Alright, if I could mod this, I'd give it a Funny mod. You've got a point. A lot of it is speculative, because it hasn't happened *yet*. At least not in the TV and Movie arena. The DMCA is doing a pretty good job of allowing companies to sue people in order to prevent them from showing you how to use a Sharpie to disable the DRM on a CD though. It could be used in the same way by TV and movie producers. Oh wait, that's right...the movie guys have already done that (*cough* *cough* *DeCSS* *cough*). And they've already gone through the licencing thing with TV and radio. Why do you think you have to pay for a *broadcasting* licence?
An example is a friend of mine's mother. She loves religious shows. But where she lives she can't get any. And she can't afford a dish. So a friend of her's set up a transmitter at his place, which was a few miles away, to broadcast the religous channel from his dish. All she had to do was tune in to his transmitter. It didn't take long for the cops to shut that down, with orders from the CBSC. He didn't alter the programming in any way. The channel was broadcast in full, commercials and all. But he wasn't allowed to rebroadcast it, because he didn't have a licence to...
Yeah, sure...a lot of what I said is the tin-foil hat kind of rant, but just because I'm wearing a tin-foil hat doesn't mean I'm not telling the truth...
They'd have to write an application that downloads the official version, strips the banner ad, then posts it practically instantly.
No they wouldn't. They could do it the same way they do now...manually editing the video to remove the banner, or build a utility to do the edit automatically but the setup and distribution is done manually. There are people willing to do the work and make it available. It would take time, but it's the difference between watching something immediately with annoying ads that you will throw away after, and waiting for the ad-free version that you want to keep in your collection. That is what they want to prevent. If you don't believe me, try skipping the commercials on a DVD with a brand-name DVD player....
If Viacom released official BitTorrents of Enterprise, complete with banner ads at the bottom of the screen, I'd download them. The banner ads would make me more likely to delete it when I'm done watching it, which is what they'd want, right.
Right. Until, that is, someone figures out a way to remove those banner ads, leaving a clean near DVD-quality version for everyone to download. Then the industry will cry fowl saying it hurts they're profits, even though the advertising companies have already paid them. Then they'll start creating all these DRM schemes to try and prevent that from happening, which will only be a smokescreen as they use it's failure to press for laws outlawing all media being downloaded from "unauthorized distribution points." At that point, if they succeed, they will effective control all media on the net, because it is illegal to host and upload any media files to anyone whatsoever, unless you pay a licencing fee. Same story that's been going on in one form or another for decades...
Dude...I don't think there is suppose to be a 3)??? in that. My god...YOU'VE FIGURED OUT THE EQUATION!!! Who knew that the AOL user community was the key the whole time...
I have to jump in on this, even though this is almost a week old. I am Canadian, and sometimes I forget how fortunate I am for that. Until something reminds me that it. It was about 8 PM one night, and I was watching a US station about breast enlargements and why some women get it done. They were showing before and after pics, showing some of the botch jobs and how this affects women. The thing that caught me off-guard was that they blurred the nipples on every picture, even when they were showing botch jobs which I couldn't see because of the blurring. I thought this was a little retarded, but what can you do. A little while afterwards, I was watching a show on transexuality on a Canadian channel. Not only was is a very frank and graphic discussion, they show everything...and I mean EVERYTHING. They showed a close up of set of transgendered genitals. They showed a few sets of those, actually. But nothing censored. Nothing was hidden. They showed you everything and discussed it in a open mature manner. And this was all at about 4 PM. Personally, I love the fact that Canadian stations are willing to do this. No silly blurring about a serious topic. There was a disclaimer after every commercial break. The entire thing was done professionally. And that isn't the only time. There are many programs like that. And although the sex advice and sexuality related show are only played after 11 PM, they still don't hold anything back. I doubt you will ever see anything on American TV, unless it's pay-per-view...
I have to jump in on this, even though this is almost a week old. I am Canadian, and sometimes I forget how fortunate I am for that. Until something reminds me that it. It was about 8 PM one night, and I was watching a US station about breast enlargements and why some women get it done. They were showing before and after pics, showing some of the botch jobs and how this affects women. The thing that caught me off-guard was that they blurred the nipples on every picture, even when they were showing botch jobs which I couldn't see because of the blurring. I thought this was a little retarded, but what can you do. About a week later, I was watching a show on transexuality on a Canadian channel. Not only was is a very frank and graphic discussion, they showed everything...and I mean EVERYTHING. They showed a close up of set of transgendered genitals. They showed a few sets of those, actually. But nothing censored. Nothing was hidden. They showed you everything and discussed it in a open mature manner. And this was all at about 4 PM. Personally, I love the fact that Canadian stations are willing to do this. No silly blurring about a serious topic. There was a disclaimer after every commercial break. The entire thing was done professionally. And that isn't the only time. There are many programs like that. And although the sex advice and sexuality related show are only played after 11 PM, they still don't hold anything back. I doubt you will ever see anything on American TV, unless it's pay-per-view...
