If by "wrangled" you mean "took contributions that users gave to the community for free, and used them to make money" then yes. Wrangled. Our friends at GraceCDDBNote are great wranglers too.
I love people who think like the parent poster.
It's quid pro quo.
People supply information, which is how IMDB gains.
IDMB provides the logistics for the organization and collection of all this data, which is how you gain.
Please explain, exactly, how this situation could be any better than it is?
Let me try to imagine the scenarios in your head, and nip them in the bud:
1. If you want them to pay you for your time, then you can expect to pay them for their resources. 2. If you want them to stop profiting from IMDB, then you can expect IMDB to go away.
They aren't a charity, and the exchange between people giving to IMDB and IMDB sharing seems to be quite amicable, except for the clueless among us who think everything should be free.
In the 1990s, much R&D went into video-on-demand and set-top boxes. Everyone had a TV, so everyone assumed the TV would be the communication device of the future. But the market for video-on-demand never really materialized.
It didn't? What's the OnDemand I have on my cable PVR box, which lets me watch just about every current and past HBO show, a full season's worth of shows each, movies, etc. Pause, ff, rw. It's all there.
Reason I say free is because it has always been free. The people that have the bunny ears for their TV I think can still get ABC/NBC/Fox and watch the news for free.
No they don't. They are just supposed to absorb advertisements as payment.
As for adds in the nightly news broadcasts on iTunes, I could deal with, as long as they are free downloads.
You'd have to deal with that, at minimum, since the TV studio either needs to charge you money to pay for their expenses, or they need to keep the ads in, which isn't workable unless they prevent you from fast-forwarding. But let's pretend for a minute they leave the ads in, and they are "free" on iTunes.
Who's going to pay for Apple's bandwidth?
Nope, if you want to watch it "for free" you'll have to watch the broadcast.
If you want it wrapped up, packaged in a nice little bow for your dead-simple consumption via iTunes, you will be paying something for it.
"Right now, Apple's videos are at 320x240, probably for bandwidth reasons as well as the fact that HD H.264 decoding requires a powerful machine that most don't have yet."
Au contraire, the new ipod specs say it supports:
H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in.m4v,.mp4 and.mov file formats MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in.m4v,.mp4 and.mov file formats
You're close. Apple already makes DVR-capable machines. They're called Macs. You'll be able to record TV on your Mac, and download shows/movies from iTunes (soon to be renamed?). Over your wired network, or an AirTunes like device, you'll be able to stream video to your TV set. Your video ipod will have a huge hard drive and be able to not only play the videos from your Mac on its display, but more importantly, make it dead simple to do video out to a display when you're away from home.
It's not a diary unless your version of a diary lets other users subscribe to it and post feedback.
It's not just an audio file, a podcast is the entire mechanism of easily subscribing to a audio program, and having it sync up automatically to your listening software/hardware of preference.
Please actually research what you're talking about before sounding like a moron by trying to make fun of something you don't get.
You are entitled to your opinion, but know that it diverges wildly from critics and TV fans. Witness the domination of the Emmy's by HBO, year in and year out.
I can go to the supermarket and eat cheese for free. I don't have to steal it or nothin'. They even slice it up for me. They find that by simply giving cheese away they end up selling more cheese than if they don't.
Would you still buy the cheese if you could take as much of it as you wanted, whenever you wanted, for free?
The little 3 digit number on the back was nice, but does it really slow anything down? After all, that number is now part of the databases, just like the expiration date.
No, it is not. Any company that stores the 3-digit code is in violation of the credit card companies, and if they are doing any volume of cc business, they will get nailed for this very soon, as VISA/MC are starting to drop the hammer on online retailers.
The 3-digit code is not stored on the magnetic stripe, so it shouldn't be able to be scanned in at POS either.
This one is especially interesting and confusing. So they give you a number pad that would be something like:
1 = s, 2 = q, 3 = w, 4 = i, 5 = r, 6 = k, 7 = i, 8 = n, 9 = g, 0 = y... then you type the letters in by clicking a pad. So wouldn't it be easy for a phisherman to get this information by giving you a grid like that, but then translating the letters back into their number form? I must misunderstand the whole thing.
Anyone have any more info?
This part is meant to defeat keyboard sniffers. If you login to your banking site and type the PIN code, a keyboard sniffer could be on the lookout for 3 and 4 digit numbers as likely ATM PIN codes. So they said, let's map the numbers to letters. But then a clever hacker could sniff for 4 letter combos and translate, so they said, "and we'll make the letter assignment random and ever-changing."
