NYTimes are running an article about the outcomes of the new wave of eBook readers.
Of course, despite having pretensions of being "a quality newspaper" with "real journalistic integrity" they're too scared to ask the real questions:
Like, for example, "Will the book and print media industry learn from the mistakes of the Music and Film Industries as new digital technologies (in this case, pervasive and cheap eBook readers) are embraced by the public".
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
.... a *large* percentage of piracy is due to the *ludicrously insane* policies of the distribution businesses
(not all of it , some people genuinely believe its 'free', and some will 'pirate' because they can and believe they won't get caught)
can't get that movie in (some foreign country) until at least 6 months after its been released in the US (for gods sake, WHY? - do they *REALLY* believe Americans will stop watching it once some other country can?)
can't get that CD, EVER (sorry, that's the "made in amsterdam" release, it has two additional tracks and will *never* be released in America) {again for the love of all things bright and shiny, WHY?} (and no I'm not talking about content bumping up against American Anti-obscenity laws or something like that, just plain old crap-for-brains distribution policies)
the "electronic" version of that book costs *more than* the first-run hardcover, leather-bound-and-gilded-writing version, signed by the author (WHY? you hand the hardcopy to an eTailer and LET THEM DO ALL THE WORK, WHY are YOUR charges per sale to the eTailer SO INSANELY HIGH?)
I refuse to release this into *that brand eTailer* (even though they are the BIGGEST and MOST POPULAR eTailer in existence), you have to buy MY Hardware, and shop in MY eStore, to get this content
(apparently they think that after buying twelve different digital gizmos *and a large backback to carry them all in* we still have money left to buy content)
And did I forget to mention that MY hardware will NEVER support Your Preferred Operating System (NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER, SCREW YOU, CONSUMER)
it's NOT ENOUGH that I charge you, the end customer like a wounded bull (Elephant, that is) for content, but I SCREAM to the highest heavens that "the INTERNET is STEALING FROM ME" (and by that I mean the ISPs themselves) and claim that THEY TOO owe me BAZILLIONS OF DOLLAAAAAZ (mwuhahahahahaha)
Oh Yeah, and last but not least, I Want My Cake And I Want To Eat it Too (canada 'piracy tax', and other insanities)
The modern "content distribution industries" (MPAA, RIAA, screw-everybody-AA) are destroying their industries, and claiming that rampant copyright violations are hurting 'the poor starving musicians".
I *used to* spend a fair chunk of $ on "content", now I spend relatively little - but I'm not 'pirating' either. I Just Don't Buy Their Crap Anymore.
If I *really* wanted to be repeatedly beaten with a baseball bat with large nails stuck in it, and pay for the privilege... well there's "special clubs" for that;-)
Managing director of Nelson Bay Online, Patrick Sayer, said only 1 per cent of his entire customer base decided to opt-into the system, resulting in just 15 users.
Fifteen Users! And that's enough to be worthy of being hailed as "a successful test"?
(sigh) At least they've not actually had the nerve to claim this test was scientifically rigorous or statistically significant in any way.
The Australian Government sponsored testing of an "internet filter' (ie censorship technology).
The participants were all
already in the business of selling internet filters... or
tiny tiny ISPs... or
respectably large ISPs who limited the "testing" to
a tiny fraction of their userbase
who were *willing to be filtered*
And an the obvious (some would say FOREGONE) conslusion was "it works just fine".
.... brought to you by the department of No!Really?
Seriously folks, aside from all the dodgy (ie totally unscientific and statistically irrelevant) testing, this "internet filtering" is bad because CENSORSHIP IS EVIL!
Always, in every case, by definition and in principle.
Censorship is NEVER, ever, in any sense of the phrase, a good thing.
#5: From a feudalistic standpoint, you would go from being a subject of a crown to a citizen of a country -- theoretically speaking, from a king's slave to a king's peer.
Which would be a great argument if not for the fact that "america" was started by a bunch of people who were sick and tired of kings (amongst other things).
