It seems to me that a 3.5 in floppy is a form of removable media.
I think the joke went over your head, but you should probably take that as a compliment. Try re-reading it in more of an eighth-grade mindset (and note the ellipses).
Ok, perhaps I'm one of the 0.0003% of people who would find this funny, but take a look at http://www.m0ss.com/Images/W histler2250/mycomputer.jpg. Under "Removable Media" there is an item listed as "3-1/2-Inch Floppy D..." I don't know what immediately pops into your mind, but I wonder if this is some sort of Freudian slip on the part of Microsoft coders.
P.S. All M$ coders reading this do *not* send me pictures confirming or disconfirming my observation.
It's not "Stealing from AOL" any more than the UNIX clients are.
Is using Tivo stealing? Is taping a show and fast-forwarding through the commercials stealing? Is changing the channel when a commercial comes on stealing? Is using junkbuster stealing?
AOL created this protocol, along with the TiK TCL/Tk client, so people could create AIM clients for alternative OS's. NONE of these clients have ads. In fact, there is nothing in the protocol to grab/retrieve ads.
Precisely. AOL is welcome to develop a UNIX AIM client. If they put some useful features in it, I can put up with the ads. I think part of the reason AOL allows UNIX clients to get by without ads is the following:
1. UNIX users who use AIM are far, far, far outnumbers by Windows users.
2. It costs money to prevent UNIX AIM users from using a service that doesn't show ads. In all liklihood that costs outweigh the benefits (see number 1 for a reason why).
3. AOL probably doesn't want to alienate UNIX folks. Why? For one they probaby know that UNIX types will develop their own protocols, e.g. Jabber. Secondly, AOL and Netscape are buddies. It's been said that Netscape depends heavily on Mozilla. Who develops Mozilla? Right Virginia, UNIX folks (ok, not exclusively, but you know...). Thirdly, AOL really doesn't want to get people pissed at them with the impending Time-Warner deal.
All of the above reasons boil down to one thing: it's in AOL's best interest to allow UNIX AIM development to continue.
I can't fathom why Apple would do this. (Unless Bezos said they can have it for $3.50)
Jobs: "I said what do you need, Jeff my boy?"
Bezos: "I need about tree fiddy."
Jobs: "Dammit Bezos, get off my lawn, I ain't giving you no tree fiddy!"
Yep, they got me. The other day I downloaded some BNL songs and they were nothing but a bunch of trendy pop songs that sounded like they were being sung by guys with Canadian accents. I was expecting good music, but their anti-piracy trickery foiled me.
...who said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Too many people base too much of their opinion on statistics. As is obvious in this case, one side or another can flood the ballot, either by legitimately sending a large number of individuals to the poll or by having a few people run a script. As another poster mentioned, if "What's the best OS" was run on Slashdot, I doubt any Windows systems would top 5% of the vote. Numbers in this case are simply meaningless.
After one of the concerts I went to last spring in Huntsville, AL, I was notified about a poll that a Huntsville news station was running. The wording was something like the following:
This past weekend (band's name) played at (venue name). Approximately a dozen fans were arrested for drug charges... Should (band's name) be invited back?
That wording still isn't very accurate (I can't remember it verbatim), but the way the poll was worded made it clear which way they felt readers should vote. What would have happened if it had been worded like this?
This past weekend, (band's name) came to town, bringing thousands of loyal followers. The majority of the fans were well behaved, and spent thousands of dollars with local area merchants. Should (band's name) be invited back?
I think it's pretty obvious. But the poll really pissed me off because I could just picture the report on the 5:00 news about how 96% of poll takers don't think the band should be invited back because of the wording of the question.
...at least stick with the facts. ...in 1990, before 99% of Slashdot readers even knew about the Internet...
I think perhaps you should heed your own advice.
I don't think any reasonable person believes that Al Gore believes he created the Internet. Calling Gore the inventor of the Internet is mocking the fact that he (as many politicians do) tried to give himself more credit than he is due. He screwed up. In all likelihood he simply mixed up his words and it didn't come out the way it should have. But he said what he said, and it has turned into a joke. Nobody is taking away Gore's achievements.
