Why are the energy claims that do not threaten the energy stranglehold that the most powerful entities on the planet have due to this stranglehold get attention in the form of Slashdot links and time/money spent investigating?
Yes, we are providing a "public service" by removing our free chat room services. In other words, yes, we are saving money by this move, but we needed to come up with a reason other than pure financial gain... and what better reason than to "save the children".
Great PR, but some of us see right through it. You may argue they are being fiscally responsible, but damn I hate how they do it. I mean, who can argue that "saving children from pedophiles" isn't a noble cause? How many people are going to hear this story and think, "wow, Microsoft is such a caring company"?
Yes, they are good, but seeing how good they are at deception makes my skin crawl at times.
...if I converted all 250 of my legally purchased CD's to MP3s and allowed them to be shared?
That would equal approx. 2500-3000 song titles, but all very legally residing on my machine. If not, I would LOVE to do this, go to court, and win.
Any help here? Thanks... I only ask because it seems that they only have a case if you are sharing ILLEGAL copies of the titles. Is this correct? Otherwise I just don't see the "crime". The "crime" would be committed when someone "steals" it from me, right? Didn't I read about that girl that is fighting the claim due to her saying that she owned the music, but the RIAA said they can tell if the songs have been "stolen" from somewhere else?
Thanks. If this is true I'm a converting and sharing madman...
"Forcing" bands to sign with these types of services would be a good thing for artists and their music. Why does this idea escape so many? The members of the RIAA are simply getting rich due to their stranglehold, nothing more. We simply aim to end it, not hurt the music or the artist. In fact, the result would be to help the latter.
Get rid of them, and the want for music still remains, it doesn't "disappear". So, how will we get it? From places like CDBaby and iTunes Music Store, and by forcing CD stores to carry a wider variety of small label bands due to newly created demand. With the members of the RIAA gone, their forced radio play will undoubtedly disappear too. I would love to hear some Built to Spill, Modest Mouse, or Sonic Youth on the radio. Sure beats the crap out of what they're playing now, that's for fucking sure, for nothing more than variety alone. I swear, if I hear another 3.5 minutes of formulated crap I'm going to... nevermind.
No, not buying an RIAA member CD helps music and the artist in my opinion.
Sorry, it's just that this info is old hat to anyone who keeps up on astro-phys stuff. In fact, SciChannel has had some very good, well produced shows about these very things for quite some time now.
I don't mean to be a bubble burster, it's just that this stuff was "revealed" quite a bit ago.
Editor's note: Due to long answer lengths, we linked to the questions instead of running them directly here in order to keep this page from getting too large. This was an experiment. If you have comments or questions about Slashdot interview formatting, please email Roblimo.
Along with what everyone else has said, I will say that it's not that Apple's products are too expensive, it's that Apple doesn't sell cheaper computers. Theres a huge difference there.
You are all correct. I was simply stating what it is supposed to be. I could lecture for days on the fact that we in fact live in Corporate America and not the people's government, but again, different topic for a different day...
Please, don't get me started. That's a different subject for a different day. Just know that you are factually correct concerning the "coup" and let's move on...
Just let the market work itself out, the end product will be better, and you won't be giving the already oversized government a chance to increase its power.
The government is simply an extension of the people. Giving more power to the people seems like the way it should be.
You seem to either forego much of the true history of things concerning the Standard Oil case, or simpy do not understand why it was done, and why MS is similarly being looked at. The Gulf inroads were minor on comparison, and Standard was well on it's way to "overcoming" those pesky guys anyway. Standard became more powerful than the government and the people were completely dependent upon them. This was bad
Monopolies have an ever increasing amount of leverage to maintain those monopolies, which is bad. You see, Linux may very well have been much much further into the market if it wasn't for these practices, which has nothing to do with the "best tool for the job" rising to the top. We at/. should know this better than most. Again, this is bad. If I give you software for free knowing that it will help my bottom line in the end simply due to market share and sales of other softwares, this is bad. And if let be, MS will use all of it's might to see that it doesn't "lose". You see, the bigger guy has many more resources to trounce the other guy. Not helping the little guy simply because he is little actually hurts you and the market. Believe me, "leveling" the playing field actually "helps" you, the consumer. In practice this will actually allow the better product to rise to the top. This is good. Many are saying the field isn't level, and that it isn't level due to direct practices by M$. This is against the law, as it should be. This isn't the "land of the large corporation", they're only goal is to make more money. Leaving them unchecked is about as dangerous as it gets. Please understand this.
