FTA: Murdoch acknowledged that the Journal recently negotiated a slightly larger share of the revenues Amazon gets from selling Kindle subscriptions to the paper (emphasis added)
That's a fine argument on its face, but do you really expect all information (name, address, phone) gathered from dead-tree subscribers will ONLY be used for the purposes of distributing the newspaper? I would expect the Journal to treat my personal information with the same privacy policy stipulations as applies to that gathered on behalf of their print newspaper. If they are not, they need to say so in a EULA or whatever.
Also, if you have ever subscribed to a magazine or newspaper online, you will see that they collect LOTS of additional information about you that has nothing to do with simple delivery. They gather that data because they NEED and USE it to distinguish their readers' demographics from those of other publications, which helps them sell advertising, which keeps them in business. If you think you can run a magazine or newspaper solely on subscriptions, you know nothing about the industry.
Murdoch may be a dick, but his expectation of subscriber information from Amazon is not unreasonable. GIving them ultimatums is, but that's another issue.
> And what about all those customers who purchase their papers from newsstands or vending machines? Do they have to turn over their personal information? No
They are not subscribers, so your argument is baseless. Subscribers are people who have an ongoing relationship with the publication.
I can see why he expects this information... he's a publisher who's spent the lion's share of his career dealing in print media. If people were subscribing to the dead-tree edition of the Journal, he would have not just their names but their home addresses and probably phone numbers as well. Now subscribers want to pay for the same publication--the Wall Street Journal--and the publisher expects to have the same information they would if they were sending the physical newspaper. What's the big deal? Just cause something is delivered electronically rather than via the post, that makes basic subscriber information suddenly privacy-threatening?
I'm as paranoid about privacy concerns as the next [rational] person, but I don't see what the big deal is here.
> as the abused get smarter, the abusers also get smarter at an equal or quicker pace
As an Apple consumer my whole adult life, I am getting fed up with their abuse. There is a freedom I am entitled to when I purchase their (or anyone's) products.. it is the freedom of OWNERSHIP, to do with it what I wish (that isn't outright illegal or causes harm to others), and Apple seems hell-bent on stripping me of that freedom. I expect this kind of draconian top-down use-policing from Microsoft.. not from Apple. It's getting to the point where I can't even tell the difference.
What Napster were YOU using? I could find anything and everything I could think up to search for, and some of my musical tastes are quite remote. I used to be able to bet my co-workers (and win, typically) on attempts to stump Napster. THOSE were the days that had record industry executives spending their nights trembling beneath sweat-drenched sheets.
You're assuming linear trajectories. In the solar system, EVERYTHING is moving along a curve. Nothing hurls straight at a standstill Earth only to have the moon swing through its path and take the hit instead, which is what you seem to be arguing. All objects in the solar system are being carried by the sun's gravity and thus are at varying-sized elliptical orbits, so it is not too difficult to imagine numerous parabolic paths sliding between Earth and its moon to impact it on the inner side.
I honestly read it that way. I was seeing the word "up" as being implied. (Queue up the people arguing for.. etc etc). Either word fits without changing the basic intent of the statement.
This is the creepiest thing I have read in a long time. Is this real? Am I the only one who see this device as the basis of an episode of Rod Serling's Twilight Zone?
A bank robber flees the crime scene in a car going 90MPH. Would you permit the police to give chase, given that they would have to violate traffic safety laws to do so? Or should the police only drive the speed limit?
Another scenario: A man is holding a hostage at gunpoint. Should police draw their weapons and aim them, even though threatening violence (or death) against a fellow citizen is against the law?
The police are permitted a good deal of latitude in their behavior in order to enforce laws. It would be impossible for them to do so otherwise. And yes, a cop posing as a pross or a drug dealer or a 12 year old girl in a chatroom gives people lots of reasons to reconsider engaging in illegal behaviors. That's the whole point, comrade.
Apple created the modern PDA, but Palm got it down to its correct size and eviscerated Apple's market share. By the time Apple's technology was maturing into an useful device, Palm had achieved a strong dominance and WindowsCE devices were coming up hard and fast.
You have no idea how pissed off the MxO community has ALWAYS been regarding SOE's refusal to market and adequately support this game. Most players now posting on the official SOE board are refusing to ever spend money on another Sony product, holding them directly accountable for the game's failure.
The game itself is actually quite an achievement. The environment is vast and magnificent even at mid-range video settings, the character models are the best human MMO avatars I've ever seen including lifelike animations, moods, emotes and facial expressions, the system of crafting is VERY extensive (and not very complicated, despite what a previous poster tried to argue earlier). The combat system of "Interlock" is fun and challenging, unlike any other MMO's, allowing for different fighting styles (Aikido vs. Karate vs. Kung Fu, for instance), and the MOST appropriate IP for an MMO thus far in the industry. And SOE basically let it wither and die with virtually no marketing, no promotion and not even a decently-sized staff. For the past year and a half, the game had no animator. Since January, the game has had no devs at all and was just on "autopilot".
