Some of us travel internationally. My shortest flight in my 150k butt-in-seat miles this year is 11 hours. I guess I'm in the niche.
Then spend a couple bucks and get the damn Belkin battery add-in. You'll get 6 hours plus another 18 hours.
The Belkin add-on is great because (a) it's cheap, (b) it adds *INSANE* amounts of time to the iPod, and (c) is there only when you need it. When you don't want the added weight, you simply unsuck from the back of the iPod and stash it away. Then the iPod is sleek and lovely and thin (because if it wasn't sleek and lovely and thin, these insane "Why I Don't Like the iPod" articles from (airquote) Professional (airquote) reviewers would complain about it being not sleek and not lovely and not thin.
And it's already being touted as being a "nail in the coffin for Macromedia?"
WTF?! I'm as annoyed with Flash as anybody, but I'm not following the logic here.
MS vaporware means people should start packing their stuff in boxes and departing their desks?
My company is making a product called 'Strip.' It does cool things. When I release it, it will be the end of Microsoft as we know it. We don't have a demo. We don't have a shipping product. But 'Strip' will revitalize the stagnant browser marketplace. Just wait. You'll see.
It occurs to me that the DMCA may primarily be there to protect morons.
SunnComm, for example. They're morons to think that (a) CD content can be protected in the first place (audio-cable-as-a-last-resort is proof of this) and (b) they can place -- esentially -- millions of dollars of their company's value on the SHIFT key.
Of course, they knew the SHIFT key would defeat this on Win systems. Someone, somewhere must have realized this. But if I were an investor in SunnComm, I'd be ticked off that my money is going to morons -- and I'd be doubly ticked that any company funded by my dollars is threatening college students and unversities.
Enough with this. I'd like to see a company just get wise and say, look, the CDs can't be protected. Let's move on. Let's invest in a P2P legal infrastructure or whatever. But to implement moronic -- and obviously expensive -- copy protection under the guise of "cutting edge technology" is just insane. Enough, already.
Craig S. from the RIAA. Here's a tip: if you don't want stuff copied, DON'T RELEASE IT. Save yourself the money, save consumers the burden.
Ditto for Jack from the MPAA: if you're so concerned about your stuff leaking out -- the solution that is GUARANTEED to work is simple: don't realease anything you don't want copied.
If that means you fold up your chairs, take your toys, and go home: then go. Someone will always fill the vacuum. Odds are, we'll get more interesting content, too. (And I know you're running scared, Jack. Sony Classics and Miramax have you shittin' in yer Izod golf pants because they're taking the bite out of your precious West Coast operations. You know it, I know it, it's just a matter of time before the balance shifts.)
Anyway, this new form of copy protection will henceforth be called the 'TuckerClerico 100% Rock Solid Cutting Edge Copy Protection System' -- TC1RSCECPS, for short. 'Triceps' if you want to get rhetorically fancy about it.
TRICEPS will leverage your current intellectual properties in a unique and exciting way. Guaranteed 100% protection, cheap, and simple. You retain your property and consumers are spared any invasive copy protection schemes.
Jack, Craig, listen up: you can contect me a tuckerclerico@bite_me_you_geriatric_morons.com for a TRICEPS prospectus.
Well, I had a TRS-80 Model I Level II as a sixth grader. Changed my life. I remember spending lots of time writing my own little adventure games, trying to emulate Infocom's Zork.
Now, I was also filching money from my dad's wallet to spend on Pac-Man and Donkey Kong. (A five dollar bill bought a boatload of tokens in my mall's Aladdin's Castle.) Plus, I was hanging out at Sears playing their version of the Atari 2600 and at Carson's playing the Intellivision they had out.
But maybe it was weird geek karma, but that TRS-80 became a fairly significant moment in my life. Z80 Assembler and BASIC were what I lived and breathed. At least for a couple years. (Plus, video games at the arcade and Orange Julius's down at the other end of the mall.)
What a weird time that was.
Anyway, it's not necessarily a waste of money. It might be. But for some students -- a few -- it might be a significant thing in their life. Of course, they may already have computers at home -- and access to the internet -- so the idea of a computer now probably have the same sort of meaning it did back in -- what? -- 1981, 1982?
