It has long been acknowledged that the "Best Seller" lists limit themselves to certain genres anyhow. For instance, romances and science fiction books which actually outsell many mainstream "best sellers" simply don't appear on the big best seller lists.
That's mainly because genre fiction has much more of a long tail. With the exceptions of phenomena like the Fifty Shades of Grey books, best sellers tend to sell a lot in a few weeks.
there are not enough hours in the day to read every good book or listen to every good song or watch every good movie
It depends on how you define "good". For instance, in any year, I'd say there were less than half a dozen really good new films, and an awful lot of watchable ones (plus a few genuine turkeys). Once you've caught up on the classics, it's not hard to have seen every really good film ever made.
Books are different because (a) there are a lot more of them and (b) they take longer to get through. You have to have some way of filtering the good from the bad. I am unwilling to waste a couple of evenings reading a book that I get nothing out of.
I read the entire 10 book series in 2 days because it was so utterly insane, so incredibly bad that I couldn't stop reading
I've never found that works with books. Really bad films and TV shows are different, because you can just let it wash over you and drunkenly pick out the egregious parts. But really bad books are simply too painful and require too much effort to make it worth it.
Scholars will tell you there are only 8 to 18 (depending on the scholar) unique plots in all of human civilization.
Given the sheer number of stories we tell on a daily basis let alone all history...some overlap should hardly be surprising.
That sort of reductive structuralist approach is entirely unhelpful in deciding whether or not a work of art is any good. It's like saying that all detective fiction has the same story as it's about A committing a crime against B, or that Fifty Shades of Grey is basically the same plot as Anna Karenina as it's A falling in love with B.
Seriously, I'm trying to wonder who would be so naive or child-like to think people with, "...enough money, contacts and know-how..." somehow aren't the ones that accomplish 99% of everything anywhere. That's how it's been since we still wore pelts and threw rocks at one another.
Manipulate the process until you own it. Or be content sitting out of the race.
It's why we invented things like democracy and taxes. They limit the absolute abuses of the 1%.
I'd tend to say that when the "confiscation" has no legal basis whatsoever, we can very accurately call it "stolen".
Whenever there's a "copyright infringement!=theft" post, people here love to point out that the definition of theft is that you're permanently depriving someone of their property.
I wouldn't be able to feed my family without rich people
If there weren't very rich people maybe you wouldn't have to worry about feeding your family, because there wouldn't be very poor people in a well off country either.
It sounds to me like either he deliberately provoked the DHS agent, or else he's got some sort of autism. Any normal person would just have signed the fucking paperwork and got their boat.
If I got stopped by the police and they said "we won't give you a speeding ticket if you just sign this piece of paper saying you admit you were doing 10 mph over the limit" I would sign the piece of paper, not make a big deal about it if I had in fact been going 12 mph over the limit.
Other than graphics, there haven't been improvements in gameplay since the beginning of games.
Makes you wonder why they bother having computer games at all, when a simple game of throwing rocks against a wall was all that I had to play when I was young, and I was happy.
While this article is framed as a victory for the consumer, it is yet another reminder that technology [such as Cinavia] can, and will, be used to subvert our existing rights [to lend, copy, borrow, make backups].
Step by step, resistance will be overcome and we shall be reduced to facilitators of consumption, thanks to the ever-increasing apathy amongst the general public.
If you simply buy and play games (or watch movies or listen to music), you are already just a facilitator of consumption, you just don't realise it.
The main "right" you have is the right to stop buying/downloading/borrowing stuff and go and do something creative instead, if you're that worried about it.
I like the way this troll is slowly building in detail post by post. In a few months, it will be a proper mad rant. Try to remember not to use line/paragraph breaks.
Once we have infinite free energy, we can look beyond our own little Solar System. I predict that, within thirty years, we will be creating whole new galaxies.
Slashdot Mirror
Metallica only ever had a reputation amongst people who wear band t-shirts unironically.
It has long been acknowledged that the "Best Seller" lists limit themselves to certain genres anyhow. For instance, romances and science fiction books which actually outsell many mainstream "best sellers" simply don't appear on the big best seller lists.
That's mainly because genre fiction has much more of a long tail. With the exceptions of phenomena like the Fifty Shades of Grey books, best sellers tend to sell a lot in a few weeks.
there are not enough hours in the day to read every good book or listen to every good song or watch every good movie
It depends on how you define "good". For instance, in any year, I'd say there were less than half a dozen really good new films, and an awful lot of watchable ones (plus a few genuine turkeys). Once you've caught up on the classics, it's not hard to have seen every really good film ever made.
Books are different because (a) there are a lot more of them and (b) they take longer to get through. You have to have some way of filtering the good from the bad. I am unwilling to waste a couple of evenings reading a book that I get nothing out of.