Is it civil disobedience when I drive 75 miles per hour on the highway? Would you consider me a "martyr" if I get a speeding ticket for driving 75 in a 55 zone, even if I was driving with the flow of traffic?
No, it's certainly not civil disobedience in the noble sense of the word, but comparing speeding to distributing MP3s is a strech. Downloading MP3s instead of buying the album directly affects the artist - they lose money because you didn't shell out your $17.99. Driving 75 (the speed of traffic, as noted in your example) in a 55 is a victimless crime. In fact, it is safer because the difference in speed is minimized. This is something that some people don't seem to get. As a result of the NHTSA's "speed kills" campaign, I have to deal with people merging onto the highway at 40 mph because "slower is safer."
Perhaps I'm just jumping on my pet issue (speed limits), and while I agree with the point of your post, the analogy isn't quite right.
- See new article
- Quickly hit "reply"
- "First Post" OR "Hot Grits" OR "Natalie Portman"
- Read article
- Reword article, post revisions
- Watch karma roll in
- Wait until 15 posts are at +2 or more
- "Did anyone actually read the article?"
- Reword article, post revisions
- Hit reply
- "I'm probably going to get moderated down for this..."
- Reword article, post revisions
The rumors sites are some of Apple's best advertising.
Not only that, I think that the rumor readers and writers are some of Apple's most vigilant supporters. What happened when Metallica went after fans for downloading MP3s? Their fanbase suffered. But I don't even think my analogy is perfect. Downloading MP3s instead of buying the album is stealing. What's the harm of someone getting excited over a rumored product-to-be?
Maybe Apple thinks that somebody will take their ideas (they did have the lawsuit against the iMac clones). But how much competition does Apple have other than itself? An iMac and a Dell desktop (for example) are two different creatures for two different markets. All Apple has to do is get people to want their products. Know what does that? Seeing exciting new products on the rumor pages!
I'd be interested to hear Apple's economic justification for what they are doing. But going against their supporters seems like Apple is burning its last bridge.
Obviously it's because they have a cool logo. Any Linux newbie has to be attracted the that cool guy in the hat. After one has used Red Hat for awhile, [s]he realizes that it's considered the "newbie distro." That's when they move on to a truly one-three-three-seven (as the kids say) distro like Debian.
The Debian logo is only slightly trailing the Red Hat logo in one-three-three-seven-ness. Two weeks ago I "installed" a 1"x1" Debian "swirl" sticker, and my hard drive is 14% faster, CPU is 23% faster, and RAM increased by a factor of 1.5.
When I shop for something online, I spend at least an hour looking for the best price.
I have to wonder why. If you're looking for a new CD, let's say Amazon has it for $15.99. If you spend an hour looking around and find it for $14.49, are you really saving money? Sure, you'll save that $1.50, but what about the hour of your time that it took you to save that $1.50? Unless you work in one of Kathie Lee's sweat shops, your time is probably more valuable to you than that.
Of course perhaps my example is bad because the majority of/.'ers would probably just steal the MP3s from the album anyway (and end up with a horrible-sounding copy, to boot).
To answer your question, no, you are not the only one who feels that Amazon isn't wrong to adjust their prices on a case-by-case basis. This happens everywhere. It's how the economy works. Everybody around here complains when the government starts setting regulations - why not allow Amazon to set their own prices and let the market worry about it?
My brother just took one of those 6 month crash course Oracle/VB/Powerbuilder thing that says they have a 99% placement rate. He doesn't have any real job experience in IT, and no one will hire him because of that.
A lot of people complain about how such-and-such course has no relevence to their major. A lot of these people dismiss college as a waste of time because instead of going to health class they could be learning to code in (insert language here). College isn't about teaching you to code in a dozen different languages.
