I doubt they care too much about whether their customers are happy. If they did, they wouldn't do things like this. I know some might say that it will hurt their sales. I think it will, to a point, but not to their demise. Take the example of gasoline. I can't think of a single person who is happy when they go to the gas station. Some people are less angry about it than others, but I can't think of anyone who would say that they wish they had to go to the gas station today. They still make much money, which is what they are all about. I think the MPAA/RIAA is the same way. As long as they still make money, all is right.
Please don't let my example of gasoline turn this into a Bush/Oil/etc. flaming, that's quite off topic.
I agree that people like you and me that are on slashdot think that, but there are many others that think that it doesn't affect them, or don't see that buying a CD supports this action. Many people on the internet that are more technologically aware are boycotting RIAA/MPAA members. I socialize with a lot of people who aren't very technologically aware, and they don't understand that these organizations are causing harm to them. They are slowly becoming more aware, as I see them coming to me to ask why their CD works fine in their CD player, but not in their computer. But really, outside of the people who are familiar with the internet culture, there are people who just don't get it.
This isn't saying that these actions aren't harming them. The people who are more technical are also more likely to get CDs. I know that I used to go to the store and just pick up a CD or tape, because I liked the music of whatever band made it, without thinking twice about it. Now if I like a CD, I research it to find out if the record company is part of the RIAA, then determine whether it's really worth getting. For me, a CD purchase has gone from a casual purchase to a purchase that requires research. Because of this, the rate at which I get CDs has gone significantly down, and most of my collection is from the 80's and 90's. It might be that I'm getting beyond the target market, but I also think that a lot of the newer music is crap. With these factors, I can see that there's good reason for their profits to be down.
Essentially, the point that I'm trying to make is that not everyone hates the RIAA/MPAA. Not that they shouldn't, but that they don't see their actions as really relevant to their "experience."
I know I've heard of red dots in a pattern being put in to many movies in the theater. To say that the dots are hardly noticable is a blatent lie. I've had people who aren't aware of their existance or purpose ask me why the picture just went to crap at the movie. The one that I think was most noticeable is in Cheaper by the Dozen (the remake, but not the second one, in the theater now). There is a scene where one of the characters is wearing a red checkered apron, and the red dots cover that apron. It's disgusting to me that I have to have my movie altered to make sure that the MPAA and its partners secure their profit. It is on par with the "Public Service Message" at the beginning of some movies that says not to download movies from the internet. I find it insulting that I pay an increasingly large amount of money to go to the movies, and the people that get most of that money are lecturing me on why I should pay. I've been quite tempted to yell out: "You can download movies from the Internet?" I know that there are bigger problems in the world, but the inconvienience to the paying customers seems like bad business practices.
I would guess that the reason that he cannot spell dumb is that he has to rush to get the first post. Adding that extra letter at the end or using punctuation and grammar would slow him down, making him miss the deadline for the first post.
The same form of the English language is what I am getting at. I know I'm not a great example of someone who speaks perfect English, which further emphasizes my point. Each person has a different way of speaking, and that makes it hard to determine what they mean, especially without other context.
For instance, here we have a way of looking at a poster's history. I can see that you have many posts about various things in the English language. The Shakspear post indicates to me that you probably know what you are talking about in regards to the English language, and that you are not just saying that to be a total prick. The context is key. The original poster I replied to has a webpage ending in.co.uk as his homepage. That showed me that he is likely from the United Kingdom, and that he uses a different dialect of English than I do.
The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that the context is what we have to work with. Even with my sentence structure being as poor as it is, I think it is still understandable, in context, that I was talking about speaking the same dialect. Reading it again tells me that someone who is unfamiliar with the English language may also have interpreted it as speaking the same language, possibly even taking that as an insult to their language. But basically all we have to work with is context.
After reading your posts, I think that a lot of the misunderstanding comes from people using crazy words. Bloke? Cycling? Knocked me about? Pavement? I mean, if we can't agree on how to speak the same, how can we accurately interpret what another is saying? Or to put it in geek terms: If we can't agree on how to convert from thoughts to words, how can we accurately do the reverse?
As true as that may be, many slashdotters are responsible for the computers of others. Some work in the IT field, some are the go-to guy for computer problems with friends and family. I'm both. It affects these types of people, perhaps even to a greater degree, since they have to figure out what's going on with not only their own PC, but that of dozens of others.
