As far as I understand it, it's fair use as long as you're using it for commentary and critique. If they're just on here to distribute - and frankly, anyone here distributing the full text for Microsoft Docs would probably be sent to -1 mod hell - it should fall under fair use.
The DCMA has *not* revoked our right to say what we think about Microsoft. I think I speak for a large majority of the crowd here when I say I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure that my right to call Microsoft a corporation of royal jerks & amazingly bad programmers is not taken away.
>Given that the duplication cost per CD is >measured at about 35-50 US cents (that's >including packaging), something tells me that >the Recording Industry Association of America >(RIAA) and its member companies may be >conspiring in a price-fixing scheme to keep >prices high. I mean, just how many middlemen >are we paying in order to get the price of a >CD to US$13 to US$17 per disk?
What's even more amazing is that as prices have gone down on CD production, prices have gone up on CDs. Current prices are the same or higher levels as they were when they were introduced in the early '80s.
I think the worst part is that the MP3 crowd is trying to stand on the leg that copying *should* be legal. It really can't, and allow smaller artists to keep earning a living - most artists earn less than the poverty level when working as an artist full-time already.
But costs for CDs and for songs should drop as the elimination of the middlemen & distribution costs occur, and they're not. And MP3s can allow for a broader, more healthy range of artists to be heard, allowing equal access for all artist to the same distribution methods - which rarely occurs with the current "label-radio station-record store" system.
In this particular "time of scientific advancement" is that things are occuring faster - the moral dilemas are the same as always; is it legal to steal, even when the theft is from someone who was stealing from you? Is pornography wrong? These problems just have new twists with the internet. Granted, they're important to me, directly coming from a group I identify with (geeks) - but it's not like geeks were the first or only group who's been accused of moral turpitude, antisocial behavior, etc.
I think this author's been spending too many hours on the net, and needs to put down the Jolt and take a hike in the woods.
The idea that you propose is controversial, and potentially disturbing to the entrenched university/degree program - especially considering the billions that these programs earn based on the concept that the "magic paper" only available through degreed universities is the only qualification for intellegence and competence.
A) Where would you like to see this program move towards, in relation to universities; B) Do you plan on a "pay" version, for people who can actually afford to pay? C) The qualifications (and I took a *real* good look at them, I really want to go!) are a bit unusual - in that they require SAT scores. I miss by 50 points, but isn't that exactly the attitude that you're trying to escape - that you need a standardized test to determine intellegence, that you need cash to determine eligibility? Or am I reading too much into the program?
I experienced the same isolatory lives as Meatloaf did, a decade later - and frankly, I never want to see anyone suffer that kind of misery again.
If that means I lose some rights to some words that I posted in a public forum, fine - they wern't any different than a few hundred others, and the amount I *might* get, if they were published, would barely cover the postage for the check. 1/1000th of a book might get me a penny, if 10000 copies sold, a dollar if it's a best-seller.
So, instead, I think that just saying "fine" would a) avoid the trouble and time that I'd have to go to get the measly ammount, and b) be a small price to pay to at least get the word out (as long as Andover doesn't get any profits from it). Besides, if you're worried that this is a trend, it seems that Rob's working on that from his comments so you won't have any problems with that in the future.
I believe that the profits from this book should go to help those that suffered in the aftermath of Columbine; to help those people, who, for better (mostly) or worse (sometimes) are geeks. I hate to use the words "foundation" or "charity", because I don't think that's anyone wants one. But something beyond that, something that supports people who aren't able to get in touch with other geeks - that would be a good idea.
One way or another, I'd like to see the profits help make life better for geeks, rather than debate over whether my words are worth a few cents or not. Maybe I can't avoid the pain *I* had, but I'd like at the very least to help someone else live a better life that I have.
I really don't have one opinion one way or another on Columbine, other than a) I wish it didn't happen, and b) I'd like to see that it didn't happen again.
But what I abhor is the simple, solitary fact: kids, who have for years been already pretty isolated, seperated, and dis-included, were suddenly being singled-out and treated to unlawful and immoral treatment.
Columbine was tragic, possibly preventable, but certianly random and definitely isolated; post-Columbine treatement of geeks is illegal, if not organized, at least wide spread, and definitely something to rise up against.
I will not allow others to be treated as if they were less than full citizens with full rights; and for anyone to say that I should "just take it" is as amoral and offensive as I've ever found anything.