For example: I am in engineering. Professors don't list a million different formulas for us to memorize. Instead we are given a couple of formulas and from that we can derive other formulas that we may need to solve a problem. Fields like engineering and computer science aren't so much about plugging in numbers or code to fix a problem, but rather thinking about how to solve a variety of problems. This is what a college education provides.
Of course, I'm not even addressing the social aspect of college. "Technical" people (geeks) have quite the reputation of being eccentric and difficult to deal with. Perhaps I'm perpetuating a myth, but if you take an eighteen year old kid who was an outsider in high school and drop him in a work environment, he is probably going to have a difficult time working with the team. In college that same kid would probably find many other people with similar interests. He learns how to work with them and how to deal with others (namely professors, which will be replaced by bosses).
Let's not forget, college is fun! At least it is for me. Come on, tell me that you don't enjoy (even just a little bit) working at 5 in the morning on some code or physics.
This is a non-issue. If you agree to a price when you buy something, the only person you can blame later is yourself. So what if they are doing price testing? Shop around. Show them you won't pay the higher price.
Precisely. People are screaming "discrimination," but really it's just a demographic issue. If I buy Fargo and Raising Arizona but not The Big Lebowski, Amazon.com is within their rights to either lower the price of Lebowski (to entice me to buy it) or raise the price (betting that I will return to buy it anyway). But the decision to buy or not rests with me, the consumer.
Of course, some folks will spend 30 minutes looking around the 'net for a lower price on a particular item. When they find it for $1 less than on Amazon, they'll proclaim, "Ah ha! I showed them, I'm saving money!" Personally, my time is worth more to me than $2/hr. Amazon is a convenience - I go there knowing that I will most likely be able to find what I am looking for, and that it will arrive in a timely manner, without any difficulties (at least this has been my experience thus far). Personally, I'm willing to pay $1 extra for that.
I don't think this particular situation is about selling to loyal customers or selling bulk items. It's about seeing how much they can raise the price for a particular individual before that individual goes somewhere else.
Perhaps I'm just a capitalist, but isn't that what business is all about? That is, maximizing the profit margin. Perhaps a better example than the Ferrari would be a very wealthy individual at a bank; they get a better interest rate than me (with my average of about $0.37 in checking).
But my friend who isn't such a hard core junkie needs a little more incentive to buy so they sell the exact same items to him for say a buck less. Is this right? I don't think so.
I'm going to throw some wording around and say that I don't think this is wrong. Ultimately the power rests with the consumer. If Amazon's prices are too high, the buyer can go elsewhere. However, if it takes me an hour to find the same product for $1 less, I have actually lost money (assuming my time is worth more to me than $1/hr).
Of course now that we know that everybody isn't getting the same prices/treatment we'll just have to start comparison shopping. Amazon just hopes that there is a price we will pay for the "convienience" of buying from them.
And lots of people will pay for that convenience, including myself. See my above paragraph for an example of how paying $1 more for the same product can actually be more beneficial. I've always received great service from Amazon, they have a good selection, so I still shop there.
Good lord how dare Amazon.com follow a supply/demand model? You mean to tell me that if there is demand (but limited supply) on a particular item that they are raising the price? Personally, I am outraged. I think I should set the price for everything I buy (or steal, in the case of MP3s). I haven't heard of anything this crazy since freshman econ.
I'm having a tough time figuring out what's so wrong with this. If I decide I want to buy a Ferrari, I'm going to have a tough time getting one. But if a Ferrari collector, a loyal customer, wants to buy one, he's going to be able to get it a lot cheaper than I would. Ok, so a DVD != Italian sports car, but my point is that retailers are allowed to set a price anywhere they want. It's economics. There is nothing preventing me from going to any other store and buying the DVD or - horror of all horrors - deciding that the benefits don't outweigh the costs and not buying the thing at all!
Not to split hairs here, but it's not bootlegging if it's authorized.
I don't have a problem with an artist wanting what is rightfully theirs. Just because a band is extremely sucessful doesn't give anybody the right to take from them using the argument, "Well they've already got so much money." What bugs me is that Lars is speaking to committees and groups as if he is an expert. He freely admits that he doesn't know much about computers or the internet. I agree, people should not steal the music, but would give a lot more credit to Lars' words if I considered him an authority.