Oh...and sorry...to take this back to the original post, this process is going to take a lot longer then 10 years. Any money says you won't see the next space tourist until 2010, if not longer. Not one paying only $5 million anyways.
You are falling victim to the common fallacy that "the rich" are a nebulous, homogenous group.
No, I'm stating that the rich people more then likely got rich by making smart business decisions, not by sinking $5 million into a single week long experience. There will be some people who will do this for the thrill and experience. People that most likely didn't make that money themselves (inheritence) or made it in such a fast an easy way(lotto winner, rockstar looking to spend as much money as possible before the label takes it from them). That's why I said there won't be more then 20 people taking this up. If only 2 people took it at $20 million, then chances are a few more people will take it at $5 million. And when it's down to $1 million, a few more will take the trip. Let's say no more then 100 people. Then with all that money the space company has made, they'll research ways of make getting to space cheaper. Which will bring the price down to about $500,000 a trip. And then even more people will take the trip, making more money for the space travel company, who will see greater profits by making space travel cheaper, which will reduce ticket prices, which will convince more people to go...etc...etc...etc. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Do you understand now why I said that? It's not what people can afford. It's what people are willing to spend...
New Dennis Titos and Mark Shuttleworths are lining up as we speak.
Yes, because there are all those millionaires who just couldn't afford spend $20 million on a trip, but think $5 million is a much better deal...
Sorry...I know that, looking at the numbers, a 75% savings is a really good deal. But it's still $5 million that you need to put up, and that's a lot of money. There might be a few people who will do it, but even the rich people who could afford $20 million probably wouldn't take this deal up. Rich people didn't become rich by throwing their money away. We probably won't see more then 20 buy their way into space, until the price comes down to around the $100,000/ticket range. But nonetheless...this is at least a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but I'll bite.
The solution isn't as simple as "Let the market decide" anymore. TV has become a huge business, and a very pervasive form of entertainment. There is a small percentage of people in the western world who do not watch any TV programming whatsoever. Even though the internet is doing it's part in tearing people away from their TVs, almost everyone has their favourite show, and a large amount of people watch the "popular trendy" show (i.e. Survivor, Fear Factor, anything reality based lately). These shows become common ground for people. It's something to talk about, to debate endlessing, to argue that if only the red team had kicked off that one guy a show early...you get the picture.
So TV has become an integral part of our lives. Whether this is good or bad, I can't say. But it has, and we enjoy it. What we don't enjoy is the fact that in 20 years, we've gone from poor-but-free antenna reception to gradually-better-but-increasingly-expensive cable and satellite options. Yes, they are options, but considering that the free stuff is poor-quality reception, getting worse from the increasing number of devices using the spectrum, and disappearing altogether as networks concentrate on other forms of delivery, these are poor options too choose from. They're getting more expensive for not much in return. They're changing the rules to force you to buy more, and pay more, to get the one channel you want. And generally, it's getting to be too expensive to be worth it. But will we ever want to give it up? No...of course not. We love TV. It's spent so much time raising us. It's sad to say, but it really is a big part of most people's lives. And seeing as it is, and that we are getting screwed by these tactics the cable and sat companies are using, the only course of action we have left is go to the government. That's what they are there for, right? To protect the people from unfair practices? Especially considering the government has given them the power to screw us over as much as we are? I think this is the best way to handle this.
Dude...don't turn to trolling. Sure, it's fun at first. Especially back when I was a teenager discovering IRC. Man, you've never felt anything like successfully baiting Christian into telling you off. You wouldn't believe the things Christians will type but not say. Ahhhhh....I miss those days. But anyways, don't start trolling. Not here anyways. Geeks are your friend.
Heheh...I've watched that show a total of twice. And the second time I watched it, I was just flipping around and saw this promo for a segment all about the "dark side of the internet", or something stupid like that. I got a little excited, thinking they were going to show off Stile Project or something like that. OK, maybe not something as gross as Stile, but you get the idea. Then the segment comes up, and all they do is talk for 10 minutes about Kazaa Lite. They were talking about how they couldn't tell you where to download it, because they said they would get in trouble. Whatever. All they did was talk about the stupid little features that prevented "evil entities" (read: RIAA) from looking at your files. They even showed you how to...*GASP*...STOP SHARING FILES! That was the last time I watched that show. I don't even turn it to TechTV now, unless I'm bored and Robot Wars it on...