"A scratch EEPROM which ships empty, and gives system manufacturers or processor resellers the option to include whatever data they wish. It can also be used to track various information about the system or the processor, including system specifications, inventory and service tracking, installation defaults, environment monitoring, and usage data. It can be write protected by the system, as well."
Has anyone considered that this could be used to store virii? It'd be a pain - but if manufacturers can use it to keep info about usage data, no doubt it's re-writable.
I'm usually all for going and talking things out. We as people need to learn to communicate with one another.
But not this time.
I draw the line at attempts to point out people who are dangerous "before-hand", even if it could potentially benefit people. I will not tolerate companies who make money off of fear. I do not deal with economic terrorists, and I am *appalled* past any politeness at this kind of "service". I did not appreciate students at my high school making my life hell 10 years ago - but I most assuredly will not tolerate administrations doing so. I don't insist (yet) that schools go out of their way to help or promote any one group of kids. If they want to ignore them, that's fine. But when a school's administration tries to pick out a group and isolate them "for their own good", I will fight tooth, nail, claw & lawsuit against it.
I would advise that Mr. Katz not to go at all. It won't help, period - they're not listening to him for our benefit, but their own benefit, so any help that they get will only make the situation easier to forget. if I could think of a way, I'd use the old artist's trick of "making the ugly, even uglier." Basically, make this service so unpalatable to the common man, that no one could support it. False advice, posters supporting WAVE done in Communist/Nazi agit-prop style, anything to make them seem worse.
Also, this trip could well hurt. Especially if they can swing the PR around so that it seems that geek groups approve of it.
"MI5, M's office." "Moneypenny? This is James. I seem to have lost something." "James, *really*!" "Could you take a quick dash into M's office and see if there's a laptop somewhere?" "Only if you get it from me when you take me to dinner." "Yes, well.. that's all well and good now - but if it's not there, we might just have a tad of a problem. You see, it does hold a few fairly important documents, and I am sort of responsible for it, you know." "Is that a yes?" "I might have to dash off and save the world because of this. That would take prescidence, you know." "I don't hear a yes in that sentence." "It's a terribly nice world. I have saved it a few times before. Would be a terrible shame to see it destroyed now, you know." "James." "Nice lakes. Beautiful trees." "JAMES." "Appealing overpasses?" "Yes or no." Sigh. "Yes. Now would you please go look?"
Where it was seen before...
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 1
OK, there's two places I can immediately recall that this has popped up before. One was a short SF story by either William Gibson or Bruce Sterling - based off of the Japanese models, probably. The one before that was an X-Minus One episode, dealing with a "little speaker" that people had attached to themselves to tell them what to do to meet their perfect mate. Also, just remembered this one, there was another SF story in one of "The Year's Best Science Fiction" books from a few years back - people have helpers installed, and this guy petitions to have a switch on his turned off.
A) I'll even give the director a few mistakes in the physics - hey, it is a movie. But a major theme of the plot hinges around some VERY shaky ground. Basic physics point: an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Basic orbiting fact: if you want to get into a lower orbit, you have to slow down, not speed up. Then a major moment involves them trying to catch an orbiting object , in which a character aims at a sattelite and hits the thrusters. Come on! He's out in space going forever if he does that. For that matter, don't even *mention* the braking manuver, AKA, Hang A Left When You Get To The Planet. It's all goofy, beyond belief.
B) OK - even if I get past the science (which takes a *lot*) the product placements are abomniable. Take the "Izuzu" placement - guy drives up the driveway in a car. The shot pans across the people down the driveway, and *noticably DIPS* to show the logo. It's embarrassing. De Palma should be embarrassed. That shot is just badly done - it reminds me that this movie is sponsored by Izuzu, not "transports me to another place". I knew exactly where I was and was insulted. Ditto the Dr. Pepper placements, and by the time the M&Ms came about, I was mad. I'm paying for the movie, not the ads. And if the movie contains bad shots specifically made bad so that the "placements" get in there, someone's forgetting that people have to watch the movie.
I'm calling it a bad movie, because it directly claims to be scientifically accurate, and it isn't, and because a movie should be shot well to enhance the story, not poorly to allow an advertiser to get his product in.