I've seen a lot of people mention bands like the Grateful Dead in stories about MP3s. I like Hard_Code's suggestion to stand behind artists rather than fight them. When I buy a commercial CD from a band that gives away its music, I'm standing behind that artist. If this happens often enough, other bands will come around. We should make them want to give away their music for free instead of taking it and leaving a bad taste for "the internet" in their collective mouth.
You're [sic] rights are not being stepped on. I disagree. There are many people use and who have used Napster to distribute files legally. That can mean that they are the copyright holder for said file, or that they are acting within the copyright's boundaries in distributing said file. An example of the former is the unsigned artist who puts his music out on Napster. An example of the latter is a couple of Deadheads swapping tracks from an uncommercially-released Grateful Dead show. The RIAA's actions prevent them from doing this, and I don't think it is right.
I can use a toothpick to kill somebody, so should toothpicks be banned by law? Ok, before you jump all over me, I realize that the analogy is not valid. The question is this: does Napster exist to assist illegal activities? If that was the idea from the beginning, then I think it's fair to say that Napster should be shut down.
I fear that any crotchless panties large enough to hold a legible copy of the source code would conjure up images of women the size of Roseanne Barr wearing them.
Of course that is more than enough to be ruled indecent, and such undergarments would quickly be banned.
I think it's unfortunate that the public should have to "deal" with "real politicians." Elected officials were put in office to represent the voice of the people. Perhaps the problem is that some people don't know how to voice their opinions in a constructive way, but I think an equally significant problem is that politicians haven't yet learned how to listen to what they call the "internet generation." The increasing commercialization of the internet forces government officials to focus on the internet, but most of them really don't know much about it. So what happens? Instead of listening to the "real" voices of the internet, politicians listen to Big Business.
I don't think there is a way of organizing internet users into a powerful political voice, but perhaps this Napster brouhaha will do just that.
People are afraid of things they don't understand. This is very evident when dealing with computers, especially after Nightline runs bits like "How to Protect Yourself from Hackers."
I think this says a lot about the public in general. Most/. readers (I assume) feel that the media doesn't know anything about any subject. In fact, the majority of the public is clueless about almost everything - save for a few things that each person happens to know about. People think Sony is hi-fi. People think AOL is the internet.
I was watching a baseball game last night, and a commercial for that evening's news came on. One of the things they advertised was the following story: "...and should your kids really be drinking all those colas? The story at 11." Now just what the hell are they going to say? Has there been some new breakthrough that children should drink 8 cokes a day? Yet people still tune in so they can be force-fed more information that is common sense to most of us.
Of course, the media loves "tackling" an issue on which the public is completely clueless, such as "hacking." It's no secret (at least to anyone intelligent enough to think it through) that news organizations are going to go with stories that will most interest the majority of their viewers. I personally don't know one bright individual who relies on Dateline and 20/20 for all of their information. For example, when I see an article of interest on Slashdot, I'll usually just skip the article and go to the posts, where the most insightful and truthful information is likely to be.
I suppose this post is rather pointless, buried in a thread, filled with my ramblings and rants. Not to mention that I'm probably preaching to the choir. But oh well, feels good to type it out.
Ok, so we know that ABC has backed off of its plan, but I got to thinking... how would something like this not be considered a Denial of Service? It is essentially preventing you from receiving authorized traffic on that line, not to mention filling up your answering machine with garbage. Is this really that much different from a bunch of people ping -f'ing abc.com? Setting up dialers to call an ABC 800 number?
I wonder if they could rig it up to be fueled by the excess grease from their pan pizzas. Lord knows it's much more abundant than any other liquid save only for water.
Slashdot archives should be preserved for eternity. How else will future civilizations know the real use of hot grits, not to mention how our gods were actually petrified stars of motion picture. Not to mention the fact that the archives contain an outline for the traditional sport of karma-whoring.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that a 3.5 in floppy is a form of removable media.