Wordperfect has been ported to Linux on a few occasions before. There's plenty of information about it on the web. I don't think it's available in many stores as of late, but I think I have a copy around somewhere, and I know a local shop here in MN that still has a new-in-box copy of it. I think you can probably find it on eBay at some point.
I think that IBM didn't port Lotus Notes because they ARE pro-Linux. I firmly believe that Lotus is part of IBM's effort to sabotage Windows. I guess I shouldn't bash it so much, since my day job is in tech support, and about half of the problems I have to solve involve Lotus Notes. I might not have a job if I didn't spend half my time fixing it.
Even still, I don't think it's very probable that everyone on the Mac would switch over to Linux, so Adobe would be footing the bill for Windows, Mac, and Linux, instead of just Windows and Mac. More versions means that there is more work for the developers, which means either overtime, or hiring more people. Both options cost more money. In their view, they aren't going to gain any customers by porting to Linux, but they will have more costs. Right or wrong, this situation has no benefit to their company's goal, to make money.
My best guess is that Adobe doesn't care whether people switch to Linux, and that they are perfectly fine selling them the Windows version. To them, 10000 Windows users is just as good as 5000 Windows users and 5000 Linux users, and they don't have to pay people to port it to Linux.
This has me wondering what the implications would be if the mislabeled files were actually files that you had the copyright on, and were not licensed for distribution. For instance, if I created an MP3 of my own, but set the file name as one of a Metallica song, would there be a case for making a copy of a file that I did not give them copyright to?
As you said, they would have to download the file to be able to verify that it was one that belonged to them, if they were to have a case in court. If my website would have a warning on it that anyone who has connections to the RIAA, it would probably look to them that I was trying to hide something from them. It would be similar to a honeypot for internet attacks. I have no legal background, but would someone who might have a better understanding of the law explain how that would work?
I've found the ietab extension for Firefox to work fairly well. Windows Update has a tendency to take focus on occasion, but it's technically possible to do both. I'm curious to see if/how they fix the focus problem in IE7.
Personally, I think Virusissies would be a good word. Then you could just say that your job is to remove virusissies. You could talk like Ahhnold, and you'd get all the chicks. Yeah, that would work. Or make everyone have even less respect for their local IT person. Nevermind.
My proposed solution to waiting for elevators is to have each elevator with a single, focused purpose. This would require 2 elevators, one for up, and one for down. This will allow you to know which of the 2 elevators you will be getting into, so you can queue up in front of the correct one, instead of running to the one furthest away, because it happens to be going your direction. You can also eliminate redundancy in the elevator design, as the elevator will not need to go both ways. One elevator will have a motor to lift it up, and the other will not need much of a motor, but a brake so it will be able to stop on its way down.
Yes, this is sarcastic, but sounds like something that might be thought up at some point. I could imagine a PHB presenting this to their employees. Might make a good dilbert.
I'm not sure if this will help your exact situation, but you could try going to the network connections box, then the advanced menu, then click on advanced settings. In there, you can change the preferred order of your networks. I've used this at work, as the laptops are set by default to use the wireless connection first, but if the wireless connection is flakey, the computer gives many network errors. Setting the wired connection as a higher priority fixes a lot of problems. The only time I've had problems switching between is if it is in the middle of a file transfer during the switch.
At work, we have entire rooms stockpiled with the stuff, as well as large buildings full of people who research and develop new tape, and even people to produce said tape. This also might have something to do with the fact that I happen to work at 3M, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I think that the poster's commandments were based on his interpretation of those commandments. They seemed awfully familiar to me. I do agree that too many Christians are nuts, and the sane ones just don't get any press. Just like the video gamers that don't kill people, and other relatively normal people. People don't make the news if they aren't sensational, that's just how it is.
I find it somewhat ironic that you are talking about censorship, but you can't read the blog (about censorship) due to an internet filter. I think it's funny. Probably not ironic, but I'll just throw that out there, so some pedant can correct me.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt they care too much about whether their customers are happy. If they did, they wouldn't do things like this. I know some might say that it will hurt their sales. I think it will, to a point, but not to their demise. Take the example of gasoline. I can't think of a single person who is happy when they go to the gas station. Some people are less angry about it than others, but I can't think of anyone who would say that they wish they had to go to the gas station today. They still make much money, which is what they are all about. I think the MPAA/RIAA is the same way. As long as they still make money, all is right.