When i went to college, it was with the intention of working on a newspaper after I graduated, as a political cartoonist. I thought it was one of the best and most eloquent things that I could do with my life. Obviously, things changed.
First, newspapers changed; political cartoonists became an expense that they could do without, newspapers didn't want political cartoonists, they wanted artists who would illustrate what the paper was saying in its editorials, and eventually, they didn't even want the controversy that cartoonists seem to breed.
The climate for papers changed; newspapers were being bought up by conglomerates, and then the staffs were cut to reduce overhead. Then the controversial topics were reduced so that the papers were now mostly filled with light, fluffy filler.
The world changed; the Internet replaced my daily paper. I could read about the world without the paper, without being worried that my only source was tainted. I could get the comics without being worried that the newspapers would censor someone.
Cartooning changed - the goal for political cartoonists was to get a syndicate deal, or to get a comic strip deal. They had little or no integrity that was present in previous cartoonists, like Thomas Nast, Walt Kelly, Garry Trudeau. There was almost no professionalism, like Charles Schulz had. Ask me some time about the young cartoonist who told me that he wasn't going to help anyone else out because he didn't get any help getting to where he was.
And I changed, obviously - I didn't want to have to diminish what I said in order to appease a newspaper. I didn't want to have to make a cartoon that said nothing.
I don't read the papers because they are pablum. They refuse to have any controversial bite, any well-though-out reasoning that they were once known for. Someone once told me that the future of news was going to be divided between the Edward Murrows and the Geraldo Riveras. The Riveras won at newspapers - but the net is still filled with a new type of reporter, the individual.
If you want to resurrect the paper - focus on the things that made papers great. In-depth analysis. Stories about people in the community. Opinions that state something. You need to focus on the thinking person, not appeal to the masses. You need to cover the local, not the national. You need to re-discover your roots - and then stretch those roots into the future, make them digital & easily available. How come no one has made a Rocketbook version of their paper? how come there's not a palm WebClipper for the local paper? how come with the expanse of space on the web, local cartoonists aren't being brought up and out? Local writers? More articles, more substance, more opinions.
Not that I'm in any way trying to take away from Maryland/Virginia's problems, but I'd like to know if anyone has any information about any other states aside from Maryland and Virginia. My biggest problem with opposing these bills is not the actual actions necessary to oppose them, but finding out when my state's bill is coming up. Any suggestions as to where this information would be for the other 48 states?
My worries are exactly the same as they always are with big mergers, IE, will the information that is now being presented by one of the conglomeration's names, whether it's AOL, CNN, Time, or one of the non-well-publicized names, be actually accurate and fair, or will it become biased?
The net's still very wide open, and CNN.com is just as accessable as a small site. But tradtional news media (TV and print) are very hard to break into; if there is one source of control for a large majority of this type of media, the source can easily corrupt, dismiss, and distort the facts.
AOL-Time-Warner spans way too many companies, way too many fields to be considered "for the public good". We're not going to benefit from CNN and AOL being able to cross-promote. Really. It's not going to cut costs, it's not going to increase competition, and neither company is hurting.
And BTW - I think that a reporter for MSNBC really shouldn't be calling this "crass commercialization." It's just a tad hypocritical.
Doones
Not the first time... but not a good precident.
on
Live or Memorex?
·
· Score: 1
I used to work at a printing company, along side of some digital re-touchers. And if you *ever* thought you were seeing the real image as it was photographed, forget it. I remember watching one guy take a poorly angled photo in a wheat field, with a model's clothes wrinkled and wind-blown, her hair blowing all over the place, and transform it into a full sized poster. The angle was taken out, wheat field was added, as was blue sky and clouds, the model's hair was perfected, and every wrinkle on her and the clothing was taken out. This is the norm for advertising.
Which isn't suprising - but this CBS development is the next stage, and companies will most assuredly do this IF YOU LET THEM. There will always be new technologies which will fool the eye - it's easily fooled. But we need to attack this kind of problem on two fronts: one everyone has already mentioned, which is to encourage the mindset that you shouldn't trust anyone.
The second, is to force the companies to label when they alter images. The companies don't have any reason to do so, it's not in their interests. They don't have any "moral ethics" to think about - companies aren't humans, don't have human feelings and consciences. So, if you find it ethically disturbing to alter images, face it - a company will not respond unless you hit them where it actually does feel, which is either in the pocketbook or in their public perception. And if you hit on both of these points, companies will fold and not use it.