I think the joke went over your head, but you should probably take that as a compliment. Try re-reading it in more of an eighth-grade mindset (and note the ellipses).
Ok, perhaps I'm one of the 0.0003% of people who would find this funny, but take a look at http://www.m0ss.com/Images/W histler2250/mycomputer.jpg. Under "Removable Media" there is an item listed as "3-1/2-Inch Floppy D..." I don't know what immediately pops into your mind, but I wonder if this is some sort of Freudian slip on the part of Microsoft coders.
P.S. All M$ coders reading this do *not* send me pictures confirming or disconfirming my observation.
It's not "Stealing from AOL" any more than the UNIX clients are.
Is using Tivo stealing? Is taping a show and fast-forwarding through the commercials stealing? Is changing the channel when a commercial comes on stealing? Is using junkbuster stealing?
AOL created this protocol, along with the TiK TCL/Tk client, so people could create AIM clients for alternative OS's. NONE of these clients have ads. In fact, there is nothing in the protocol to grab/retrieve ads.
Precisely. AOL is welcome to develop a UNIX AIM client. If they put some useful features in it, I can put up with the ads. I think part of the reason AOL allows UNIX clients to get by without ads is the following:
1. UNIX users who use AIM are far, far, far outnumbers by Windows users.
2. It costs money to prevent UNIX AIM users from using a service that doesn't show ads. In all liklihood that costs outweigh the benefits (see number 1 for a reason why).
3. AOL probably doesn't want to alienate UNIX folks. Why? For one they probaby know that UNIX types will develop their own protocols, e.g. Jabber. Secondly, AOL and Netscape are buddies. It's been said that Netscape depends heavily on Mozilla. Who develops Mozilla? Right Virginia, UNIX folks (ok, not exclusively, but you know...). Thirdly, AOL really doesn't want to get people pissed at them with the impending Time-Warner deal.
All of the above reasons boil down to one thing: it's in AOL's best interest to allow UNIX AIM development to continue.
I can't fathom why Apple would do this. (Unless Bezos said they can have it for $3.50)
Jobs: "I said what do you need, Jeff my boy?"
Bezos: "I need about tree fiddy."
Jobs: "Dammit Bezos, get off my lawn, I ain't giving you no tree fiddy!"
Yep, they got me. The other day I downloaded some BNL songs and they were nothing but a bunch of trendy pop songs that sounded like they were being sung by guys with Canadian accents. I was expecting good music, but their anti-piracy trickery foiled me.
Oh, wait a minute...
...who said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Too many people base too much of their opinion on statistics. As is obvious in this case, one side or another can flood the ballot, either by legitimately sending a large number of individuals to the poll or by having a few people run a script. As another poster mentioned, if "What's the best OS" was run on Slashdot, I doubt any Windows systems would top 5% of the vote. Numbers in this case are simply meaningless.
After one of the concerts I went to last spring in Huntsville, AL, I was notified about a poll that a Huntsville news station was running. The wording was something like the following:
This past weekend (band's name) played at (venue name). Approximately a dozen fans were arrested for drug charges... Should (band's name) be invited back?
That wording still isn't very accurate (I can't remember it verbatim), but the way the poll was worded made it clear which way they felt readers should vote. What would have happened if it had been worded like this?
This past weekend, (band's name) came to town, bringing thousands of loyal followers. The majority of the fans were well behaved, and spent thousands of dollars with local area merchants. Should (band's name) be invited back?
I think it's pretty obvious. But the poll really pissed me off because I could just picture the report on the 5:00 news about how 96% of poll takers don't think the band should be invited back because of the wording of the question.
...at least stick with the facts.
...in 1990, before 99% of Slashdot readers even knew about the Internet...
I think perhaps you should heed your own advice.
I don't think any reasonable person believes that Al Gore believes he created the Internet. Calling Gore the inventor of the Internet is mocking the fact that he (as many politicians do) tried to give himself more credit than he is due. He screwed up. In all likelihood he simply mixed up his words and it didn't come out the way it should have. But he said what he said, and it has turned into a joke. Nobody is taking away Gore's achievements.