Exactly. An educated public is the best defense against tyranny. The only problem is that there are so many distractions in our daily lives that doing this very thing is nearly impossible for many of us. Now, throw in the fact that it's partly due to the fact that many of us form our world view by ingesting corporate news (news for ratings, not for disseminating pertinent political and corporate knowledge), and you have the making of an indifferent public, good or not... well, good for the large corporation, but not for the public. Funny how that works... Keep them busy, make them feel unimportant and that they are getting the information they need, and presto! And to those who wish to downplay the force of corporate owned media on the view of the average American, or that this force doesn't do what it can to minimize your influence... you need only to look at the RIAA and the fact that they are being allowed by law to do what they are doing. This is just the latest and greatest example. There are hundreds more.
Taking two days and looking at what they have done the last 4 years isn't nearly enough. We need to break free from the crap we're fed at every corner, on every channel, etc... the thing is, to get to the "real" meat of issues, you actually have to do some very real work, and it's just something many aren't going to do. It literally goes beyond what many think they should "have" to do, and some would agree. Most barely have enough time in the day to work, feed their children, let out the dog, and catch the 10 O'Clock corporate feed bag news before going to bed and waking up the next day to do the same.
Call it laziness, call it coercion, whatever, the fact still stands. We do not have a vigilant public, and it's hurting us.
You don't walk in, hand over a check and change a vote. Doesn't happen.
What if I believe in basic human nature and choose not to believe the above? I have seen votes by conresspersons that seem to benefit the "purchaser" more than the constituents many times. I guess I'm wrong and all congresspeople act out of the pure goodness of their hearts...
And what about the absolute fact that corporate lobbyists attempt to effect policy only if can benefit their bottom line? If it wouldn't, they would not be lobbying for it. Now, does this mean that they can forego constituent concern? Absolutely not. I don't believe an elected official would last long doing so. But, to assume that a corporation is spending millions on trying to prove that a certain policy is going to benefit mankind, and that it is giving all pertinent information therof would be naive, IMO. I have read cases where the public was simply unaware of certain "fallout" due to policy that was lobbied by large corporations, and that the corporations simply didn't "divulge" this information for it knew it would hurt the possibility of passage. In the end, the lobbyist got a raise, the corporation made more money, and the congressperson thought they were doing their constituents a service. You see, corporations survive by doing this. Their only goal is to make more money, gain more power, and to think that they are fighting for the best interest of humanity would be naive. Whereby public lobbyist goal is just the opposite. Their entire existance is based on attempting to fight these entities, and to truly make the world a better place for all humankind, in their opinion. So, wouldn't you always want to take anything coming from an entity who's entire existance is based on gaining more power, not the betterment of humankind, with a grain of salt? How is this good for us?
I say ban soft money, delete the lobby system, and let's get back to catering to the people, not the totalitarian run corporations who's only goal, once again, is to make more money.
Understood, and I am changing it tonight... I am also going to get in the habbit of banning others that do this too. The odds of getting caught are astronomical, and I certainly do not want to hurt the sharing community. I've been bad, but will mend my ways...
Now, I'm sure that SBC is doing this only after consulting with their accountants and realizing that doing this would either make or save them money. Either via marketing incentives or via lawsuits costing less then compliance. Otherwise they would NOT be doing this.
With that said. I use SBC Broadband. I use a Mac, and I use Acquisition for all of my download needs. My shared folder? One with about 150 html help files, nothing more. Is this a nice thing to do to other sharers? Not really, but I download all DAY, and yet will only show these benign html files as being shared. You see, Acquisition allows me to designate a different folder for my dowloads and a differfent folder for sharing.
Wouldn't this make me "safe"? If someone browses my files, they only see "help1.htm, help2.htm..." as that's all that's in my share folder. I have YET to have one upload (go figure).
From another post concerning iTunes: Result: Pretty decent music service, all things considered.
I think this statement is hugely understated. It's far better than "pretty decent", and "all things considered", they (Apple) have produced a licensing scheme that seems to be out of reach of others, and should be applauded on a grand scale.
I'm sorry about this, it's just that the iTMS is literally unbelievably easy, well thought out, etc... you can actually feel the unintrusiveness and ease. I just bought another song... one click and I'm listening to it on my HD. ONE CLICK buys, downloads, and inserts into iTunes and updates your iPod (if you have one connected). It's literally unbelievable. I can't wait til PC users can see this...
Slashdot Mirror
Why are the energy claims that do not threaten the energy stranglehold that the most powerful entities on the planet have due to this stranglehold get attention in the form of Slashdot links and time/money spent investigating?
Here and here.
Just seems rather silly... and obvious.
Yes, we are providing a "public service" by removing our free chat room services. In other words, yes, we are saving money by this move, but we needed to come up with a reason other than pure financial gain... and what better reason than to "save the children".
Great PR, but some of us see right through it. You may argue they are being fiscally responsible, but damn I hate how they do it. I mean, who can argue that "saving children from pedophiles" isn't a noble cause? How many people are going to hear this story and think, "wow, Microsoft is such a caring company"?
Yes, they are good, but seeing how good they are at deception makes my skin crawl at times.