Why do we have to discuss how to hide yourself from the prying eyes of those trying to protect their legal property?
This is a really good question, but not for the reason you think. Exactly who's property are they protecting? I thought, once you bought a CD, the music on the CD was yours. Or are you really just buying a licence to the music, and the CD and cover art are just the physical form of that license? Do you really own all that music you say you bought? If you owned a CD, but it was destroyed before the advent of P2P, would you legally be allowed to download those songs again now? You already paid for it once, why should you have to pay for it again? If you listened to part of a song from a new band on the radio, and were interested but not enough to buy the CD yet, would it be alright to download the rest of the song to hear in full? Even if it meant that you were more likely to buy it afterwards?
Really, what is the value of a song? That's what this whole thing is about, isn't it? Are songs a product, or an advertisement for the full package of songs on a CD? I remember a time when I would hear a single on the radio or TV, and be excited to hear the rest of the CD. That was the catch...you'd hear a few songs for free, but would have to pay to hear the rest because they weren't played on the radio. Until recent years when the few singles released from a CD were the only good ones on it. So now what is the difference between downloading a song or listening to it on the radio? They're both being made available for you to hear for free. Why not just allow the songs to be shared, as advertisement for the CDs? Oh, that's right, advertising revenue and royalties. The labels don't get those when you download, as opposed to when you listen to songs on the radio or TV. They don't get to charge you multiple times, in one way or the other, for listening to a song. And they don't get to continuously play the same set of songs, trying to entice you to buy (even though there is no guarentee that you will buy). Instead, you get to listen to a variety of new music, whether or not the artist you're listening belongs to them, and make informed decisions when it comes to buying music. So remember, by downloading music and making informed purchases of music, you're severely affecting the *potential* bottom line of the RIAA. And they just can't let that happen.
IT Professionals are really a wide range of jobs in my opinion. One guy replies saying he likes doing all the cabling work that he does. Another responds that he doesn't like programmer. Those are very different jobs in my opinion...
What I wanted to point out is that my job where I sit in front of a screen all day has become boring. And that it's possible that I would be happier in a more hands-on job, like the post I replied to describes. I guess I could try applying for a support job here to lay cabling and setup servers. But the Ops guys look like they're working a lot harder and longer then me, and for about the same wages. So I think I'll stay here for now.
But you are right. Corporations don't want free-thinkers. They want fast and easy systems that they put up with little thinking needed by the programmer. I know, because I'm working on putting one of those systems in. They call it PeopleSoft. I call it a quick and dirty solution that will only need mind-numbing table edits and the minor Peoplecode updates. Constant mind-numbing table edits and Peoplecode updates. Just like the old Synon system...
I'd like to try going back to "craft" programming, as you called it. It's like what I did in college. At that time, everything was new. We were throwing anything we could think of together, an be amazed when it worked. And some of it worked really well. The final project was some of the most fun I've had as a programmer. About the only thing the advisor did was make sure we were on track to make the deadline. Other then that, we were free to code whatever we wanted, however we wanted. He didn't care how we did it, as long as it worked and was on time. I miss that. Now most of my work is nicely pre-packaged for me, spelled out how to do it. Except for when it isn't, and you have to hunt down the person who made the documentation to figure out what they meant, which may take a few days, but are still expected to follow the documentation exactly and deliver on time. Nobody ever does, but it's still expected.
So I'm still left with the same question that I need to ask myself. Should I start looking at different line of work, doing more physical hands-on work? Or should I continue in this field, and look for a job that's more free and creative? It's just something I have to work through myself. But it's still relieving to vent to complete strangers and know that I'm not the only one...
I got into college for programming at the very beginning of the boom. I did it because I liked programming, not because it was going to pay me lots of money. Of course I was looking forward to the money, but I still liked the programming.
Now, I've found that the programming is becoming stale and boring. It very well could be just this job causing those feelings, because I hardly do any real programming anymore, but until I get another programming job I won't know for sure. And I managed to graduate a year before the bust, so I couldn't build up those wages like some. I'm only making $6000 more then my starting wage 3.5 years ago. So the money definately isn't worth it. Currently, I'm considering looking for a new IT job, or going back to school for welding or something more hands-on. So at least for me, it's not so much that it's boring work, or that I'm only interested in the money. It's more that I think I need more variety and action in my job. Because god knows insurance is NOT a fun and exciting job...
First, we have some very old renderings of Biblical texts
You have some very old renderings of possible Biblical texts. You can't guarentee they are true Biblical texts. Even with what you have, there are still huge debates over the translations and meanings. No one can say for sure what it all means. And this is compounded by the fact that you have to take someone elses word as truth, unless you are doing the translations yourself. In other words, it comes down to blind faith.
even our old fried the King James Version has some translation errors
I'll assume you meant friend...and he wasn't. Many of those "errors" were purposeful changes made on the orders of King James himself. He purposely had his people change some texts to fit his world view. So unless you're reading something other then the King James version, you definately are not getting the full proper text. But you already knew that. So which version is the right one?