Is it civil disobedience when I drive 75 miles per hour on the highway? Would you consider me a "martyr" if I get a speeding ticket for driving 75 in a 55 zone, even if I was driving with the flow of traffic?
No, it's certainly not civil disobedience in the noble sense of the word, but comparing speeding to distributing MP3s is a strech. Downloading MP3s instead of buying the album directly affects the artist - they lose money because you didn't shell out your $17.99. Driving 75 (the speed of traffic, as noted in your example) in a 55 is a victimless crime. In fact, it is safer because the difference in speed is minimized. This is something that some people don't seem to get. As a result of the NHTSA's "speed kills" campaign, I have to deal with people merging onto the highway at 40 mph because "slower is safer."
Perhaps I'm just jumping on my pet issue (speed limits), and while I agree with the point of your post, the analogy isn't quite right.
- See new article
- Quickly hit "reply"
- "First Post" OR "Hot Grits" OR "Natalie Portman"
- Read article
- Reword article, post revisions
- Watch karma roll in
- Wait until 15 posts are at +2 or more
- "Did anyone actually read the article?"
- Reword article, post revisions
- Hit reply
- "I'm probably going to get moderated down for this..."
- Reword article, post revisions
The rumors sites are some of Apple's best advertising.
Not only that, I think that the rumor readers and writers are some of Apple's most vigilant supporters. What happened when Metallica went after fans for downloading MP3s? Their fanbase suffered. But I don't even think my analogy is perfect. Downloading MP3s instead of buying the album is stealing. What's the harm of someone getting excited over a rumored product-to-be?
Maybe Apple thinks that somebody will take their ideas (they did have the lawsuit against the iMac clones). But how much competition does Apple have other than itself? An iMac and a Dell desktop (for example) are two different creatures for two different markets. All Apple has to do is get people to want their products. Know what does that? Seeing exciting new products on the rumor pages!
I'd be interested to hear Apple's economic justification for what they are doing. But going against their supporters seems like Apple is burning its last bridge.
Obviously it's because they have a cool logo. Any Linux newbie has to be attracted the that cool guy in the hat. After one has used Red Hat for awhile, [s]he realizes that it's considered the "newbie distro." That's when they move on to a truly one-three-three-seven (as the kids say) distro like Debian.
The Debian logo is only slightly trailing the Red Hat logo in one-three-three-seven-ness. Two weeks ago I "installed" a 1"x1" Debian "swirl" sticker, and my hard drive is 14% faster, CPU is 23% faster, and RAM increased by a factor of 1.5.
When I shop for something online, I spend at least an hour looking for the best price.
/.'ers would probably just steal the MP3s from the album anyway (and end up with a horrible-sounding copy, to boot).
I have to wonder why. If you're looking for a new CD, let's say Amazon has it for $15.99. If you spend an hour looking around and find it for $14.49, are you really saving money? Sure, you'll save that $1.50, but what about the hour of your time that it took you to save that $1.50? Unless you work in one of Kathie Lee's sweat shops, your time is probably more valuable to you than that.
Of course perhaps my example is bad because the majority of
To answer your question, no, you are not the only one who feels that Amazon isn't wrong to adjust their prices on a case-by-case basis. This happens everywhere. It's how the economy works. Everybody around here complains when the government starts setting regulations - why not allow Amazon to set their own prices and let the market worry about it?
My brother just took one of those 6 month crash course Oracle/VB/Powerbuilder thing that says they have a 99% placement rate. He doesn't have any real job experience in IT, and no one will hire him because of that.
A lot of people complain about how such-and-such course has no relevence to their major. A lot of these people dismiss college as a waste of time because instead of going to health class they could be learning to code in (insert language here). College isn't about teaching you to code in a dozen different languages.
For example: I am in engineering. Professors don't list a million different formulas for us to memorize. Instead we are given a couple of formulas and from that we can derive other formulas that we may need to solve a problem. Fields like engineering and computer science aren't so much about plugging in numbers or code to fix a problem, but rather thinking about how to solve a variety of problems. This is what a college education provides.