I think everyone is missing two important points: first is that CIHost, despite being down for several days, isn't guilty for being down so long, per se. It's dumb, but not un-survivable; alternative service could be found, and if they were a great service, they'd have little to worry about. But their attitude is not an apologetic and a forthright one, but one of arrogance and obfuscation - arrogance, because they see the problem as being a minor glitch, and obfuscation, because they can't seem to get even simple information, like the status of their site and my site, up. I have not recieved one e-mail, one call, one notice, or even a web page informing me of their status. I note, though, that their own CIHost main page was up before mine. When I look at that, when I can't reach their customer service site, when I can't get my own mail because of this - I'm mad. Down, I can understand. Down & no info why or when it'll be fixed, I don't.
The second point, one that I think everyone is saying but skirting around, is that there's no good, reliable information on web hosts. Lists make money off of a) advertising from the very people they're rating, or, sometimes b) money to rate other people higher. No one has an objective list which rates the customer service, the time up and down, the overall service, that I know of - and it's almost impossible to make one, because the good ones can so rapidly become bad ones. Information about these things is so subjective as well - several people have already complained of having "bad service" while not detailing what happened.
The first problem is CIHost's fault. They can (but most likely won't) change. The second problem, maybe we can work on - compiling a list of decent web hosts, and keeping track of problems and sucesses. Any thoughts?
As of 4:56PM EST, I able to send mail; it works for now. But I already talked to one person who sent me mail through my CIHost account, and when I logged in, there was no mail at all.
I would suspect that mail was getting lost, not bounced.
I'm just a regular art-geek who's trying to put up a domain for his comic strip... and I've never had such rotten service from anything as I've had from CIHost. They've mis-billed me since the day I came to them. They didn't have my site, nor my virtual domain, set up in 24 hours. The service itself has been working, although it's not exactly being taxed by me, so that's no test.
The last time I talked to them, though, it was about billing. It seems they've been over-charging me for some items that, while I ordered at first, I cancelled in June.
I'm reasonable. I tried to do this online in June, and it didn't work. So I called them, they said since I'd had the options, I'd have to pay for them, but they'd be cancelled from now on. Fair enough.
Comes November. I'm looking at my bill - and I'm being charged $20 over what I should be. I called them again, and they told me that since I hadn't cancelled online, they had no proof that I'd cancelled it in June. I mentioned that I'd called, and they said that that was the wrong thing to do - to do it online. I mentioned that their on-line services hadn't worked, and lo and behold, they told me that *I* was in the wrong.
I'm probably leaving after this - so, the big question is, does anyone know of a good host, one that gives a reasonable deal, and is technologically sound? I'm not asking for a miracle, I hope... but I'm really frustrated. Any help is appreciated.
Alec Guiness is right. I love Star Wars, but frankly the merchandising is outlandish, and made TPM a much worse movie than it had to be. Jar-Jar, the Ewoks - let's face it, since Lucas got bit by Empire Strikes Back, with a challenging plot line that didn't do so hot at the box office, he's made the whole Star Wars universe into a kids' universe, with simple plot lines and no detailed exploration of character. And who can blame Lucas? He earns more on the merchandise than on the movie itself.
True, but you miss one important point that was made elsewhere in this discussion: No one on this board is a qualified technical expert, and in fact most are politicians. Not to call into question anyone's intellegence, but their goals, the understanding of what's possible on the net, and the actual acceptance of this by netizens because of the culture are three totally different things. Not one of these people is either a techie or a netizen; and unless the panel adds eleven other people to advise them, we're not going to get a fair shake.
Second, this group is made up of the president's closest advisors; he's not going to ignore their advice. What they say has extreme sway on what the prez will enact/propose.
And third, we geeks are not exactly known for joining together and fighting as a group. We just agree and do things our way, or we tend to accept and move on. When and if this group enacts laws, we may not have the sway to actually do something yet; and while I know the EFF and other groups like that will do their best, I'm not in total agreement with the EFF, or with most lobbying groups (the vast majority of which exist to promote software companies, not computers or internet freedom). I don't know if the EFF will either be effective or be helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
Use Ramwatch to find good prices on Mac Ram:
http://www.macresource.pa ir.com/mrp/ramwatch.shtml
As far as I understand it, it's fair use as long as you're using it for commentary and critique. If they're just on here to distribute - and frankly, anyone here distributing the full text for Microsoft Docs would probably be sent to -1 mod hell - it should fall under fair use.