For authoritative British usage, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English definitions of "cult" and "sect" are: cult
a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
Wave that dictionary page in front of the judge and "I Rest My Case". All of those three descriptives apply specifically and directly to Scientology.
Now if the Judge/prosecution want to base an arrest on "when you say that scientology is a cult, you mean it as an insult" it is near-impossible to prove intent in a court of law. (at least, until they work our how to read my mind from a distance in a scientifically verifiable manner)
Anyhow, any defence lawyer would simply declare this "law" irrelevant and illegal - how can it possibly be legal to declare that writing a statement of fact on a sign and waving it around in public is illegal.
Ironically, BBC (UK) mentions "cult-type" when mentioning some of scientology's activities. Someone needs to educate the british lawmakers. If it quacks like a duck I can guarantee you it's not a kitten.
Why the heck is this tagged censorship? There's a law against insulting signs. So you're of the opinion that declaring something illegal is not ever under any circumstances a form of censorship?
Sorry mate, but you got it completely totally 100% wrong.
economy is not about money. Money is merely a score-keeper. The Economy IS ALL about money.
However the problem is that significantly more than "5 nines" of people cannot think far enough ahead to factor in the *real long-term economic impact" of what they're doing.
Seriously, if you could factor in *all* the really really really long-term implications (ie "costs") of most things people do today "in modern society" you'd be truly horrified.
So let me repeat myself, in order to be *really* clear about this - "The Economy" is *all* about money, but when people say "it's not economical" what they really mean is "it's hard to justify based on short-term returns", where "short term" is "before I die/retire/get voted out".
NOBODY who is thinking about "the economy" is actually factoring in the financial impact out to (for example) 200 years (or 500 years) from now. (and if you're one of those people who think that what we do now will be irrelevant by then, you're mentally incompetent and should not be in a position responsible for *any* decision making whatsoever ).
Maybe you should say huge nads or something else that's more unisex, considering both of the astronauts in this case were women.:) No, he's just met some female russian cosmonauts.
I get screwed for £35/month and for some reason have to agree to being screwed monthly. if that's all it costs to get properly laid on a regular basis in the UK, I'm pretty certain you're about to see a major influx of slashdot'ers emigrating.
How long are YOU (yes, you personally) prepared to continue in your current security role knowing that when it really matters, the powers that be are ignoring you in ways that seriously put your customers at risk?
If your answer is along the lines of "but I'd lose a good job and probably take a paycut" how is that attitude any worse/different than "the problems at upper management" which you're currently whining about?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, despite having pretensions of being "a quality newspaper" with "real journalistic integrity" they're too scared to ask the real questions:
Like, for example, "Will the book and print media industry learn from the mistakes of the Music and Film Industries as new digital technologies (in this case, pervasive and cheap eBook readers) are embraced by the public".
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
The modern "content distribution industries" (MPAA, RIAA, screw-everybody-AA) are destroying their industries, and claiming that rampant copyright violations are hurting 'the poor starving musicians".
... well there's "special clubs" for that ;-)
I *used to* spend a fair chunk of $ on "content", now I spend relatively little - but I'm not 'pirating' either. I Just Don't Buy Their Crap Anymore.
If I *really* wanted to be repeatedly beaten with a baseball bat with large nails stuck in it, and pay for the privilege
Managing director of Nelson Bay Online, Patrick Sayer, said only 1 per cent of his entire customer base decided to opt-into the system, resulting in just 15 users.
Fifteen Users! And that's enough to be worthy of being hailed as "a successful test"?
(sigh) At least they've not actually had the nerve to claim this test was scientifically rigorous or statistically significant in any way.
Sad but true. A small crowd of religious fundamentalists pushing their narrow-minded views on society.
Might be "business as usual" in , say , Iran/Iraq, etc - but *such a shame* to see that being attempted in Australia.
Unfortunately the experiment was a complete success.