What I meant is that the NSF budget figures were posted to show that the Bush administration supports science, but the numbers show a decrease in funding.
They show a decrease in funding FOR ONE YEAR. The funding increased every other year, and it has increased beyond just the level of inflation, so I am trying to understand how you feel Bush has really decreased funding overall? The implication that was being proven wrong by those statistics is that the Bush administration doesn't support science funding.
Whether or not spending government money to support scientific research is a separate argument, but I would argue that it's ironic that you would imply that it is not, typing your message into a "computer" hooked up to the "internet"...
The government created the internet network, but to suggest that it wouldn't have formed on its own is a bit whacky. Did the government invent the idea of networking? Did the government invent ethernet? Nope, that was Metcalfe @ Xerox. Did the government invent/popularize computers? Nope, that honor goes to many companies. Did the government invest billions of dollars to commercialize the internet? Nope, the thanks there also goes to many, many COMPANIES. Before the internet, I was posting messages like this on BBSes, and then on national networks like AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. The government didn't invent those either. Did the government invent TCP/IP or the World Wide Web? Nope and nope.
And so the government funds the creation of arpanet, for the military (ARPA). They funded this, along with thousands of other projects, using taxpayer money.
What would have happened if the taxpayers held onto that money, and invested it in companies? Is it possible we would have something even better than today's internet network?
Today it's an illusion, a type of propaganda, to accept the status quo: That the very rich becomes ever more rich at the expense of the rest.
The status quo is class warfare, which you have perpetuated wonderfully in your post.
First, rich don't get riched "at the expense" of anyone. When someone gets richer, that doesn't mean they stole that money from someone else. Why do you hold such disdain for someone who is successful, who has worked smarter or harder, or planned better than someone else? Can you not reserve some of your disrespect for those poor people that neglected their educations, have never worked hard, have come to rely on the teat of the government instead of themselves, their family and friends?
We have people in America that qualify as "poor" but own TVs, cars, have cable service, cell phones, name brand clothing, free K-12 education, and the list goes on and on.
Just because we classify someone as poor doesn't mean they are really poor, especially when compared to other countries around the world which you hold in such high regard.
They work hard, but they will never strike it rich.
Simply working "hard" doesn't mean you will -- or even deserve -- to strike it rich. That's lunacy. That's not the American dream. The American Dream is that the only one stopping you from being successful in America is yourself.
That, and the bureaucrats.
But still the poor is left to fend for themselves as best as they can as recent events so tragically shows.
The tragedy is that this was the first time many of these people had to rely on themselves instead of mother government. Now you see what happens when you make people rely on government... and the inevitable happens: government stumbles.
What happened to personal responsibility? That is the corner stone of the American Dream. If the American Dream truly is dead as you claim, then it is for this reason alone.
I ran into the same exact problem recently. Excellent karma, heavy participation, and prevented from posting at work due to being downmodded "too many" times. I have stopped subscribing, stopped moderating, stopped metamoderating.
How do you account for all those who evacuated to the Superdome, AS ORDERED, and then were stuck there in a terrible mass of squalor, rape, and murder, BEGGING for someone to come and evacuate them?
Mismanagement on a local, state, and federal scale by your beloved government.
Why, just a few minutes ago you were informing me of how wonderful it is that government has intervened in our lives so much, and now you're going to try to point out the stupidity of relying on the government?
How do you reconcile this juxtaposition? Oh, I forgot, everything is the fault of the evil rich people.
Yeah, that *really* applies to humans. Animals that produce a low number of offspring, like humans, will [TRY TO] crush you if you fool with their young.
We only have to wait for Opera company to make the code free too eventually, so poeple we'll be able to admit that it's better that Firefox. Right now because of ideology they can't admit that.
Maybe they just have a different opinion than you?
Slashdot Mirror
see if you can get amazon to give you a copy of the community created data.
Did IMDB ever offer a copy of the data?
If by "wrangled" you mean "took contributions that users gave to the community for free, and used them to make money" then yes. Wrangled. Our friends at GraceCDDBNote are great wranglers too.
I love people who think like the parent poster.
It's quid pro quo.
People supply information, which is how IMDB gains.
IDMB provides the logistics for the organization and collection of all this data, which is how you gain.
Please explain, exactly, how this situation could be any better than it is?