Of course, I'm not even addressing the social aspect of college. "Technical" people (geeks) have quite the reputation of being eccentric and difficult to deal with. Perhaps I'm perpetuating a myth, but if you take an eighteen year old kid who was an outsider in high school and drop him in a work environment, he is probably going to have a difficult time working with the team. In college that same kid would probably find many other people with similar interests. He learns how to work with them and how to deal with others (namely professors, which will be replaced by bosses).
Let's not forget, college is fun! At least it is for me. Come on, tell me that you don't enjoy (even just a little bit) working at 5 in the morning on some code or physics.
This is a non-issue. If you agree to a price when you buy something, the only person you can blame later is yourself. So what if they are doing price testing? Shop around. Show them you won't pay the higher price.
Precisely. People are screaming "discrimination," but really it's just a demographic issue. If I buy Fargo and Raising Arizona but not The Big Lebowski, Amazon.com is within their rights to either lower the price of Lebowski (to entice me to buy it) or raise the price (betting that I will return to buy it anyway). But the decision to buy or not rests with me, the consumer.
Of course, some folks will spend 30 minutes looking around the 'net for a lower price on a particular item. When they find it for $1 less than on Amazon, they'll proclaim, "Ah ha! I showed them, I'm saving money!" Personally, my time is worth more to me than $2/hr. Amazon is a convenience - I go there knowing that I will most likely be able to find what I am looking for, and that it will arrive in a timely manner, without any difficulties (at least this has been my experience thus far). Personally, I'm willing to pay $1 extra for that.
I don't think this particular situation is about selling to loyal customers or selling bulk items. It's about seeing how much they can raise the price for a particular individual before that individual goes somewhere else.
Perhaps I'm just a capitalist, but isn't that what business is all about? That is, maximizing the profit margin. Perhaps a better example than the Ferrari would be a very wealthy individual at a bank; they get a better interest rate than me (with my average of about $0.37 in checking).
But my friend who isn't such a hard core junkie needs a little more incentive to buy so they sell the exact same items to him for say a buck less. Is this right? I don't think so.
I'm going to throw some wording around and say that I don't think this is wrong. Ultimately the power rests with the consumer. If Amazon's prices are too high, the buyer can go elsewhere. However, if it takes me an hour to find the same product for $1 less, I have actually lost money (assuming my time is worth more to me than $1/hr).
Of course now that we know that everybody isn't getting the same prices/treatment we'll just have to start comparison shopping. Amazon just hopes that there is a price we will pay for the "convienience" of buying from them.
And lots of people will pay for that convenience, including myself. See my above paragraph for an example of how paying $1 more for the same product can actually be more beneficial. I've always received great service from Amazon, they have a good selection, so I still shop there.
Good lord how dare Amazon.com follow a supply/demand model? You mean to tell me that if there is demand (but limited supply) on a particular item that they are raising the price? Personally, I am outraged. I think I should set the price for everything I buy (or steal, in the case of MP3s). I haven't heard of anything this crazy since freshman econ.
I'm having a tough time figuring out what's so wrong with this. If I decide I want to buy a Ferrari, I'm going to have a tough time getting one. But if a Ferrari collector, a loyal customer, wants to buy one, he's going to be able to get it a lot cheaper than I would. Ok, so a DVD != Italian sports car, but my point is that retailers are allowed to set a price anywhere they want. It's economics. There is nothing preventing me from going to any other store and buying the DVD or - horror of all horrors - deciding that the benefits don't outweigh the costs and not buying the thing at all!
Metallica freely allows bootlegging.
Not to split hairs here, but it's not bootlegging if it's authorized.
I don't have a problem with an artist wanting what is rightfully theirs. Just because a band is extremely sucessful doesn't give anybody the right to take from them using the argument, "Well they've already got so much money." What bugs me is that Lars is speaking to committees and groups as if he is an expert. He freely admits that he doesn't know much about computers or the internet. I agree, people should not steal the music, but would give a lot more credit to Lars' words if I considered him an authority.
