocial e-communication which propegates the "geek" mentality while destroying concepts of social humanity is in no way noble.
Slashdot Mirror
Creativity and inspiration should be (and can be (and is, if you are childish enough :))) free.
Well, I was "not too happy" with the general suck of the new movie... can I sue for that?
Seriously, though... I've always felt than art should be done for arts' sake. Art as expression, not as market campaigns, will still surely capture our imaginations. Given the same state of integrity, it will surely serve us well. (neil peart) I'm opposed to the idea of a movie which can make the gratutious sums that this one did... however, given the society we live in, the laws must be obeyed.
All I can say is that if I ever made a movie, I'd be happy that people were taking the time to download it on modems... that's a sign that I made a good piece of art.
But then again, I've never been much of a capitalist.
I suppose the final statement here is that I don't think kids should see these movies. But I think adults are immature and animalistic for being entertained by this stuff. So, no one should be going to these movies... not just kids. And since we live in a society which denies basic freedom to kids, I want to exploit this fact as much as possible and keep the kids out of these movies... and not watching the evening news, and not reading Time or Newsweek, and...
Damn. Catch 22. I've broken it down to the great divide. Idealism versus reality... If you try to live out your ideals in reality, you become opressive or ineffective. If you give in to reality, you cease to matter. Life is irrelevant if you let it be lived for you.
What happened to righteousness? Did we ever have it, anyway? Is it just plain unrealistic to do what is right for the sake of its rightness? I don't care what movies you watch if you do this.
But if you do... please tell me how. It would serve us a lot better than complaining about petty social issues.
But a world of typicality (is that a word?) soon becomes boring. I have to say you're wrong on this one, friend, even though I know the flames will probably pour in as a result of my saying so.
I read a comment yesterday that claimed that an adult should be allowed to make the choice for their child to see an R-rated movie, claiming that only that adult would have to put up with it. That is not so... in fact, that is an arrogant and eliteist claim. We live in a society which demands social interaction, and it is rude to place yourself above that at the cost of society. Sure, I'm probably a communist, but an open source advocating communist at that :).
I will firmly state that not only should children not see movies like SP, Something about Mary, Debbie Does Dallas, and Star Wars: Phantom Menace (only because that one SUCKS); but furthermore, these pieces of trash with no social value should not be made. In fact, the directors who concieve them should be ashamed that they ever dreamed of such a thing. These movies insult art.
Wow. I'm a fascist communist now. Remember that I am speaking of ideals and not legislation here... I don't think it should be illegal for these to be made... I am only stating that I wish there was enough integrity and righteousness in the world that these movies weren't made. I would rather have a million crap films made a year and be able to say what I want to say... but if I'm wishing, I wish that I could still say what I want to say and NOT have to put up with this pulp fiction which demeans the very being of art.
So, I'm a fascist communist who drifts too much in thought. What I'm saying here is do what you want, say what you want, let your kids get screwed up as you see fit. But, please keep others in mind when you do so. And when you hit the "Reply" key to flame me, try to remember to convince me why I should let my (future) children grow up any faster than they have to.
Wow. Do you ever get the feeling that you have said a lot of words, but not said anything? Sorry I can't make a better point for what I believe. I guess I'm just a fascist communist who's thoughts drift and has no eloquence.
Bite me. :)
After wading through all the crap flame about the article in search for an intelligent comment about Katz's article, I realized the true horror of the situation. The television, which transmits data like any other medium, has become the "real-life" entertainment box... that is, the ambiguous "Industry" has realized that fictional entertainment doesn't sell as well as real-life stories. Of course, many people think this is sickening, so they turn to other sources for news.
Reading comments like "This is the first I've heard about this..." make me worry (although I think many of them must be lying... even Geeks in Space did that live report... brilliant) However, if this is true, it means most television, newspaper, and magizine media are forgetting that they are public servants.
The solution? It's what we all want (or what we all should want), but it's the most ambiguous part of all of this. Some say all we need is the data, and we'll process it ourselves. Others (like the modern newsmedia) process the data for us, and we react to their reports the way they want us to. One is cold and inhuman, the other seems warm and squishy but is vaugely totalitarian. Like most things in life, we need a balance. It's hard to define in words, but we need to be humane, remembering that the end result is the people that the data affects, and not the data itself.
1) It shouldn't be as public as it is. Remember the movie Sneakers? I'd like it to be more like that... hackers actually hired by the companies they are breaking into, rather than random acts of violence by geeks who are bitter that Bill's operating system sells better than theirs. Granted, Windows has some serious security issues, but this isn't a mature way to publicize them, and the majority of people will be annoyed with the hackers rather than with Microsoft. It doesn't go too far to point out the problems.
2) It targets Windows. How many programs out there are actually designed to attack "other" operating systems? How well would the default install of Linux stand up to a program designed to exploit its security flaws? Granted, you can hack it... but what good is an OS that is only good to hackers? I'd like to see a port of Linux with the ease of Caldera which has impeccable security. Until then, we can laugh at MS, but it's a hollow victory.
Better yet... hemos@microsoft.com...
Ain't capitalism great?
You do not have to be best friends with your co-workers, you do not have to "schmooze" or betray your ethics kissing up. However, there is something to be said for humanity, the simple act of communication. The best part of my job is when I find a level on which I can communicate to my co-workers where they do not think I am talking down to them. Just the other day, I lent a CD to an older woman who works here because she didn't seem to like me, and therefore wouldn't let me do my job as effectively as I could have. Since I lent her the CD, she has been helping me to do my job more efficiently, thereby getting more work done. More like the "business" transaction you are talking about.
The long and the short of it is this: Life is not enjoyable unless you make it so. Isolation is a choice; I've tried it, and find interpersonal communication far more appealing (and profitable, if you are really enough of a pig to believe capital is the ultimate goal of a job). I come home every night satisfied, and wake up wanting to go to work.
No code, no product... true enough. But these days, there are good coders with personalities. Geeks and "suits" alike. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying geeks don't have personalities. However, many of them hide these...
I'm getting away from my point. Live, communicate, be yourself for others or you are no one. You are not conforming to the desires of the "suits," you are fulfilling your potential as a human.
Or hide behind your fears, I guess it's worked for you so far... It's your choice. But be careful not to let your choice leave you with no more choices.
I'm not talking about giving up on your personality, or outlook on life. But if you are unable to interact with others, you have no real business criticizing others who have the same problem. Get in touch with your potential employer, show him/her you have balls... better yet, that you have a personality, that you not only need a job, but actually want to work.
That will always get you a job. Maybe not the first one you look to, but always something. One should only try to change the world around oneself if one has a noble goal... antisocial e-communication which propegates the "geek" mentality while destroying concepts of social humanity is in no way noble.