Please don't let my example of gasoline turn this into a Bush/Oil/etc. flaming, that's quite off topic.
I agree that people like you and me that are on slashdot think that, but there are many others that think that it doesn't affect them, or don't see that buying a CD supports this action. Many people on the internet that are more technologically aware are boycotting RIAA/MPAA members. I socialize with a lot of people who aren't very technologically aware, and they don't understand that these organizations are causing harm to them. They are slowly becoming more aware, as I see them coming to me to ask why their CD works fine in their CD player, but not in their computer. But really, outside of the people who are familiar with the internet culture, there are people who just don't get it.
This isn't saying that these actions aren't harming them. The people who are more technical are also more likely to get CDs. I know that I used to go to the store and just pick up a CD or tape, because I liked the music of whatever band made it, without thinking twice about it. Now if I like a CD, I research it to find out if the record company is part of the RIAA, then determine whether it's really worth getting. For me, a CD purchase has gone from a casual purchase to a purchase that requires research. Because of this, the rate at which I get CDs has gone significantly down, and most of my collection is from the 80's and 90's. It might be that I'm getting beyond the target market, but I also think that a lot of the newer music is crap. With these factors, I can see that there's good reason for their profits to be down.
Essentially, the point that I'm trying to make is that not everyone hates the RIAA/MPAA. Not that they shouldn't, but that they don't see their actions as really relevant to their "experience."
I know I've heard of red dots in a pattern being put in to many movies in the theater. To say that the dots are hardly noticable is a blatent lie. I've had people who aren't aware of their existance or purpose ask me why the picture just went to crap at the movie. The one that I think was most noticeable is in Cheaper by the Dozen (the remake, but not the second one, in the theater now). There is a scene where one of the characters is wearing a red checkered apron, and the red dots cover that apron. It's disgusting to me that I have to have my movie altered to make sure that the MPAA and its partners secure their profit. It is on par with the "Public Service Message" at the beginning of some movies that says not to download movies from the internet. I find it insulting that I pay an increasingly large amount of money to go to the movies, and the people that get most of that money are lecturing me on why I should pay. I've been quite tempted to yell out: "You can download movies from the Internet?" I know that there are bigger problems in the world, but the inconvienience to the paying customers seems like bad business practices.
I would guess that the reason that he cannot spell dumb is that he has to rush to get the first post. Adding that extra letter at the end or using punctuation and grammar would slow him down, making him miss the deadline for the first post.
...crapping in your pizza is quite another.
The same form of the English language is what I am getting at. I know I'm not a great example of someone who speaks perfect English, which further emphasizes my point. Each person has a different way of speaking, and that makes it hard to determine what they mean, especially without other context.
.co.uk as his homepage. That showed me that he is likely from the United Kingdom, and that he uses a different dialect of English than I do.
For instance, here we have a way of looking at a poster's history. I can see that you have many posts about various things in the English language. The Shakspear post indicates to me that you probably know what you are talking about in regards to the English language, and that you are not just saying that to be a total prick. The context is key. The original poster I replied to has a webpage ending in
The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that the context is what we have to work with. Even with my sentence structure being as poor as it is, I think it is still understandable, in context, that I was talking about speaking the same dialect. Reading it again tells me that someone who is unfamiliar with the English language may also have interpreted it as speaking the same language, possibly even taking that as an insult to their language. But basically all we have to work with is context.
After reading your posts, I think that a lot of the misunderstanding comes from people using crazy words. Bloke? Cycling? Knocked me about? Pavement? I mean, if we can't agree on how to speak the same, how can we accurately interpret what another is saying? Or to put it in geek terms: If we can't agree on how to convert from thoughts to words, how can we accurately do the reverse?
Nutritional Information:
Serving size: 1 Post
72% Sarcasm
24% Serious
4% Insensitive Prick.
You're being sarcastic, right?
As true as that may be, many slashdotters are responsible for the computers of others. Some work in the IT field, some are the go-to guy for computer problems with friends and family. I'm both. It affects these types of people, perhaps even to a greater degree, since they have to figure out what's going on with not only their own PC, but that of dozens of others.