Basically, SOE screwed this game, and it's a damned shame as its potential was so vast.
This is my problem with console gaming in general. This past month I've upgraded my PC gaming rig for the third time since I bought it back in 2002. I can play with my choice of controllers, including a keyboard and mouse (which I prefer), I can upgrade RAM, processor and video hardware, and I also get to do things like look up stuff on the internet and check email. Consoles are closed systems that you can't upgrade. That mentality should have died in the late 80s/early 90s, but folks like MS and Sony want nothing more than to ensnare buyers into a forced upgrade path which requires buying a whole new console. Screw that.
> Prior to bittorrent, there was Samba sharing as enabled by several crawler-search setups. Prior to those, there was Napster. Prior to those......
Anyone else remember downloading stuff of that service called Hotline? Man, that was the [Mac] warez nirvana. You could get full versions of professional-grade software, music, MPEGs, fonts, pretty much anything you were looking for, provided you know where and how to look. Good times.
The only reason for that scene that would have made any sense would have been if Kirk were being chased by the Cloverfield monster. At least then the fans could have had a chuckle, and there's no reason to think that the events of Cloverfield couldn't have been part of "his" Star Trek's canon. I know when I saw that monster in the theater, my FIRST thought was that I hoped it was the Cloverfield guy. (Would have made Spock that much more impressive in getting rid of it, too.)
I'm going to get a little button-sized plastic lens with a pin on the back and wear it as my flair. When people ask why I'm wearing a lens on my shirt, I'll happily tell them what it is.
EVERYONE thinks they are divorced from marketing. The younger you are, the more independent you think you are.
I once ran a focus group of Gen Yers (undergraduate college age students). At the beginning of the session I asked them how much their buying decisions were affected by advertising. Not one of them would admit to ANY such effect.. they all insisted they made purchase decision entirely independent on advertising. Then later in the session, I showed them a very simple, basic ad for Pop-Tarts. It didn't even have a photo of a Pop-Tart, just a silly hand-drawn cartoon *about* Pop-Tarts. Suddenly, these fully independent masters of their own destiny started laughing about how much they'd like a Pop-Tart right now, mmmm. Pop-Tarts.
Other sessions with older participants showed that more mature people acknowledge that they are affected by advertising at varying levels, but nobody will ever outright admit than an ad persuaded them to buy something, no matter how subtle the influence it may have had.
If nothing else, they've succeeded in making all the people responsible for their own backups just a little more paranoid, and more secure practices may actually result.
Sometimes a person's (or in this case Web site's) ultimate purpose is to serve as a warning to others.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA: Murdoch acknowledged that the Journal recently negotiated a slightly larger share of the revenues Amazon gets from selling Kindle subscriptions to the paper (emphasis added)
That's a fine argument on its face, but do you really expect all information (name, address, phone) gathered from dead-tree subscribers will ONLY be used for the purposes of distributing the newspaper? I would expect the Journal to treat my personal information with the same privacy policy stipulations as applies to that gathered on behalf of their print newspaper. If they are not, they need to say so in a EULA or whatever.
Also, if you have ever subscribed to a magazine or newspaper online, you will see that they collect LOTS of additional information about you that has nothing to do with simple delivery. They gather that data because they NEED and USE it to distinguish their readers' demographics from those of other publications, which helps them sell advertising, which keeps them in business. If you think you can run a magazine or newspaper solely on subscriptions, you know nothing about the industry.
Murdoch may be a dick, but his expectation of subscriber information from Amazon is not unreasonable. GIving them ultimatums is, but that's another issue.
> And what about all those customers who purchase their papers from newsstands or vending machines? Do they have to turn over their personal information? No
They are not subscribers, so your argument is baseless. Subscribers are people who have an ongoing relationship with the publication.
I can see why he expects this information... he's a publisher who's spent the lion's share of his career dealing in print media. If people were subscribing to the dead-tree edition of the Journal, he would have not just their names but their home addresses and probably phone numbers as well. Now subscribers want to pay for the same publication--the Wall Street Journal--and the publisher expects to have the same information they would if they were sending the physical newspaper. What's the big deal? Just cause something is delivered electronically rather than via the post, that makes basic subscriber information suddenly privacy-threatening?
I'm as paranoid about privacy concerns as the next [rational] person, but I don't see what the big deal is here.
> as the abused get smarter, the abusers also get smarter at an equal or quicker pace
As an Apple consumer my whole adult life, I am getting fed up with their abuse. There is a freedom I am entitled to when I purchase their (or anyone's) products .. it is the freedom of OWNERSHIP, to do with it what I wish (that isn't outright illegal or causes harm to others), and Apple seems hell-bent on stripping me of that freedom. I expect this kind of draconian top-down use-policing from Microsoft .. not from Apple. It's getting to the point where I can't even tell the difference.