However, none of those creates a crack in the overall message of love, mercy and forgiveness.
Hmmm...yes...love, mercy, forgiveness. Like how God tossed out Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden? And for what? Eating from a tree that not only removed the rosey-shading God put infront of their eyes, but also would have let them become like God if they ate more. How about the horror and shame they supposedly felt after realizing they were naked? Imagine that...nudity being something disgusting and shameful, rather then beautiful. Or how about laws that teach us to stone our neighbour for working on the Sabbath(Exodus 35:2). Or that say men are expressly forbidden from trimming their hair, especially around their temples, or else they should be put to death(Lev 19:27)? How about how a person may not approach the altar of God if they have a defect in their sight(Lev 21:20). I wear pretty strong glasses, therefore I am not allowed to visit an alter of God. That's a little insulting and degrading from my perspective. Or how about laws in Corrinthians that teach us that woman are to be seen but not heard, and are to obey their husband's or father's every command(I Cor. 14:33-39)? That they are nothing more then servents? Sorry, but the Bible is not about love, mercy, and forgiveness. There is more hate, decite, back-stabbing, prejudice, and "sin" in the Bible then anyone cares to admit. And with people out there like Jack Chick, while funny at times, they only complicate and twist the message even further.
There is nothing inherently good about the Bible. For that matter there's nothing inherently good about Christianity in general, or most "organized" religions, because of the atrocities done over the years. People just try to ignore the bad, and think "If I only concentrate on the good then it will all be good." Until it comes time to justify the next atrocity that is. And it usually comes down to "the invisible man in the sky said it was OK." But anyways...this started out as a thread about science and religion. Lets just leave it as a disagreement about religious views, and move on. We'll be better then some countries for it...
I sincerely hope that you have made an informed decision based on the Bible itself and not the sometimes poor interpretation by those who claim to speak on God's behalf
I need to respond to this. It's a strictly religious question, but I have to ask. What makes you so sure that the Bible is the true word of God? How do you know it hasn't been re-written and changed over the centuries to fit what some people saw as the correct version of the stories? How do you know it was translated properly? How do you know it wasn't just fabricated in the 5th century? How do you know? You don't. You can't guarentee 100% that any of it is real. All you have is faith. And that brings us back to the invisible man in the sky situation. So...I'll just leave it at that. Take it as you will...
Not trying to troll. But seriously...there is going to be problems between science and God (or certain people's interpretation of what God has "planned") no matter what is done. In the matters of science, religion should take a back seat.
In the early days (and some today), people saw vaccines as tools of the devil because they were not natural or God-given. But vaccines have proven themselves as a strong tool against deadly diseases. And it's due to the doctors who persevered in the face of stronger religious ideals then today. This is another step in medicine, and the benefits that can result from it cannot be overlooked. But if most God-fearing Christians (I assume you're refering to the Christian God) would like to have work like this stopped, because it's an "affront against God". It's not an affront against God. It's science. It's research. It's tinkering with this, seeing the result, and wondering if it can be applied to that. It's trying to benefit that human race. The only thing that can interfere with that is people saying "You shouldn't do that because you might piss off the invisible man in the sky!" Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone. But that argument has been used too many times to prevent legitimate research. It's being used now to prevent stem-cell research. And that's something that I and many other people are really looking towards, because of certain genetic risks that I and my family are exposed to right now. I'd like to know that, in the event that these risks become reality, someone has worked out all the problems and can treat me. Because as it stands now...if I am ever diagnosed with the same illness as my mother, I would suffer the same fate as her. And that's something I would NEVER want to put my kids through...
Don't fear what the invisible man in the sky *MIGHT* think. If he is up there, chances are you will probably misinterpret his meaning anyways. Just look at the "My God can beat up your God" BS happening in the world right now to see evidence of that. Instead...fear the things you know for sure exist in the world...
I just wanted to jump in on this to say I have downloaded music. But I am not a greedy person. When this all started so many years ago (it seems), I downloaded a lot of music from Napster. A lot of people did. That's what made it great. Those were also the days that I bought a lot of music too. I seem to remember enjoying picking up that physical material and feeling like I owned something worth while.