Let me try to imagine the scenarios in your head, and nip them in the bud:
1. If you want them to pay you for your time, then you can expect to pay them for their resources.
2. If you want them to stop profiting from IMDB, then you can expect IMDB to go away.
They aren't a charity, and the exchange between people giving to IMDB and IMDB sharing seems to be quite amicable, except for the clueless among us who think everything should be free.
In the 1990s, much R&D went into video-on-demand and set-top boxes. Everyone had a TV, so everyone assumed the TV would be the communication device of the future. But the market for video-on-demand never really materialized.
It didn't? What's the OnDemand I have on my cable PVR box, which lets me watch just about every current and past HBO show, a full season's worth of shows each, movies, etc. Pause, ff, rw. It's all there.
Reason I say free is because it has always been free. The people that have the bunny ears for their TV I think can still get ABC/NBC/Fox and watch the news for free.
No they don't. They are just supposed to absorb advertisements as payment.
As for adds in the nightly news broadcasts on iTunes, I could deal with, as long as they are free downloads.
You'd have to deal with that, at minimum, since the TV studio either needs to charge you money to pay for their expenses, or they need to keep the ads in, which isn't workable unless they prevent you from fast-forwarding. But let's pretend for a minute they leave the ads in, and they are "free" on iTunes.
Who's going to pay for Apple's bandwidth?
Nope, if you want to watch it "for free" you'll have to watch the broadcast.
If you want it wrapped up, packaged in a nice little bow for your dead-simple consumption via iTunes, you will be paying something for it.
If TV shows are free, why do TV studios need budgets?
TV shows have never been free, up until now they've been subsidized entirely by advertisers, and in the case of cable channels, by cable subscribers.
0wned
They're outsourcing their evil to AMERICAN workers, not an overseas seat shop
http://www.seatshop.co.uk/?
Au contraire, the new ipod specs say it supports:
TV shows (like Lost) one day after they air, and you know damn well what's next... movies.
A video airtunes device didn't materialize, but a dock with video out and remote control did.
You're close. Apple already makes DVR-capable machines. They're called Macs. You'll be able to record TV on your Mac, and download shows/movies from iTunes (soon to be renamed?). Over your wired network, or an AirTunes like device, you'll be able to stream video to your TV set. Your video ipod will have a huge hard drive and be able to not only play the videos from your Mac on its display, but more importantly, make it dead simple to do video out to a display when you're away from home.
It's not a diary unless your version of a diary lets other users subscribe to it and post feedback.
It's not just an audio file, a podcast is the entire mechanism of easily subscribing to a audio program, and having it sync up automatically to your listening software/hardware of preference.
Please actually research what you're talking about before sounding like a moron by trying to make fun of something you don't get.
You are entitled to your opinion, but know that it diverges wildly from critics and TV fans. Witness the domination of the Emmy's by HBO, year in and year out.
I can go to the supermarket and eat cheese for free. I don't have to steal it or nothin'. They even slice it up for me. They find that by simply giving cheese away they end up selling more cheese than if they don't.
Would you still buy the cheese if you could take as much of it as you wanted, whenever you wanted, for free?
Now you are comparing apples.
The little 3 digit number on the back was nice, but does it really slow anything down? After all, that number is now part of the databases, just like the expiration date.
No, it is not. Any company that stores the 3-digit code is in violation of the credit card companies, and if they are doing any volume of cc business, they will get nailed for this very soon, as VISA/MC are starting to drop the hammer on online retailers.
The 3-digit code is not stored on the magnetic stripe, so it shouldn't be able to be scanned in at POS either.
This one is especially interesting and confusing. So they give you a number pad that would be something like:
... then you type the letters in by clicking a pad. So wouldn't it be easy for a phisherman to get this information by giving you a grid like that, but then translating the letters back into their number form? I must misunderstand the whole thing.
1 = s, 2 = q, 3 = w,
4 = i, 5 = r, 6 = k,
7 = i, 8 = n, 9 = g,
0 = y
Anyone have any more info?
This part is meant to defeat keyboard sniffers. If you login to your
banking site and type the PIN code, a keyboard sniffer could be on the
lookout for 3 and 4 digit numbers as likely ATM PIN codes. So they said,
let's map the numbers to letters. But then a clever hacker could sniff
for 4 letter combos and translate, so they said, "and we'll make the
letter assignment random and ever-changing."
They didn't say it was new, they said their application will be world-changing.