Unfortunately none of us realied that it was an experiment in shredding the last vestiges of our assumed "civil rights".
As is <censored> in a <censored> (<censored> duly <censored> and <censored>).
There, fixed that for you.
"It's not censorship, when it is implemented you can choose to opt-out of it."
Sorry, that's not even an opinion, it's a out and out lie.
Conroy and friends have stated several times and loudly that this will be mandatory and that opt-out is not an option.
Let me repeat the facts of the situation for clarity.
Government legislated mandatory internet filtering from a *secret* list which will *never* be published for public review and/or comment..
Surely that spells censorship to even the most illiterate person on the planet.
The participants were all
And an the obvious (some would say FOREGONE) conslusion was "it works just fine".
.... brought to you by the department of No!Really?
Seriously folks, aside from all the dodgy (ie totally unscientific and statistically irrelevant) testing, this "internet filtering" is bad because CENSORSHIP IS EVIL!
Always, in every case, by definition and in principle.
Censorship is NEVER, ever, in any sense of the phrase, a good thing.
I recommend Switzerland. They have the most democratic and fair government system on the planet (from what I know).
Seriously folks, Switzerland has the best:
And their wimmin-folk aren't as ugly as most (must be all that quality chocolate, and good healthy living).
#5: From a feudalistic standpoint, you would go from being a subject of a crown to a citizen of a country -- theoretically speaking, from a king's slave to a king's peer.
Which would be a great argument if not for the fact that "america" was started by a bunch of people who were sick and tired of kings (amongst other things).
A sentient computer and a rail launcher on the moon might do it...
True, but the sad fact is The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
The Year God Decided He Really Hated America
Lemme correct that for you ....
The Year God Decided to show how much He Hated America
I believe the point being that if this particular volcano erupts, pretty much everyone will hear it.
In Complex Systems, Linearity is the exception, not The Rule
In other news
Le Roi Est Mort. Vive Le Roi!
I fell in to a burning ring of fire
I went down,down,down
and the flames went higher.
And it burns,burns,burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire.
With thanks to Johnny!
- a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
- a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
- something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
Wave that dictionary page in front of the judge and "I Rest My Case". All of those three descriptives apply specifically and directly to Scientology.Now if the Judge/prosecution want to base an arrest on "when you say that scientology is a cult, you mean it as an insult" it is near-impossible to prove intent in a court of law. (at least, until they work our how to read my mind from a distance in a scientifically verifiable manner)
Anyhow, any defence lawyer would simply declare this "law" irrelevant and illegal - how can it possibly be legal to declare that writing a statement of fact on a sign and waving it around in public is illegal.
I think he was quite well-spoken, really.
Quite frankly I don't see how anyone over there is able to Afford Such A High Price.
However the problem is that significantly more than "5 nines" of people cannot think far enough ahead to factor in the *real long-term economic impact" of what they're doing.
Seriously, if you could factor in *all* the really really really long-term implications (ie "costs") of most things people do today "in modern society" you'd be truly horrified.
So let me repeat myself, in order to be *really* clear about this - "The Economy" is *all* about money, but when people say "it's not economical" what they really mean is "it's hard to justify based on short-term returns", where "short term" is "before I die/retire/get voted out".
NOBODY who is thinking about "the economy" is actually factoring in the financial impact out to (for example) 200 years (or 500 years) from now. (and if you're one of those people who think that what we do now will be irrelevant by then, you're mentally incompetent and should not be in a position responsible for *any* decision making whatsoever ).
How is it that nobody here has so far complained about Three Women in Space who could not even get The Directions Back To Planet Earth right?
Lost In Space, anyone?
The issue here is not ethics, it's integrity.
How long are YOU (yes, you personally) prepared to continue in your current security role knowing that when it really matters, the powers that be are ignoring you in ways that seriously put your customers at risk?
If your answer is along the lines of "but I'd lose a good job and probably take a paycut" how is that attitude any worse/different than "the problems at upper management" which you're currently whining about?