Now I rarely download music. I have a directory full of MP3s that I burn when I need to. I'm not interested in most of the "new" music out there. I've sold off most of my CD collection (if that makes me a bad person to keep a copy after selling the CD, so be it. I bought the CD, paid the artist's keeper. I don't feel bad). But the point is that the crap that's being produced now combined with these BS tactics have turned me off of buying music. I don't feel the need. I might buy something from the White Stripes, but that's only because they're the only band to impress me in a long time. Other then that, I'm getting by on the stuff I have now. Sure, some of it's "illegal" as some might think. But I don't care. I have what I want. I don't feel the need to keep feeding the beast. And I don't download or share music. THAT'S the real reprocussions of what the RIAA is doing. It's not that people are sharing. It's people are starting to get turned off of sharing, or are strictly downloading without the intent to buy. At least I was compelled to buy at one time, whether because I really liked the music and wanted to find more like it, or my conscience really made me feel bad enough to do it. But that's all gone now. This is what the RIAA needs to be worried about...apathy...
Slashdot Mirror
Man...don't refer to SCO by TSG. I know it stands for The SCO Group, but you're also spoiling the good name of The Smoking Gun...
An example is a friend of mine's mother. She loves religious shows. But where she lives she can't get any. And she can't afford a dish. So a friend of her's set up a transmitter at his place, which was a few miles away, to broadcast the religous channel from his dish. All she had to do was tune in to his transmitter. It didn't take long for the cops to shut that down, with orders from the CBSC. He didn't alter the programming in any way. The channel was broadcast in full, commercials and all. But he wasn't allowed to rebroadcast it, because he didn't have a licence to...
Yeah, sure...a lot of what I said is the tin-foil hat kind of rant, but just because I'm wearing a tin-foil hat doesn't mean I'm not telling the truth...
No they wouldn't. They could do it the same way they do now...manually editing the video to remove the banner, or build a utility to do the edit automatically but the setup and distribution is done manually. There are people willing to do the work and make it available. It would take time, but it's the difference between watching something immediately with annoying ads that you will throw away after, and waiting for the ad-free version that you want to keep in your collection. That is what they want to prevent. If you don't believe me, try skipping the commercials on a DVD with a brand-name DVD player....
You forgot the part: "But buy the CD anyways, because it's your duty."
Right. Until, that is, someone figures out a way to remove those banner ads, leaving a clean near DVD-quality version for everyone to download. Then the industry will cry fowl saying it hurts they're profits, even though the advertising companies have already paid them. Then they'll start creating all these DRM schemes to try and prevent that from happening, which will only be a smokescreen as they use it's failure to press for laws outlawing all media being downloaded from "unauthorized distribution points." At that point, if they succeed, they will effective control all media on the net, because it is illegal to host and upload any media files to anyone whatsoever, unless you pay a licencing fee. Same story that's been going on in one form or another for decades...
Dude...I don't think there is suppose to be a 3)??? in that. My god...YOU'VE FIGURED OUT THE EQUATION!!! Who knew that the AOL user community was the key the whole time...
I have to jump in on this, even though this is almost a week old. I am Canadian, and sometimes I forget how fortunate I am for that. Until something reminds me that it. It was about 8 PM one night, and I was watching a US station about breast enlargements and why some women get it done. They were showing before and after pics, showing some of the botch jobs and how this affects women. The thing that caught me off-guard was that they blurred the nipples on every picture, even when they were showing botch jobs which I couldn't see because of the blurring. I thought this was a little retarded, but what can you do. A little while afterwards, I was watching a show on transexuality on a Canadian channel. Not only was is a very frank and graphic discussion, they show everything...and I mean EVERYTHING. They showed a close up of set of transgendered genitals. They showed a few sets of those, actually. But nothing censored. Nothing was hidden. They showed you everything and discussed it in a open mature manner. And this was all at about 4 PM. Personally, I love the fact that Canadian stations are willing to do this. No silly blurring about a serious topic. There was a disclaimer after every commercial break. The entire thing was done professionally. And that isn't the only time. There are many programs like that. And although the sex advice and sexuality related show are only played after 11 PM, they still don't hold anything back. I doubt you will ever see anything on American TV, unless it's pay-per-view...
I have to jump in on this, even though this is almost a week old. I am Canadian, and sometimes I forget how fortunate I am for that. Until something reminds me that it. It was about 8 PM one night, and I was watching a US station about breast enlargements and why some women get it done. They were showing before and after pics, showing some of the botch jobs and how this affects women. The thing that caught me off-guard was that they blurred the nipples on every picture, even when they were showing botch jobs which I couldn't see because of the blurring. I thought this was a little retarded, but what can you do. About a week later, I was watching a show on transexuality on a Canadian channel. Not only was is a very frank and graphic discussion, they showed everything...and I mean EVERYTHING. They showed a close up of set of transgendered genitals. They showed a few sets of those, actually. But nothing censored. Nothing was hidden. They showed you everything and discussed it in a open mature manner. And this was all at about 4 PM. Personally, I love the fact that Canadian stations are willing to do this. No silly blurring about a serious topic. There was a disclaimer after every commercial break. The entire thing was done professionally. And that isn't the only time. There are many programs like that. And although the sex advice and sexuality related show are only played after 11 PM, they still don't hold anything back. I doubt you will ever see anything on American TV, unless it's pay-per-view...