The DCMA has *not* revoked our right to say what we think about Microsoft. I think I speak for a large majority of the crowd here when I say I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure that my right to call Microsoft a corporation of royal jerks & amazingly bad programmers is not taken away.
Tell 'em to go to hell, Rob.
doones
>Given that the duplication cost per CD is
>measured at about 35-50 US cents (that's
>including packaging), something tells me that
>the Recording Industry Association of America
>(RIAA) and its member companies may be
>conspiring in a price-fixing scheme to keep
>prices high. I mean, just how many middlemen
>are we paying in order to get the price of a
>CD to US$13 to US$17 per disk?
What's even more amazing is that as prices have gone down on CD production, prices have gone up on CDs. Current prices are the same or higher levels as they were when they were introduced in the early '80s.
I think the worst part is that the MP3 crowd is trying to stand on the leg that copying *should* be legal. It really can't, and allow smaller artists to keep earning a living - most artists earn less than the poverty level when working as an artist full-time already.
But costs for CDs and for songs should drop as the elimination of the middlemen & distribution costs occur, and they're not. And MP3s can allow for a broader, more healthy range of artists to be heard, allowing equal access for all artist to the same distribution methods - which rarely occurs with the current "label-radio station-record store" system.
In this particular "time of scientific advancement" is that things are occuring faster - the moral dilemas are the same as always; is it legal to steal, even when the theft is from someone who was stealing from you? Is pornography wrong? These problems just have new twists with the internet. Granted, they're important to me, directly coming from a group I identify with (geeks) - but it's not like geeks were the first or only group who's been accused of moral turpitude, antisocial behavior, etc.
I think this author's been spending too many hours on the net, and needs to put down the Jolt and take a hike in the woods.
The idea that you propose is controversial, and potentially disturbing to the entrenched university/degree program - especially considering the billions that these programs earn based on the concept that the "magic paper" only available through degreed universities is the only qualification for intellegence and competence.
A) Where would you like to see this program move towards, in relation to universities;
B) Do you plan on a "pay" version, for people who can actually afford to pay?
C) The qualifications (and I took a *real* good look at them, I really want to go!) are a bit unusual - in that they require SAT scores. I miss by 50 points, but isn't that exactly the attitude that you're trying to escape - that you need a standardized test to determine intellegence, that you need cash to determine eligibility? Or am I reading too much into the program?
Doones
I experienced the same isolatory lives as Meatloaf did, a decade later - and frankly, I never want to see anyone suffer that kind of misery again.
If that means I lose some rights to some words that I posted in a public forum, fine - they wern't any different than a few hundred others, and the amount I *might* get, if they were published, would barely cover the postage for the check. 1/1000th of a book might get me a penny, if 10000 copies sold, a dollar if it's a best-seller.
So, instead, I think that just saying "fine" would a) avoid the trouble and time that I'd have to go to get the measly ammount, and b) be a small price to pay to at least get the word out (as long as Andover doesn't get any profits from it). Besides, if you're worried that this is a trend, it seems that Rob's working on that from his comments so you won't have any problems with that in the future.
I believe that the profits from this book should go to help those that suffered in the aftermath of Columbine; to help those people, who, for better (mostly) or worse (sometimes) are geeks. I hate to use the words "foundation" or "charity", because I don't think that's anyone wants one. But something beyond that, something that supports people who aren't able to get in touch with other geeks - that would be a good idea.
One way or another, I'd like to see the profits help make life better for geeks, rather than debate over whether my words are worth a few cents or not. Maybe I can't avoid the pain *I* had, but I'd like at the very least to help someone else live a better life that I have.
Doones
Horsehockey.
I really don't have one opinion one way or another on Columbine, other than a) I wish it didn't happen, and b) I'd like to see that it didn't happen again.
But what I abhor is the simple, solitary fact: kids, who have for years been already pretty isolated, seperated, and dis-included, were suddenly being singled-out and treated to unlawful and immoral treatment.
Columbine was tragic, possibly preventable, but certianly random and definitely isolated; post-Columbine treatement of geeks is illegal, if not organized, at least wide spread, and definitely something to rise up against.