I don't want the responsibility of music
on
Why Only Music?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's suddenly occurred to me that I no longer want the responsibility of music.
I like listening to music, but I don't want to worry about whether or not I'm legally allowed to rip it for myself.
I don't want to worry whether or not I'll have to disable autoplay in order to rip a CD. I don't want to worry whether or not I'm violating the DMCA if I say something, do something, or copy something.
I don't want to have to worry about whether or not the RIAA will come busting into my house because I've downloaded -- apparently -- legal MP3s from emusic.com. I don't want to worry whether or not they'll think they're illegal.
Art and enjoyment aren't supposed to be like this. I can go into a library, check out a book, read it, and return it. I can pick up a magazine, read it, put it back on the table.
I can go into coffee shop, read a paper, leave it on the table, and not worry about whether or not (a) my privacy has been compromised and (b) I'm doing something illegal. I can just go and do it.
Music is just not worth it. It's become larger than itself and owning it -- using it -- has become too much of a responsibility. I don't want to break the law, but I probably have. But I don't want to deal with worrying about whether or not I might have broken the law. I just want to listen to it. I could give a shit about DRM and licensing.
It's too much responsibility. I give up. The RIAA wins. I won't buy any more or listen to anymore.
There. You happy now, Craig? Hilary, you happy? Jack, maybe you wanna chime in about movies, too?
I can't get through to the site, but I see the article titles.
My question: how are these stories *censored?* Just judging by the titles alone, these stories are every single day reported in the media and debated every single talking head out there.
I'm assuming the censorship is the story itself -- the particular slant.
Yet I wonder: if the stories are censored, then how are the guys reporting on the stories able to report on the stories in the first place?
I suspect -- although, again, I can't read the actual stories because of the/. effect -- is that these are the Top-25 *conspiracy stories* of the year -- slanted right, slanted left, or whatever.
Who cares if B&N drops 'em? Blackmask has the good stuff, everything's free, and they're in six (at least) different formats for nearly every device under the sun. Plus no stupid DRM.
Although it *does* beg the question: if a 12 year can't assume debt, then how exactly did they get her name in the first place?
Her mom shoulda signed up with the ISP, no? So her mom is the one paying the ISP bill.
And her mom is probably the one that registered Kazaa.
And if the RIAA claims they don't know any personal details about the people they're suing -- then how did they get the name of the girl?
Unless her mom did something weird like register a bunch of credit cards in her daughter's name in order to get credit. But, nah, no one would do that...
Frankly, I'm appalled that more *musicians* haven't spoken up and said, okay, we don't want you stealing our files -- but, for fuck's sake, I don't to part of anything or any entity that sues 12 year olds and 71 year olds.
Me, I'm a writer, not a musician, but if I heard that 12 year olds were being sued by my publisher, I'd be pissed off, appalled, and shocked -- at my publisher, not at the 12 year old.
Of course, I want to paid for my work. But I don't want my work to used as a political leverage for fat cats to get even fatter. The musicians are being used and taken advantage of by the RIAA. They're pawns, and they have a moral -- yes, I said it: "moral" -- responsibility to speak up and tell the RIAA to back the fuck off the fans.
I think you're right. And I think there's going to be a perception that buying music -- any music -- is problemtatic. Like: well, I'm buying a CD, but am I gonna be a target?
Sure, it's legal. And, yes, that's the way it's supposed to be done. Two years ago it was a no-brainer. But now -- and maybe I'm paranoid -- I've got the perception that this stupid CD I have -- depending on what I do or don't do with it -- can land me in jail. In fact, I don't even want the CD *near* my computer.
So what's the answer?
Well, there's a couple answers:
1) Don't buy anything from a major label.
2) Support emusic.
3) Move away from the computer desk and go the fuck outside. It's nice outside.
>>I wouldn't piss on Lars Ulrich's head >>if he was on fire.
Would you piss on his leg if he'd just been bitten by a jelly-fish?
I ask because while it's unlikely the piss would put out the fire (and therefore wouldn't do much good), it would actually relieve (and help heal) the jellyfish sting.