Oh...and sorry...to take this back to the original post, this process is going to take a lot longer then 10 years. Any money says you won't see the next space tourist until 2010, if not longer. Not one paying only $5 million anyways.
No, I'm stating that the rich people more then likely got rich by making smart business decisions, not by sinking $5 million into a single week long experience. There will be some people who will do this for the thrill and experience. People that most likely didn't make that money themselves (inheritence) or made it in such a fast an easy way(lotto winner, rockstar looking to spend as much money as possible before the label takes it from them). That's why I said there won't be more then 20 people taking this up. If only 2 people took it at $20 million, then chances are a few more people will take it at $5 million. And when it's down to $1 million, a few more will take the trip. Let's say no more then 100 people. Then with all that money the space company has made, they'll research ways of make getting to space cheaper. Which will bring the price down to about $500,000 a trip. And then even more people will take the trip, making more money for the space travel company, who will see greater profits by making space travel cheaper, which will reduce ticket prices, which will convince more people to go...etc...etc...etc. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Do you understand now why I said that? It's not what people can afford. It's what people are willing to spend...
Yes, because there are all those millionaires who just couldn't afford spend $20 million on a trip, but think $5 million is a much better deal...
Sorry...I know that, looking at the numbers, a 75% savings is a really good deal. But it's still $5 million that you need to put up, and that's a lot of money. There might be a few people who will do it, but even the rich people who could afford $20 million probably wouldn't take this deal up. Rich people didn't become rich by throwing their money away. We probably won't see more then 20 buy their way into space, until the price comes down to around the $100,000/ticket range. But nonetheless...this is at least a step in the right direction.
The solution isn't as simple as "Let the market decide" anymore. TV has become a huge business, and a very pervasive form of entertainment. There is a small percentage of people in the western world who do not watch any TV programming whatsoever. Even though the internet is doing it's part in tearing people away from their TVs, almost everyone has their favourite show, and a large amount of people watch the "popular trendy" show (i.e. Survivor, Fear Factor, anything reality based lately). These shows become common ground for people. It's something to talk about, to debate endlessing, to argue that if only the red team had kicked off that one guy a show early...you get the picture.
So TV has become an integral part of our lives. Whether this is good or bad, I can't say. But it has, and we enjoy it. What we don't enjoy is the fact that in 20 years, we've gone from poor-but-free antenna reception to gradually-better-but-increasingly-expensive cable and satellite options. Yes, they are options, but considering that the free stuff is poor-quality reception, getting worse from the increasing number of devices using the spectrum, and disappearing altogether as networks concentrate on other forms of delivery, these are poor options too choose from. They're getting more expensive for not much in return. They're changing the rules to force you to buy more, and pay more, to get the one channel you want. And generally, it's getting to be too expensive to be worth it. But will we ever want to give it up? No...of course not. We love TV. It's spent so much time raising us. It's sad to say, but it really is a big part of most people's lives. And seeing as it is, and that we are getting screwed by these tactics the cable and sat companies are using, the only course of action we have left is go to the government. That's what they are there for, right? To protect the people from unfair practices? Especially considering the government has given them the power to screw us over as much as we are? I think this is the best way to handle this.
Yup...it's called the JoyDress.
Dude...don't turn to trolling. Sure, it's fun at first. Especially back when I was a teenager discovering IRC. Man, you've never felt anything like successfully baiting Christian into telling you off. You wouldn't believe the things Christians will type but not say. Ahhhhh....I miss those days. But anyways, don't start trolling. Not here anyways. Geeks are your friend.
Heheh...I've watched that show a total of twice. And the second time I watched it, I was just flipping around and saw this promo for a segment all about the "dark side of the internet", or something stupid like that. I got a little excited, thinking they were going to show off Stile Project or something like that. OK, maybe not something as gross as Stile, but you get the idea. Then the segment comes up, and all they do is talk for 10 minutes about Kazaa Lite. They were talking about how they couldn't tell you where to download it, because they said they would get in trouble. Whatever. All they did was talk about the stupid little features that prevented "evil entities" (read: RIAA) from looking at your files. They even showed you how to...*GASP*...STOP SHARING FILES! That was the last time I watched that show. I don't even turn it to TechTV now, unless I'm bored and Robot Wars it on...