Ahh, OK.
Thanks.
...if I converted all 250 of my legally purchased CD's to MP3s and allowed them to be shared?
That would equal approx. 2500-3000 song titles, but all very legally residing on my machine. If not, I would LOVE to do this, go to court, and win.
Any help here? Thanks... I only ask because it seems that they only have a case if you are sharing ILLEGAL copies of the titles. Is this correct? Otherwise I just don't see the "crime". The "crime" would be committed when someone "steals" it from me, right? Didn't I read about that girl that is fighting the claim due to her saying that she owned the music, but the RIAA said they can tell if the songs have been "stolen" from somewhere else?
Thanks. If this is true I'm a converting and sharing madman...
CDBaby only takes a 9% cut.
"Forcing" bands to sign with these types of services would be a good thing for artists and their music. Why does this idea escape so many? The members of the RIAA are simply getting rich due to their stranglehold, nothing more. We simply aim to end it, not hurt the music or the artist. In fact, the result would be to help the latter.
Get rid of them, and the want for music still remains, it doesn't "disappear". So, how will we get it? From places like CDBaby and iTunes Music Store, and by forcing CD stores to carry a wider variety of small label bands due to newly created demand. With the members of the RIAA gone, their forced radio play will undoubtedly disappear too. I would love to hear some Built to Spill, Modest Mouse, or Sonic Youth on the radio. Sure beats the crap out of what they're playing now, that's for fucking sure, for nothing more than variety alone. I swear, if I hear another 3.5 minutes of formulated crap I'm going to... nevermind.
No, not buying an RIAA member CD helps music and the artist in my opinion.
It's "Full-Speed" internet as opposed to "High Speed" internet, or "Internet2".
Yeah, but is has to taste than "tomacco".
I'm sorry, but if CR thinks they "discovered" this, then I would take anything they report with a grain of salt...
/.
How about, "Consumer Reports 'simply reports that' Tech Support 'still' Sucks"
Which would still be a non-story. This "discovery" is as self-evident as the nose on our face, especially to the sort that haunts
Right?
So, you disagree with the Doctor?
"For example, introversion is not shyness or a lack of social skills. It's temperament, hard wired in your genetic code, and cannot be altered."
I haven't had any traumatic experiences like the ones you mention, but am still an introvert.
Hmmm...
Sorry, it's just that this info is old hat to anyone who keeps up on astro-phys stuff. In fact, SciChannel has had some very good, well produced shows about these very things for quite some time now.
I don't mean to be a bubble burster, it's just that this stuff was "revealed" quite a bit ago.
Editor's note: Due to long answer lengths, we linked to the questions instead of running them directly here in order to keep this page from getting too large. This was an experiment. If you have comments or questions about Slashdot interview formatting, please email Roblimo.
...legal in Hawaii and Canada.
"you have to spend $1300 to get a dvd rom/cdrw drive equipped ibook"
...but you also get 10 GB and 100 MHz (which is also a faster L2, obviously) to go along with the DVD.
Along with what everyone else has said, I will say that it's not that Apple's products are too expensive, it's that Apple doesn't sell cheaper computers. Theres a huge difference there.
You are all correct. I was simply stating what it is supposed to be. I could lecture for days on the fact that we in fact live in Corporate America and not the people's government, but again, different topic for a different day...
Please, don't get me started. That's a different subject for a different day. Just know that you are factually correct concerning the "coup" and let's move on...
Just let the market work itself out, the end product will be better, and you won't be giving the already oversized government a chance to increase its power.
/. should know this better than most. Again, this is bad. If I give you software for free knowing that it will help my bottom line in the end simply due to market share and sales of other softwares, this is bad. And if let be, MS will use all of it's might to see that it doesn't "lose". You see, the bigger guy has many more resources to trounce the other guy. Not helping the little guy simply because he is little actually hurts you and the market. Believe me, "leveling" the playing field actually "helps" you, the consumer. In practice this will actually allow the better product to rise to the top. This is good. Many are saying the field isn't level, and that it isn't level due to direct practices by M$. This is against the law, as it should be. This isn't the "land of the large corporation", they're only goal is to make more money. Leaving them unchecked is about as dangerous as it gets. Please understand this.
The government is simply an extension of the people. Giving more power to the people seems like the way it should be.
You seem to either forego much of the true history of things concerning the Standard Oil case, or simpy do not understand why it was done, and why MS is similarly being looked at. The Gulf inroads were minor on comparison, and Standard was well on it's way to "overcoming" those pesky guys anyway. Standard became more powerful than the government and the people were completely dependent upon them. This was bad
Monopolies have an ever increasing amount of leverage to maintain those monopolies, which is bad. You see, Linux may very well have been much much further into the market if it wasn't for these practices, which has nothing to do with the "best tool for the job" rising to the top. We at
"At a modest 75-power magnification, Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye."