I know because last week when I was surfing in the Hotep Funnel off Hawaii, I got stung by a jellyfish. It hurt like nothing I'd ever felt before. Like a raw, steel bitch of hurt.
Anyway, I make it back to the beach, see the medic, and he tells me, "Tucker, find a guy to piss on it."
On what?
"That," says the medic, pointing to red, stinging wound.
I ask him if he's kidding, and he tells me no, it's no joke. It's no urban legend. "You gotta find someone willing to piss on it."
"Go ahead then," I tell him.
"Not me," says the medic. "I just went."
So after a bit of back and forth, the medic agrees to locate a volunteer. Fifteen minutes later, he comes walking back with a guy who introduces himself as 'Willy Struggle.'
Are you joking? What kind of a name is Willy Struggle?
"You want I should piss on you or jabber?"
Okay, I say. You're right. Go ahead.
And he does. He takes a long, slow piss on the sting. The medic watches. After it's all over, he asks me how I feel.
Well, if spam would taste better -- and be better for you -- Hormel wouldn't have the problem.
It's Hormel's own fault. If you're in the business of making prefabricated meat -- despite the fact that said meat is made from pork shoulder and ham -- and packaging the meat so that it's easily purchased at WalMart, Target, and any other trashy store that has no business selling food in the first place (except food, that is, that's sealed tight and involves pull tabs and lots of excess meat juice when the pulltab is popped), then you pretty get what you deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us travel internationally. My shortest flight in my 150k butt-in-seat miles this year is 11 hours. I guess I'm in the niche.
Then spend a couple bucks and get the damn Belkin battery add-in. You'll get 6 hours plus another 18 hours.
The Belkin add-on is great because (a) it's cheap, (b) it adds *INSANE* amounts of time to the iPod, and (c) is there only when you need it. When you don't want the added weight, you simply unsuck from the back of the iPod and stash it away. Then the iPod is sleek and lovely and thin (because if it wasn't sleek and lovely and thin, these insane "Why I Don't Like the iPod" articles from (airquote) Professional (airquote) reviewers would complain about it being not sleek and not lovely and not thin.
The product is not out.
The product was not demonstrated.
The product will ship several years from now.
And it's already being touted as being a "nail in the coffin for Macromedia?"
WTF?! I'm as annoyed with Flash as anybody, but I'm not following the logic here.
MS vaporware means people should start packing their stuff in boxes and departing their desks?
My company is making a product called 'Strip.' It does cool things. When I release it, it will be the end of Microsoft as we know it. We don't have a demo. We don't have a shipping product. But 'Strip' will revitalize the stagnant browser marketplace. Just wait. You'll see.
If they really want the full effect, they need someone to play Parent and someone to play a Child of Parent.
Parent will call Child of Parent, say, "My internet doesn't work."
Child will ask: "Is your computer plugged in?"
Parent will say, "Wait. Let me check. No. It's not."
Child will say, "Plug it in. Turn on the computer."
Parent will say, "I plugged it on. I turned it on. It's coming up. Are you there?"
Child: "I'm here."
"I don't see anything on the monitor. I can hear the computer, though."
"Turn on the monitor."
"Ah. Okay. It's on. Yes, it's coming up. Are you still there?"
"Right here."
"All right. It's up."
"Sign in, please."
"Okay, I'm typing my password. Here I go. There."
"Are you logged in?"
"Yes."
"Okay, try starting internet explorer."
"I don't see it."
"Are you looking at the desktop?"
"I've got a window. Wait -- is this a folder? It's a window. I can't see the desktop."
And so forth.
Repeat every week at varying intervals.
It occurs to me that the DMCA may primarily be there to protect morons.
SunnComm, for example. They're morons to think that (a) CD content can be protected in the first place (audio-cable-as-a-last-resort is proof of this) and (b) they can place -- esentially -- millions of dollars of their company's value on the SHIFT key.
Of course, they knew the SHIFT key would defeat this on Win systems. Someone, somewhere must have realized this. But if I were an investor in SunnComm, I'd be ticked off that my money is going to morons -- and I'd be doubly ticked that any company funded by my dollars is threatening college students and unversities.