This is a really good question, but not for the reason you think. Exactly who's property are they protecting? I thought, once you bought a CD, the music on the CD was yours. Or are you really just buying a licence to the music, and the CD and cover art are just the physical form of that license? Do you really own all that music you say you bought? If you owned a CD, but it was destroyed before the advent of P2P, would you legally be allowed to download those songs again now? You already paid for it once, why should you have to pay for it again? If you listened to part of a song from a new band on the radio, and were interested but not enough to buy the CD yet, would it be alright to download the rest of the song to hear in full? Even if it meant that you were more likely to buy it afterwards?
Really, what is the value of a song? That's what this whole thing is about, isn't it? Are songs a product, or an advertisement for the full package of songs on a CD? I remember a time when I would hear a single on the radio or TV, and be excited to hear the rest of the CD. That was the catch...you'd hear a few songs for free, but would have to pay to hear the rest because they weren't played on the radio. Until recent years when the few singles released from a CD were the only good ones on it. So now what is the difference between downloading a song or listening to it on the radio? They're both being made available for you to hear for free. Why not just allow the songs to be shared, as advertisement for the CDs? Oh, that's right, advertising revenue and royalties. The labels don't get those when you download, as opposed to when you listen to songs on the radio or TV. They don't get to charge you multiple times, in one way or the other, for listening to a song. And they don't get to continuously play the same set of songs, trying to entice you to buy (even though there is no guarentee that you will buy). Instead, you get to listen to a variety of new music, whether or not the artist you're listening belongs to them, and make informed decisions when it comes to buying music. So remember, by downloading music and making informed purchases of music, you're severely affecting the *potential* bottom line of the RIAA. And they just can't let that happen.
Buddy...with all the money I've made in my life combined, I think I might just meet the $100,000 mark. So don't ask me to feel bad for you...
What I wanted to point out is that my job where I sit in front of a screen all day has become boring. And that it's possible that I would be happier in a more hands-on job, like the post I replied to describes. I guess I could try applying for a support job here to lay cabling and setup servers. But the Ops guys look like they're working a lot harder and longer then me, and for about the same wages. So I think I'll stay here for now.
But you are right. Corporations don't want free-thinkers. They want fast and easy systems that they put up with little thinking needed by the programmer. I know, because I'm working on putting one of those systems in. They call it PeopleSoft. I call it a quick and dirty solution that will only need mind-numbing table edits and the minor Peoplecode updates. Constant mind-numbing table edits and Peoplecode updates. Just like the old Synon system...
I'd like to try going back to "craft" programming, as you called it. It's like what I did in college. At that time, everything was new. We were throwing anything we could think of together, an be amazed when it worked. And some of it worked really well. The final project was some of the most fun I've had as a programmer. About the only thing the advisor did was make sure we were on track to make the deadline. Other then that, we were free to code whatever we wanted, however we wanted. He didn't care how we did it, as long as it worked and was on time. I miss that. Now most of my work is nicely pre-packaged for me, spelled out how to do it. Except for when it isn't, and you have to hunt down the person who made the documentation to figure out what they meant, which may take a few days, but are still expected to follow the documentation exactly and deliver on time. Nobody ever does, but it's still expected.
So I'm still left with the same question that I need to ask myself. Should I start looking at different line of work, doing more physical hands-on work? Or should I continue in this field, and look for a job that's more free and creative? It's just something I have to work through myself. But it's still relieving to vent to complete strangers and know that I'm not the only one...
I got into college for programming at the very beginning of the boom. I did it because I liked programming, not because it was going to pay me lots of money. Of course I was looking forward to the money, but I still liked the programming.
Now, I've found that the programming is becoming stale and boring. It very well could be just this job causing those feelings, because I hardly do any real programming anymore, but until I get another programming job I won't know for sure. And I managed to graduate a year before the bust, so I couldn't build up those wages like some. I'm only making $6000 more then my starting wage 3.5 years ago. So the money definately isn't worth it. Currently, I'm considering looking for a new IT job, or going back to school for welding or something more hands-on. So at least for me, it's not so much that it's boring work, or that I'm only interested in the money. It's more that I think I need more variety and action in my job. Because god knows insurance is NOT a fun and exciting job...
Don't forget about "Start Me Up" too...
You have some very old renderings of possible Biblical texts. You can't guarentee they are true Biblical texts. Even with what you have, there are still huge debates over the translations and meanings. No one can say for sure what it all means. And this is compounded by the fact that you have to take someone elses word as truth, unless you are doing the translations yourself. In other words, it comes down to blind faith.
even our old fried the King James Version has some translation errors
I'll assume you meant friend...and he wasn't. Many of those "errors" were purposeful changes made on the orders of King James himself. He purposely had his people change some texts to fit his world view. So unless you're reading something other then the King James version, you definately are not getting the full proper text. But you already knew that. So which version is the right one?