Wordperfect has been ported to Linux on a few occasions before. There's plenty of information about it on the web. I don't think it's available in many stores as of late, but I think I have a copy around somewhere, and I know a local shop here in MN that still has a new-in-box copy of it. I think you can probably find it on eBay at some point.
I think that IBM didn't port Lotus Notes because they ARE pro-Linux. I firmly believe that Lotus is part of IBM's effort to sabotage Windows. I guess I shouldn't bash it so much, since my day job is in tech support, and about half of the problems I have to solve involve Lotus Notes. I might not have a job if I didn't spend half my time fixing it.
Even still, I don't think it's very probable that everyone on the Mac would switch over to Linux, so Adobe would be footing the bill for Windows, Mac, and Linux, instead of just Windows and Mac. More versions means that there is more work for the developers, which means either overtime, or hiring more people. Both options cost more money. In their view, they aren't going to gain any customers by porting to Linux, but they will have more costs. Right or wrong, this situation has no benefit to their company's goal, to make money.
My best guess is that Adobe doesn't care whether people switch to Linux, and that they are perfectly fine selling them the Windows version. To them, 10000 Windows users is just as good as 5000 Windows users and 5000 Linux users, and they don't have to pay people to port it to Linux.
Is that how it provides the heat of three lanterns? That does sounds nice, as the winters here can get cold.
This has me wondering what the implications would be if the mislabeled files were actually files that you had the copyright on, and were not licensed for distribution. For instance, if I created an MP3 of my own, but set the file name as one of a Metallica song, would there be a case for making a copy of a file that I did not give them copyright to? As you said, they would have to download the file to be able to verify that it was one that belonged to them, if they were to have a case in court. If my website would have a warning on it that anyone who has connections to the RIAA, it would probably look to them that I was trying to hide something from them. It would be similar to a honeypot for internet attacks. I have no legal background, but would someone who might have a better understanding of the law explain how that would work?
This complaining about the DOJ is blowing smoke
As referenced in the grandparent, blowing smoke at the DOJ can get you in trouble. Especially if the smoke comes from marijuana leaves.
I've found the ietab extension for Firefox to work fairly well. Windows Update has a tendency to take focus on occasion, but it's technically possible to do both. I'm curious to see if/how they fix the focus problem in IE7.
Personally, I think Virusissies would be a good word. Then you could just say that your job is to remove virusissies. You could talk like Ahhnold, and you'd get all the chicks. Yeah, that would work. Or make everyone have even less respect for their local IT person. Nevermind.
My proposed solution to waiting for elevators is to have each elevator with a single, focused purpose. This would require 2 elevators, one for up, and one for down. This will allow you to know which of the 2 elevators you will be getting into, so you can queue up in front of the correct one, instead of running to the one furthest away, because it happens to be going your direction. You can also eliminate redundancy in the elevator design, as the elevator will not need to go both ways. One elevator will have a motor to lift it up, and the other will not need much of a motor, but a brake so it will be able to stop on its way down.
Yes, this is sarcastic, but sounds like something that might be thought up at some point. I could imagine a PHB presenting this to their employees. Might make a good dilbert.
I'm not sure if this will help your exact situation, but you could try going to the network connections box, then the advanced menu, then click on advanced settings. In there, you can change the preferred order of your networks. I've used this at work, as the laptops are set by default to use the wireless connection first, but if the wireless connection is flakey, the computer gives many network errors. Setting the wired connection as a higher priority fixes a lot of problems. The only time I've had problems switching between is if it is in the middle of a file transfer during the switch.
At work, we have entire rooms stockpiled with the stuff, as well as large buildings full of people who research and develop new tape, and even people to produce said tape. This also might have something to do with the fact that I happen to work at 3M, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Back in my day, we just used a knife. We also had to walk to school barefoot, in the snow, uphill both ways, bleeding profusely.
According to RIAA Radar most of her cd's are unclean, except for the stuff released outside the US.
I think that the poster's commandments were based on his interpretation of those commandments. They seemed awfully familiar to me. I do agree that too many Christians are nuts, and the sane ones just don't get any press. Just like the video gamers that don't kill people, and other relatively normal people. People don't make the news if they aren't sensational, that's just how it is.
I find it somewhat ironic that you are talking about censorship, but you can't read the blog (about censorship) due to an internet filter. I think it's funny. Probably not ironic, but I'll just throw that out there, so some pedant can correct me.