I will not allow others to be treated as if they were less than full citizens with full rights; and for anyone to say that I should "just take it" is as amoral and offensive as I've ever found anything.
From the article:
Has anyone considered that this could be used to store virii? It'd be a pain - but if manufacturers can use it to keep info about usage data, no doubt it's re-writable.
Just a tiny thought.
I'm usually all for going and talking things out. We as people need to learn to communicate with one another.
But not this time.
I draw the line at attempts to point out people who are dangerous "before-hand", even if it could potentially benefit people. I will not tolerate companies who make money off of fear. I do not deal with economic terrorists, and I am *appalled* past any politeness at this kind of "service". I did not appreciate students at my high school making my life hell 10 years ago - but I most assuredly will not tolerate administrations doing so. I don't insist (yet) that schools go out of their way to help or promote any one group of kids. If they want to ignore them, that's fine. But when a school's administration tries to pick out a group and isolate them "for their own good", I will fight tooth, nail, claw & lawsuit against it.
I would advise that Mr. Katz not to go at all. It won't help, period - they're not listening to him for our benefit, but their own benefit, so any help that they get will only make the situation easier to forget. if I could think of a way, I'd use the old artist's trick of "making the ugly, even uglier." Basically, make this service so unpalatable to the common man, that no one could support it. False advice, posters supporting WAVE done in Communist/Nazi agit-prop style, anything to make them seem worse.
Also, this trip could well hurt. Especially if they can swing the PR around so that it seems that geek groups approve of it.
Beware Greeks bearing gifts.
I can just see it now:
Scene: office.
RING RING.
"MI5, M's office."
"Moneypenny? This is James. I seem to have lost something."
"James, *really*!"
"Could you take a quick dash into M's office and see if there's a laptop somewhere?"
"Only if you get it from me when you take me to dinner."
"Yes, well.. that's all well and good now - but if it's not there, we might just have a tad of a problem. You see, it does hold a few fairly important documents, and I am sort of responsible for it, you know."
"Is that a yes?"
"I might have to dash off and save the world because of this. That would take prescidence, you know."
"I don't hear a yes in that sentence."
"It's a terribly nice world. I have saved it a few times before. Would be a terrible shame to see it destroyed now, you know."
"James."
"Nice lakes. Beautiful trees."
"JAMES."
"Appealing overpasses?"
"Yes or no."
Sigh. "Yes. Now would you please go look?"
OK, there's two places I can immediately recall that this has popped up before. One was a short SF story by either William Gibson or Bruce Sterling - based off of the Japanese models, probably. The one before that was an X-Minus One episode, dealing with a "little speaker" that people had attached to themselves to tell them what to do to meet their perfect mate. Also, just remembered this one, there was another SF story in one of "The Year's Best Science Fiction" books from a few years back - people have helpers installed, and this guy petitions to have a switch on his turned off.
This is not new by any means.
Aw, come *ON* though.
A) I'll even give the director a few mistakes in the physics - hey, it is a movie. But a major theme of the plot hinges around some VERY shaky ground. Basic physics point: an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Basic orbiting fact: if you want to get into a lower orbit, you have to slow down, not speed up. Then a major moment involves them trying to catch an orbiting object , in which a character aims at a sattelite and hits the thrusters. Come on! He's out in space going forever if he does that. For that matter, don't even *mention* the braking manuver, AKA, Hang A Left When You Get To The Planet. It's all goofy, beyond belief.
B) OK - even if I get past the science (which takes a *lot*) the product placements are abomniable. Take the "Izuzu" placement - guy drives up the driveway in a car. The shot pans across the people down the driveway, and *noticably DIPS* to show the logo. It's embarrassing. De Palma should be embarrassed. That shot is just badly done - it reminds me that this movie is sponsored by Izuzu, not "transports me to another place". I knew exactly where I was and was insulted. Ditto the Dr. Pepper placements, and by the time the M&Ms came about, I was mad. I'm paying for the movie, not the ads. And if the movie contains bad shots specifically made bad so that the "placements" get in there, someone's forgetting that people have to watch the movie.
I'm calling it a bad movie, because it directly claims to be scientifically accurate, and it isn't, and because a movie should be shot well to enhance the story, not poorly to allow an advertiser to get his product in.