However, none of those creates a crack in the overall message of love, mercy and forgiveness.
Hmmm...yes...love, mercy, forgiveness. Like how God tossed out Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden? And for what? Eating from a tree that not only removed the rosey-shading God put infront of their eyes, but also would have let them become like God if they ate more. How about the horror and shame they supposedly felt after realizing they were naked? Imagine that...nudity being something disgusting and shameful, rather then beautiful. Or how about laws that teach us to stone our neighbour for working on the Sabbath(Exodus 35:2). Or that say men are expressly forbidden from trimming their hair, especially around their temples, or else they should be put to death(Lev 19:27)? How about how a person may not approach the altar of God if they have a defect in their sight(Lev 21:20). I wear pretty strong glasses, therefore I am not allowed to visit an alter of God. That's a little insulting and degrading from my perspective. Or how about laws in Corrinthians that teach us that woman are to be seen but not heard, and are to obey their husband's or father's every command(I Cor. 14:33-39)? That they are nothing more then servents? Sorry, but the Bible is not about love, mercy, and forgiveness. There is more hate, decite, back-stabbing, prejudice, and "sin" in the Bible then anyone cares to admit. And with people out there like Jack Chick, while funny at times, they only complicate and twist the message even further.
There is nothing inherently good about the Bible. For that matter there's nothing inherently good about Christianity in general, or most "organized" religions, because of the atrocities done over the years. People just try to ignore the bad, and think "If I only concentrate on the good then it will all be good." Until it comes time to justify the next atrocity that is. And it usually comes down to "the invisible man in the sky said it was OK." But anyways...this started out as a thread about science and religion. Lets just leave it as a disagreement about religious views, and move on. We'll be better then some countries for it...
I need to respond to this. It's a strictly religious question, but I have to ask. What makes you so sure that the Bible is the true word of God? How do you know it hasn't been re-written and changed over the centuries to fit what some people saw as the correct version of the stories? How do you know it was translated properly? How do you know it wasn't just fabricated in the 5th century? How do you know? You don't. You can't guarentee 100% that any of it is real. All you have is faith. And that brings us back to the invisible man in the sky situation. So...I'll just leave it at that. Take it as you will...
In the early days (and some today), people saw vaccines as tools of the devil because they were not natural or God-given. But vaccines have proven themselves as a strong tool against deadly diseases. And it's due to the doctors who persevered in the face of stronger religious ideals then today. This is another step in medicine, and the benefits that can result from it cannot be overlooked. But if most God-fearing Christians (I assume you're refering to the Christian God) would like to have work like this stopped, because it's an "affront against God". It's not an affront against God. It's science. It's research. It's tinkering with this, seeing the result, and wondering if it can be applied to that. It's trying to benefit that human race. The only thing that can interfere with that is people saying "You shouldn't do that because you might piss off the invisible man in the sky!" Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone. But that argument has been used too many times to prevent legitimate research. It's being used now to prevent stem-cell research. And that's something that I and many other people are really looking towards, because of certain genetic risks that I and my family are exposed to right now. I'd like to know that, in the event that these risks become reality, someone has worked out all the problems and can treat me. Because as it stands now...if I am ever diagnosed with the same illness as my mother, I would suffer the same fate as her. And that's something I would NEVER want to put my kids through...
Don't fear what the invisible man in the sky *MIGHT* think. If he is up there, chances are you will probably misinterpret his meaning anyways. Just look at the "My God can beat up your God" BS happening in the world right now to see evidence of that. Instead...fear the things you know for sure exist in the world...
Now I rarely download music. I have a directory full of MP3s that I burn when I need to. I'm not interested in most of the "new" music out there. I've sold off most of my CD collection (if that makes me a bad person to keep a copy after selling the CD, so be it. I bought the CD, paid the artist's keeper. I don't feel bad). But the point is that the crap that's being produced now combined with these BS tactics have turned me off of buying music. I don't feel the need. I might buy something from the White Stripes, but that's only because they're the only band to impress me in a long time. Other then that, I'm getting by on the stuff I have now. Sure, some of it's "illegal" as some might think. But I don't care. I have what I want. I don't feel the need to keep feeding the beast. And I don't download or share music. THAT'S the real reprocussions of what the RIAA is doing. It's not that people are sharing. It's people are starting to get turned off of sharing, or are strictly downloading without the intent to buy. At least I was compelled to buy at one time, whether because I really liked the music and wanted to find more like it, or my conscience really made me feel bad enough to do it. But that's all gone now. This is what the RIAA needs to be worried about...apathy...
Fruedian slip?