What I meant is that the NSF budget figures were posted to show that the Bush administration supports science, but the numbers show a decrease in funding.
They show a decrease in funding FOR ONE YEAR. The funding increased every other year, and it has increased beyond just the level of inflation, so I am trying to understand how you feel Bush has really decreased funding overall? The implication that was being proven wrong by those statistics is that the Bush administration doesn't support science funding.
Whether or not spending government money to support scientific research is a separate argument, but I would argue that it's ironic that you would imply that it is not, typing your message into a "computer" hooked up to the "internet"...
The government created the internet network, but to suggest that it wouldn't have formed on its own is a bit whacky. Did the government invent the idea of networking? Did the government invent ethernet? Nope, that was Metcalfe @ Xerox. Did the government invent/popularize computers? Nope, that honor goes to many companies. Did the government invest billions of dollars to commercialize the internet? Nope, the thanks there also goes to many, many COMPANIES. Before the internet, I was posting messages like this on BBSes, and then on national networks like AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy. The government didn't invent those either. Did the government invent TCP/IP or the World Wide Web? Nope and nope.
And so the government funds the creation of arpanet, for the military (ARPA). They funded this, along with thousands of other projects, using taxpayer money.
What would have happened if the taxpayers held onto that money, and invested it in companies? Is it possible we would have something even better than today's internet network?
Today it's an illusion, a type of propaganda, to accept the status quo: That the very rich becomes ever more rich at the expense of the rest.
The status quo is class warfare, which you have perpetuated wonderfully in your post.
First, rich don't get riched "at the expense" of anyone. When someone gets richer, that doesn't mean they stole that money from someone else. Why do you hold such disdain for someone who is successful, who has worked smarter or harder, or planned better than someone else? Can you not reserve some of your disrespect for those poor people that neglected their educations, have never worked hard, have come to rely on the teat of the government instead of themselves, their family and friends?
We have people in America that qualify as "poor" but own TVs, cars, have cable service, cell phones, name brand clothing, free K-12 education, and the list goes on and on.
Just because we classify someone as poor doesn't mean they are really poor, especially when compared to other countries around the world which you hold in such high regard.
They work hard, but they will never strike it rich.
Simply working "hard" doesn't mean you will -- or even deserve -- to strike it rich. That's lunacy. That's not the American dream. The American Dream is that the only one stopping you from being successful in America is yourself.
That, and the bureaucrats.
But still the poor is left to fend for themselves as best as they can as recent events so tragically shows.
The tragedy is that this was the first time many of these people had to rely on themselves instead of mother government. Now you see what happens when you make people rely on government... and the inevitable happens: government stumbles.
What happened to personal responsibility? That is the corner stone of the American Dream. If the American Dream truly is dead as you claim, then it is for this reason alone.
Are you intending to point out that the NSF budget actually decreased this year for the first time since 1998?
So what if it does? Perhaps if we spent less money, we might not be in so much debt?
When does a baby truly become a person?
When it can live outside the womb of the host mother.
When does a minor truly become an adult?
When the minor lives independently from his/her guardians and accepts personal responsibility for his/her life.
it seems to me a better way to "settle" the "issue" is to avoid it by making those fertilized embryos available to other people
As long as the donor consents, absolutely.
I ran into the same exact problem recently. Excellent karma, heavy participation, and prevented from posting at work due to being downmodded "too many" times. I have stopped subscribing, stopped moderating, stopped metamoderating.
Is this simply a kamikazee run? I did not read anything to make me think otherwise. I seriously question the science of this...
Is there something to this mission that I am missing?
Only the facts of how they plan on moving the asteroid.
How do you account for all those who evacuated to the Superdome, AS ORDERED, and then were stuck there in a terrible mass of squalor, rape, and murder, BEGGING for someone to come and evacuate them?
Mismanagement on a local, state, and federal scale by your beloved government.
Why, just a few minutes ago you were informing me of how wonderful it is that government has intervened in our lives so much, and now you're going to try to point out the stupidity of relying on the government?
How do you reconcile this juxtaposition? Oh, I forgot, everything is the fault of the evil rich people.
Yeah, that *really* applies to humans. Animals that produce a low number of offspring, like humans, will [TRY TO] crush you if you fool with their young.
There, I fixed it for you.
We only have to wait for Opera company to make the code free too eventually, so poeple we'll be able to admit that it's better that Firefox. Right now because of ideology they can't admit that.
Maybe they just have a different opinion than you?