Enough with this. I'd like to see a company just get wise and say, look, the CDs can't be protected. Let's move on. Let's invest in a P2P legal infrastructure or whatever. But to implement moronic -- and obviously expensive -- copy protection under the guise of "cutting edge technology" is just insane. Enough, already.
Craig S. from the RIAA. Here's a tip: if you don't want stuff copied, DON'T RELEASE IT. Save yourself the money, save consumers the burden.
Ditto for Jack from the MPAA: if you're so concerned about your stuff leaking out -- the solution that is GUARANTEED to work is simple: don't realease anything you don't want copied.
If that means you fold up your chairs, take your toys, and go home: then go. Someone will always fill the vacuum. Odds are, we'll get more interesting content, too. (And I know you're running scared, Jack. Sony Classics and Miramax have you shittin' in yer Izod golf pants because they're taking the bite out of your precious West Coast operations. You know it, I know it, it's just a matter of time before the balance shifts.)
Anyway, this new form of copy protection will henceforth be called the 'TuckerClerico 100% Rock Solid Cutting Edge Copy Protection System' -- TC1RSCECPS, for short. 'Triceps' if you want to get rhetorically fancy about it.
TRICEPS will leverage your current intellectual properties in a unique and exciting way. Guaranteed 100% protection, cheap, and simple. You retain your property and consumers are spared any invasive copy protection schemes.
Jack, Craig, listen up: you can contect me a tuckerclerico@bite_me_you_geriatric_morons.com for a TRICEPS prospectus.
Well, I had a TRS-80 Model I Level II as a sixth grader. Changed my life. I remember spending lots of time writing my own little adventure games, trying to emulate Infocom's Zork. Now, I was also filching money from my dad's wallet to spend on Pac-Man and Donkey Kong. (A five dollar bill bought a boatload of tokens in my mall's Aladdin's Castle.) Plus, I was hanging out at Sears playing their version of the Atari 2600 and at Carson's playing the Intellivision they had out. But maybe it was weird geek karma, but that TRS-80 became a fairly significant moment in my life. Z80 Assembler and BASIC were what I lived and breathed. At least for a couple years. (Plus, video games at the arcade and Orange Julius's down at the other end of the mall.) What a weird time that was. Anyway, it's not necessarily a waste of money. It might be. But for some students -- a few -- it might be a significant thing in their life. Of course, they may already have computers at home -- and access to the internet -- so the idea of a computer now probably have the same sort of meaning it did back in -- what? -- 1981, 1982?
It's suddenly occurred to me that I no longer want the responsibility of music.
I like listening to music, but I don't want to worry about whether or not I'm legally allowed to rip it for myself.
I don't want to worry whether or not I'll have to disable autoplay in order to rip a CD. I don't want to worry whether or not I'm violating the DMCA if I say something, do something, or copy something.
I don't want to have to worry about whether or not the RIAA will come busting into my house because I've downloaded -- apparently -- legal MP3s from emusic.com. I don't want to worry whether or not they'll think they're illegal.
Art and enjoyment aren't supposed to be like this. I can go into a library, check out a book, read it, and return it. I can pick up a magazine, read it, put it back on the table.
I can go into coffee shop, read a paper, leave it on the table, and not worry about whether or not (a) my privacy has been compromised and (b) I'm doing something illegal. I can just go and do it.
Music is just not worth it. It's become larger than itself and owning it -- using it -- has become too much of a responsibility. I don't want to break the law, but I probably have. But I don't want to deal with worrying about whether or not I might have broken the law. I just want to listen to it. I could give a shit about DRM and licensing.
It's too much responsibility. I give up. The RIAA wins. I won't buy any more or listen to anymore.
There. You happy now, Craig? Hilary, you happy? Jack, maybe you wanna chime in about movies, too?
Go ahead.
I can't get through to the site, but I see the article titles.
/. effect -- is that these are the Top-25 *conspiracy stories* of the year -- slanted right, slanted left, or whatever.
My question: how are these stories *censored?* Just judging by the titles alone, these stories are every single day reported in the media and debated every single talking head out there.