I've seen a lot of people mention bands like the Grateful Dead in stories about MP3s. I like Hard_Code's suggestion to stand behind artists rather than fight them. When I buy a commercial CD from a band that gives away its music, I'm standing behind that artist. If this happens often enough, other bands will come around. We should make them want to give away their music for free instead of taking it and leaving a bad taste for "the internet" in their collective mouth.
Pirating music is not a right.
Very much agreed.
You're [sic] rights are not being stepped on.
I disagree. There are many people use and who have used Napster to distribute files legally. That can mean that they are the copyright holder for said file, or that they are acting within the copyright's boundaries in distributing said file. An example of the former is the unsigned artist who puts his music out on Napster. An example of the latter is a couple of Deadheads swapping tracks from an uncommercially-released Grateful Dead show. The RIAA's actions prevent them from doing this, and I don't think it is right.
I can use a toothpick to kill somebody, so should toothpicks be banned by law? Ok, before you jump all over me, I realize that the analogy is not valid. The question is this: does Napster exist to assist illegal activities? If that was the idea from the beginning, then I think it's fair to say that Napster should be shut down.
I fear that any crotchless panties large enough to hold a legible copy of the source code would conjure up images of women the size of Roseanne Barr wearing them.
Of course that is more than enough to be ruled indecent, and such undergarments would quickly be banned.
I think it's unfortunate that the public should have to "deal" with "real politicians." Elected officials were put in office to represent the voice of the people. Perhaps the problem is that some people don't know how to voice their opinions in a constructive way, but I think an equally significant problem is that politicians haven't yet learned how to listen to what they call the "internet generation." The increasing commercialization of the internet forces government officials to focus on the internet, but most of them really don't know much about it. So what happens? Instead of listening to the "real" voices of the internet, politicians listen to Big Business.
I don't think there is a way of organizing internet users into a powerful political voice, but perhaps this Napster brouhaha will do just that.
People are afraid of things they don't understand. This is very evident when dealing with computers, especially after Nightline runs bits like "How to Protect Yourself from Hackers."
/. readers (I assume) feel that the media doesn't know anything about any subject. In fact, the majority of the public is clueless about almost everything - save for a few things that each person happens to know about. People think Sony is hi-fi. People think AOL is the internet.
I think this says a lot about the public in general. Most
I was watching a baseball game last night, and a commercial for that evening's news came on. One of the things they advertised was the following story: "...and should your kids really be drinking all those colas? The story at 11." Now just what the hell are they going to say? Has there been some new breakthrough that children should drink 8 cokes a day? Yet people still tune in so they can be force-fed more information that is common sense to most of us.
Of course, the media loves "tackling" an issue on which the public is completely clueless, such as "hacking." It's no secret (at least to anyone intelligent enough to think it through) that news organizations are going to go with stories that will most interest the majority of their viewers. I personally don't know one bright individual who relies on Dateline and 20/20 for all of their information. For example, when I see an article of interest on Slashdot, I'll usually just skip the article and go to the posts, where the most insightful and truthful information is likely to be.
I suppose this post is rather pointless, buried in a thread, filled with my ramblings and rants. Not to mention that I'm probably preaching to the choir. But oh well, feels good to type it out.
Ok, so we know that ABC has backed off of its plan, but I got to thinking... how would something like this not be considered a Denial of Service? It is essentially preventing you from receiving authorized traffic on that line, not to mention filling up your answering machine with garbage. Is this really that much different from a bunch of people ping -f'ing abc.com? Setting up dialers to call an ABC 800 number?
I wonder if they could rig it up to be fueled by the excess grease from their pan pizzas. Lord knows it's much more abundant than any other liquid save only for water.
Slashdot archives should be preserved for eternity. How else will future civilizations know the real use of hot grits, not to mention how our gods were actually petrified stars of motion picture. Not to mention the fact that the archives contain an outline for the traditional sport of karma-whoring.