Doones
So, what's up next? What do you have planned for the next 10,000 stories? Come on, take a bow and spill your guts.
When i went to college, it was with the intention of working on a newspaper after I graduated, as a political cartoonist. I thought it was one of the best and most eloquent things that I could do with my life. Obviously, things changed.
First, newspapers changed; political cartoonists became an expense that they could do without, newspapers didn't want political cartoonists, they wanted artists who would illustrate what the paper was saying in its editorials, and eventually, they didn't even want the controversy that cartoonists seem to breed.
The climate for papers changed; newspapers were being bought up by conglomerates, and then the staffs were cut to reduce overhead. Then the controversial topics were reduced so that the papers were now mostly filled with light, fluffy filler.
The world changed; the Internet replaced my daily paper. I could read about the world without the paper, without being worried that my only source was tainted. I could get the comics without being worried that the newspapers would censor someone.
Cartooning changed - the goal for political cartoonists was to get a syndicate deal, or to get a comic strip deal. They had little or no integrity that was present in previous cartoonists, like Thomas Nast, Walt Kelly, Garry Trudeau. There was almost no professionalism, like Charles Schulz had. Ask me some time about the young cartoonist who told me that he wasn't going to help anyone else out because he didn't get any help getting to where he was.
And I changed, obviously - I didn't want to have to diminish what I said in order to appease a newspaper. I didn't want to have to make a cartoon that said nothing.
I don't read the papers because they are pablum. They refuse to have any controversial bite, any well-though-out reasoning that they were once known for. Someone once told me that the future of news was going to be divided between the Edward Murrows and the Geraldo Riveras. The Riveras won at newspapers - but the net is still filled with a new type of reporter, the individual.
If you want to resurrect the paper - focus on the things that made papers great. In-depth analysis. Stories about people in the community. Opinions that state something. You need to focus on the thinking person, not appeal to the masses. You need to cover the local, not the national. You need to re-discover your roots - and then stretch those roots into the future, make them digital & easily available. How come no one has made a Rocketbook version of their paper? how come there's not a palm WebClipper for the local paper? how come with the expanse of space on the web, local cartoonists aren't being brought up and out? Local writers? More articles, more substance, more opinions.
Think about it.
Not that I'm in any way trying to take away from Maryland/Virginia's problems, but I'd like to know if anyone has any information about any other states aside from Maryland and Virginia. My biggest problem with opposing these bills is not the actual actions necessary to oppose them, but finding out when my state's bill is coming up. Any suggestions as to where this information would be for the other 48 states?
My worries are exactly the same as they always are with big mergers, IE, will the information that is now being presented by one of the conglomeration's names, whether it's AOL, CNN, Time, or one of the non-well-publicized names, be actually accurate and fair, or will it become biased?
The net's still very wide open, and CNN.com is just as accessable as a small site. But tradtional news media (TV and print) are very hard to break into; if there is one source of control for a large majority of this type of media, the source can easily corrupt, dismiss, and distort the facts.
AOL-Time-Warner spans way too many companies, way too many fields to be considered "for the public good". We're not going to benefit from CNN and AOL being able to cross-promote. Really. It's not going to cut costs, it's not going to increase competition, and neither company is hurting.
And BTW - I think that a reporter for MSNBC really shouldn't be calling this "crass commercialization." It's just a tad hypocritical.
Doones
I used to work at a printing company, along side of some digital re-touchers. And if you *ever* thought you were seeing the real image as it was photographed, forget it. I remember watching one guy take a poorly angled photo in a wheat field, with a model's clothes wrinkled and wind-blown, her hair blowing all over the place, and transform it into a full sized poster. The angle was taken out, wheat field was added, as was blue sky and clouds, the model's hair was perfected, and every wrinkle on her and the clothing was taken out. This is the norm for advertising.
Which isn't suprising - but this CBS development is the next stage, and companies will most assuredly do this IF YOU LET THEM. There will always be new technologies which will fool the eye - it's easily fooled. But we need to attack this kind of problem on two fronts: one everyone has already mentioned, which is to encourage the mindset that you shouldn't trust anyone.
The second, is to force the companies to label when they alter images. The companies don't have any reason to do so, it's not in their interests. They don't have any "moral ethics" to think about - companies aren't humans, don't have human feelings and consciences. So, if you find it ethically disturbing to alter images, face it - a company will not respond unless you hit them where it actually does feel, which is either in the pocketbook or in their public perception. And if you hit on both of these points, companies will fold and not use it.