I'm assuming the censorship is the story itself -- the particular slant.
Yet I wonder: if the stories are censored, then how are the guys reporting on the stories able to report on the stories in the first place?
I suspect -- although, again, I can't read the actual stories because of the
Go to http://www.blackmask.com.
Thousands of *free* ebooks.
Who cares if B&N drops 'em? Blackmask has the good stuff, everything's free, and they're in six (at least) different formats for nearly every device under the sun. Plus no stupid DRM.
Although it *does* beg the question: if a 12 year can't assume debt, then how exactly did they get her name in the first place?
...
...)
Her mom shoulda signed up with the ISP, no? So her mom is the one paying the ISP bill.
And her mom is probably the one that registered Kazaa.
And if the RIAA claims they don't know any personal details about the people they're suing -- then how did they get the name of the girl?
Unless her mom did something weird like register a bunch of credit cards in her daughter's name in order to get credit. But, nah, no one would do that
(Just curious
Where are the musicians in all of this?
Frankly, I'm appalled that more *musicians* haven't spoken up and said, okay, we don't want you stealing our files -- but, for fuck's sake, I don't to part of anything or any entity that sues 12 year olds and 71 year olds.
Me, I'm a writer, not a musician, but if I heard that 12 year olds were being sued by my publisher, I'd be pissed off, appalled, and shocked -- at my publisher, not at the 12 year old.
Of course, I want to paid for my work. But I don't want my work to used as a political leverage for fat cats to get even fatter. The musicians are being used and taken advantage of by the RIAA. They're pawns, and they have a moral -- yes, I said it: "moral" -- responsibility to speak up and tell the RIAA to back the fuck off the fans.
At least they paid for Kazaa.
That's good, isn't it?
I think you're right. And I think there's going to be a perception that buying music -- any music -- is problemtatic. Like: well, I'm buying a CD, but am I gonna be a target?
Sure, it's legal. And, yes, that's the way it's supposed to be done. Two years ago it was a no-brainer. But now -- and maybe I'm paranoid -- I've got the perception that this stupid CD I have -- depending on what I do or don't do with it -- can land me in jail. In fact, I don't even want the CD *near* my computer.
So what's the answer?
Well, there's a couple answers:
1) Don't buy anything from a major label.
2) Support emusic.
3) Move away from the computer desk and go the fuck outside. It's nice outside.
>>I wouldn't piss on Lars Ulrich's head
>>if he was on fire.
Would you piss on his leg if he'd just been bitten by a jelly-fish?
I ask because while it's unlikely the piss would put out the fire (and therefore wouldn't do much good), it would actually relieve (and help heal) the jellyfish sting.
I know because last week when I was surfing in the Hotep Funnel off Hawaii, I got stung by a jellyfish. It hurt like nothing I'd ever felt before. Like a raw, steel bitch of hurt.
Anyway, I make it back to the beach, see the medic, and he tells me, "Tucker, find a guy to piss on it."
On what?
"That," says the medic, pointing to red, stinging wound.
I ask him if he's kidding, and he tells me no, it's no joke. It's no urban legend. "You gotta find someone willing to piss on it."
"Go ahead then," I tell him.
"Not me," says the medic. "I just went."
So after a bit of back and forth, the medic agrees to locate a volunteer. Fifteen minutes later, he comes walking back with a guy who introduces himself as 'Willy Struggle.'
Are you joking? What kind of a name is Willy Struggle?
"You want I should piss on you or jabber?"
Okay, I say. You're right. Go ahead.
And he does. He takes a long, slow piss on the sting. The medic watches. After it's all over, he asks me how I feel.
Better, I say. It's true. It felt a *lot* better.
True story.
Well, if spam would taste better -- and be better for you -- Hormel wouldn't have the problem. It's Hormel's own fault. If you're in the business of making prefabricated meat -- despite the fact that said meat is made from pork shoulder and ham -- and packaging the meat so that it's easily purchased at WalMart, Target, and any other trashy store that has no business selling food in the first place (except food, that is, that's sealed tight and involves pull tabs and lots of excess meat juice when the pulltab is popped), then you pretty get what you deserve.