Uh, I'm not sure about other people's naked eyes, but mine only do a modest 1-power.
Who is this guy, the 6 million dollar man?
Exactly. An educated public is the best defense against tyranny. The only problem is that there are so many distractions in our daily lives that doing this very thing is nearly impossible for many of us. Now, throw in the fact that it's partly due to the fact that many of us form our world view by ingesting corporate news (news for ratings, not for disseminating pertinent political and corporate knowledge), and you have the making of an indifferent public, good or not... well, good for the large corporation, but not for the public. Funny how that works... Keep them busy, make them feel unimportant and that they are getting the information they need, and presto! And to those who wish to downplay the force of corporate owned media on the view of the average American, or that this force doesn't do what it can to minimize your influence... you need only to look at the RIAA and the fact that they are being allowed by law to do what they are doing. This is just the latest and greatest example. There are hundreds more.
Taking two days and looking at what they have done the last 4 years isn't nearly enough. We need to break free from the crap we're fed at every corner, on every channel, etc... the thing is, to get to the "real" meat of issues, you actually have to do some very real work, and it's just something many aren't going to do. It literally goes beyond what many think they should "have" to do, and some would agree. Most barely have enough time in the day to work, feed their children, let out the dog, and catch the 10 O'Clock corporate feed bag news before going to bed and waking up the next day to do the same.
Call it laziness, call it coercion, whatever, the fact still stands. We do not have a vigilant public, and it's hurting us.
You don't walk in, hand over a check and change a vote. Doesn't happen.
What if I believe in basic human nature and choose not to believe the above? I have seen votes by conresspersons that seem to benefit the "purchaser" more than the constituents many times. I guess I'm wrong and all congresspeople act out of the pure goodness of their hearts...
And what about the absolute fact that corporate lobbyists attempt to effect policy only if can benefit their bottom line? If it wouldn't, they would not be lobbying for it. Now, does this mean that they can forego constituent concern? Absolutely not. I don't believe an elected official would last long doing so. But, to assume that a corporation is spending millions on trying to prove that a certain policy is going to benefit mankind, and that it is giving all pertinent information therof would be naive, IMO. I have read cases where the public was simply unaware of certain "fallout" due to policy that was lobbied by large corporations, and that the corporations simply didn't "divulge" this information for it knew it would hurt the possibility of passage. In the end, the lobbyist got a raise, the corporation made more money, and the congressperson thought they were doing their constituents a service. You see, corporations survive by doing this. Their only goal is to make more money, gain more power, and to think that they are fighting for the best interest of humanity would be naive. Whereby public lobbyist goal is just the opposite. Their entire existance is based on attempting to fight these entities, and to truly make the world a better place for all humankind, in their opinion. So, wouldn't you always want to take anything coming from an entity who's entire existance is based on gaining more power, not the betterment of humankind, with a grain of salt? How is this good for us?
I say ban soft money, delete the lobby system, and let's get back to catering to the people, not the totalitarian run corporations who's only goal, once again, is to make more money.
"Most" of them? Pfffft.
You'll be able to actually see them bounce off some invisible force field ten feet away.
Understood, and I am changing it tonight... I am also going to get in the habbit of banning others that do this too. The odds of getting caught are astronomical, and I certainly do not want to hurt the sharing community. I've been bad, but will mend my ways...
...oh wait... that would mean the RIAA wins... because if we all did this, there would be nothing to share.
I'm fixing this tonight, fuck them....
Now, I'm sure that SBC is doing this only after consulting with their accountants and realizing that doing this would either make or save them money. Either via marketing incentives or via lawsuits costing less then compliance. Otherwise they would NOT be doing this.
With that said. I use SBC Broadband. I use a Mac, and I use Acquisition for all of my download needs. My shared folder? One with about 150 html help files, nothing more. Is this a nice thing to do to other sharers? Not really, but I download all DAY, and yet will only show these benign html files as being shared. You see, Acquisition allows me to designate a different folder for my dowloads and a differfent folder for sharing.
Wouldn't this make me "safe"? If someone browses my files, they only see "help1.htm, help2.htm..." as that's all that's in my share folder. I have YET to have one upload (go figure).
From another post concerning iTunes: Result: Pretty decent music service, all things considered.
I think this statement is hugely understated. It's far better than "pretty decent", and "all things considered", they (Apple) have produced a licensing scheme that seems to be out of reach of others, and should be applauded on a grand scale.
I'm sorry about this, it's just that the iTMS is literally unbelievably easy, well thought out, etc... you can actually feel the unintrusiveness and ease. I just bought another song... one click and I'm listening to it on my HD. ONE CLICK buys, downloads, and inserts into iTunes and updates your iPod (if you have one connected). It's literally unbelievable. I can't wait til PC users can see this...