I read the entire 10 book series in 2 days because it was so utterly insane, so incredibly bad that I couldn't stop reading
I've never found that works with books. Really bad films and TV shows are different, because you can just let it wash over you and drunkenly pick out the egregious parts. But really bad books are simply too painful and require too much effort to make it worth it.
Scholars will tell you there are only 8 to 18 (depending on the scholar) unique plots in all of human civilization.
Given the sheer number of stories we tell on a daily basis let alone all history...some overlap should hardly be surprising.
That sort of reductive structuralist approach is entirely unhelpful in deciding whether or not a work of art is any good. It's like saying that all detective fiction has the same story as it's about A committing a crime against B, or that Fifty Shades of Grey is basically the same plot as Anna Karenina as it's A falling in love with B.
Well, thanks, that really narrows it down.
Not sure if a troll, or whether poster is just a philistine moron. As this is slashdot, it's impossible to tell for sure.
There are only a couple of things that are halfway reliable as indicators -- recommendations from PEOPLE YOU KNOW and the name of the author
The opinion of a good critic is worth most of all.
Do people actually run out to buy a book just because Oprah reviewed it?
Well, yes. Publishers don't spend money on marketing for the fun of it.
Seriously, I'm trying to wonder who would be so naive or child-like to think people with, "...enough money, contacts and know-how..." somehow aren't the ones that accomplish 99% of everything anywhere. That's how it's been since we still wore pelts and threw rocks at one another.
Manipulate the process until you own it. Or be content sitting out of the race.
It's why we invented things like democracy and taxes. They limit the absolute abuses of the 1%.
I broadly agree with you, but I think the existential threat to Israel is a real one, and not (primarily) from the Palestinians.
Post the name of the agent that did this.
Tar, feathers.
Maybe torch as well, but tar and feathers at a minimum.
Why not just execute them and their whole family, in fact, fuck it, why not just kill everyone in the whole world?
Or might that be a tad disproportionate for the "crime" of inconveniencing a rich guy?
>Just fill out the paperwork, and get on with life. Don't upset the pencil pushers. They're goons with badges and guns.
This way lies fascism.
If it was facism, they'd just beat you until you were crippled then take the boat anyway without bothering with paperwork.
The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil
If your boat ends up on US soil rather than water, aren't you doing something wrong?
I'd tend to say that when the "confiscation" has no legal basis whatsoever, we can very accurately call it "stolen".
Whenever there's a "copyright infringement!=theft" post, people here love to point out that the definition of theft is that you're permanently depriving someone of their property.
This isn't theft.
I wouldn't be able to feed my family without rich people
If there weren't very rich people maybe you wouldn't have to worry about feeding your family, because there wouldn't be very poor people in a well off country either.
On slashdot, if there's a confrontation between someone from the government and a rich guy, who do you think people will believe?
If I got stopped by the police and they said "we won't give you a speeding ticket if you just sign this piece of paper saying you admit you were doing 10 mph over the limit" I would sign the piece of paper, not make a big deal about it if I had in fact been going 12 mph over the limit.
It's sad that it is news when corporation announces that they are going to treat their customer nicely...
The thing is, since Sony don't have a monopoly on air or water or anything, you can always just not buy Sony products if you're that offended by them.
Other than graphics, there haven't been improvements in gameplay since the beginning of games.
Makes you wonder why they bother having computer games at all, when a simple game of throwing rocks against a wall was all that I had to play when I was young, and I was happy.
While this article is framed as a victory for the consumer, it is yet another reminder that technology [such as Cinavia] can, and will, be used to subvert our existing rights [to lend, copy, borrow, make backups].
Step by step, resistance will be overcome and we shall be reduced to facilitators of consumption, thanks to the ever-increasing apathy amongst the general public.
If you simply buy and play games (or watch movies or listen to music), you are already just a facilitator of consumption, you just don't realise it.
The main "right" you have is the right to stop buying/downloading/borrowing stuff and go and do something creative instead, if you're that worried about it.
the machine itself supports it.
but publishers are free to include one time use dlc codes etc. and they will do that.
That's hardly Sony's fault though.
I know, I know, Sony are teh evil, but come on...
I like the way this troll is slowly building in detail post by post. In a few months, it will be a proper mad rant. Try to remember not to use line/paragraph breaks.
Once we have infinite free energy, we can look beyond our own little Solar System. I predict that, within thirty years, we will be creating whole new galaxies.
4) Producing electricity far away from where it is used is inefficient since transporting electricity is quite inefficient.
Why? It doesn't weigh anything.
what the fuck is gizmag?
When I were a lad, we spelled it jizz mag, and we were happy.