Beauty is truth, and truth, beauty.
I think everyone is missing two important points: first is that CIHost, despite being down for several days, isn't guilty for being down so long, per se. It's dumb, but not un-survivable; alternative service could be found, and if they were a great service, they'd have little to worry about. But their attitude is not an apologetic and a forthright one, but one of arrogance and obfuscation - arrogance, because they see the problem as being a minor glitch, and obfuscation, because they can't seem to get even simple information, like the status of their site and my site, up. I have not recieved one e-mail, one call, one notice, or even a web page informing me of their status. I note, though, that their own CIHost main page was up before mine. When I look at that, when I can't reach their customer service site, when I can't get my own mail because of this - I'm mad. Down, I can understand. Down & no info why or when it'll be fixed, I don't.
The second point, one that I think everyone is saying but skirting around, is that there's no good, reliable information on web hosts. Lists make money off of a) advertising from the very people they're rating, or, sometimes b) money to rate other people higher. No one has an objective list which rates the customer service, the time up and down, the overall service, that I know of - and it's almost impossible to make one, because the good ones can so rapidly become bad ones. Information about these things is so subjective as well - several people have already complained of having "bad service" while not detailing what happened.
The first problem is CIHost's fault. They can (but most likely won't) change. The second problem, maybe we can work on - compiling a list of decent web hosts, and keeping track of problems and sucesses. Any thoughts?
As of 4:56PM EST, I able to send mail; it works for now. But I already talked to one person who sent me mail through my CIHost account, and when I logged in, there was no mail at all.
I would suspect that mail was getting lost, not bounced.
I'm just a regular art-geek who's trying to put up a domain for his comic strip... and I've never had such rotten service from anything as I've had from CIHost. They've mis-billed me since the day I came to them. They didn't have my site, nor my virtual domain, set up in 24 hours. The service itself has been working, although it's not exactly being taxed by me, so that's no test.
The last time I talked to them, though, it was about billing. It seems they've been over-charging me for some items that, while I ordered at first, I cancelled in June.
I'm reasonable. I tried to do this online in June, and it didn't work. So I called them, they said since I'd had the options, I'd have to pay for them, but they'd be cancelled from now on. Fair enough.
Comes November. I'm looking at my bill - and I'm being charged $20 over what I should be. I called them again, and they told me that since I hadn't cancelled online, they had no proof that I'd cancelled it in June. I mentioned that I'd called, and they said that that was the wrong thing to do - to do it online. I mentioned that their on-line services hadn't worked, and lo and behold, they told me that *I* was in the wrong.
I'm probably leaving after this - so, the big question is, does anyone know of a good host, one that gives a reasonable deal, and is technologically sound? I'm not asking for a miracle, I hope... but I'm really frustrated. Any help is appreciated.
Doones
Alec Guiness is right. I love Star Wars, but frankly the merchandising is outlandish, and made TPM a much worse movie than it had to be. Jar-Jar, the Ewoks - let's face it, since Lucas got bit by Empire Strikes Back, with a challenging plot line that didn't do so hot at the box office, he's made the whole Star Wars universe into a kids' universe, with simple plot lines and no detailed exploration of character. And who can blame Lucas? He earns more on the merchandise than on the movie itself.
True, but you miss one important point that was made elsewhere in this discussion: No one on this board is a qualified technical expert, and in fact most are politicians. Not to call into question anyone's intellegence, but their goals, the understanding of what's possible on the net, and the actual acceptance of this by netizens because of the culture are three totally different things. Not one of these people is either a techie or a netizen; and unless the panel adds eleven other people to advise them, we're not going to get a fair shake.
Second, this group is made up of the president's closest advisors; he's not going to ignore their advice. What they say has extreme sway on what the prez will enact/propose.
And third, we geeks are not exactly known for joining together and fighting as a group. We just agree and do things our way, or we tend to accept and move on. When and if this group enacts laws, we may not have the sway to actually do something yet; and while I know the EFF and other groups like that will do their best, I'm not in total agreement with the EFF, or with most lobbying groups (the vast majority of which exist to promote software companies, not computers or internet freedom). I don't know if the EFF will either be effective or be helpful.
Doonesbury