What Napster were YOU using? I could find anything and everything I could think up to search for, and some of my musical tastes are quite remote. I used to be able to bet my co-workers (and win, typically) on attempts to stump Napster. THOSE were the days that had record industry executives spending their nights trembling beneath sweat-drenched sheets.
You're assuming linear trajectories. In the solar system, EVERYTHING is moving along a curve. Nothing hurls straight at a standstill Earth only to have the moon swing through its path and take the hit instead, which is what you seem to be arguing. All objects in the solar system are being carried by the sun's gravity and thus are at varying-sized elliptical orbits, so it is not too difficult to imagine numerous parabolic paths sliding between Earth and its moon to impact it on the inner side.
I honestly read it that way. I was seeing the word "up" as being implied. (Queue up the people arguing for .. etc etc). Either word fits without changing the basic intent of the statement.
> I'd be willing to seed that game.
Posts like this are why I love the internet.
Dude ... what? The iTMS was selling music and media for YEARS before the iPhone was released.
"I notice you're still working with polymers."
"Still? What else would I be working with?"
"Ahh, what else indeed..."
"Corporal would you open this book up to the part that says that where the mess hall is?"
"Well, Lt Kaffee, that's not in the book either, sir."
"You mean to say the entire time you've been at Gitmo you've never had a meal?"
"No sir, three squares a day, sir."
"I don't understand. How could you know where the mess hall is if it's not in this book?"
"I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir."
This is the creepiest thing I have read in a long time. Is this real? Am I the only one who see this device as the basis of an episode of Rod Serling's Twilight Zone?
OK I'll bite.
A bank robber flees the crime scene in a car going 90MPH. Would you permit the police to give chase, given that they would have to violate traffic safety laws to do so? Or should the police only drive the speed limit?
Another scenario: A man is holding a hostage at gunpoint. Should police draw their weapons and aim them, even though threatening violence (or death) against a fellow citizen is against the law?
The police are permitted a good deal of latitude in their behavior in order to enforce laws. It would be impossible for them to do so otherwise. And yes, a cop posing as a pross or a drug dealer or a 12 year old girl in a chatroom gives people lots of reasons to reconsider engaging in illegal behaviors. That's the whole point, comrade.
Your Newton 2100 (1997) was killed by the Palm Pilot (1996).
Apple created the modern PDA, but Palm got it down to its correct size and eviscerated Apple's market share. By the time Apple's technology was maturing into an useful device, Palm had achieved a strong dominance and WindowsCE devices were coming up hard and fast.
You have no idea how pissed off the MxO community has ALWAYS been regarding SOE's refusal to market and adequately support this game. Most players now posting on the official SOE board are refusing to ever spend money on another Sony product, holding them directly accountable for the game's failure.
The game itself is actually quite an achievement. The environment is vast and magnificent even at mid-range video settings, the character models are the best human MMO avatars I've ever seen including lifelike animations, moods, emotes and facial expressions, the system of crafting is VERY extensive (and not very complicated, despite what a previous poster tried to argue earlier). The combat system of "Interlock" is fun and challenging, unlike any other MMO's, allowing for different fighting styles (Aikido vs. Karate vs. Kung Fu, for instance), and the MOST appropriate IP for an MMO thus far in the industry. And SOE basically let it wither and die with virtually no marketing, no promotion and not even a decently-sized staff. For the past year and a half, the game had no animator. Since January, the game has had no devs at all and was just on "autopilot".
Basically, SOE screwed this game, and it's a damned shame as its potential was so vast.
No. SOE won't allow anyone to host a private server despite numerous requests, citing copyright issues and co-ownership with Warner Brothers.
This is my problem with console gaming in general. This past month I've upgraded my PC gaming rig for the third time since I bought it back in 2002. I can play with my choice of controllers, including a keyboard and mouse (which I prefer), I can upgrade RAM, processor and video hardware, and I also get to do things like look up stuff on the internet and check email. Consoles are closed systems that you can't upgrade. That mentality should have died in the late 80s/early 90s, but folks like MS and Sony want nothing more than to ensnare buyers into a forced upgrade path which requires buying a whole new console. Screw that.
> Prior to bittorrent, there was Samba sharing as enabled by several crawler-search setups. Prior to those, there was Napster. Prior to those......
Anyone else remember downloading stuff of that service called Hotline? Man, that was the [Mac] warez nirvana. You could get full versions of professional-grade software, music, MPEGs, fonts, pretty much anything you were looking for, provided you know where and how to look. Good times.
The only reason for that scene that would have made any sense would have been if Kirk were being chased by the Cloverfield monster. At least then the fans could have had a chuckle, and there's no reason to think that the events of Cloverfield couldn't have been part of "his" Star Trek's canon. I know when I saw that monster in the theater, my FIRST thought was that I hoped it was the Cloverfield guy. (Would have made Spock that much more impressive in getting rid of it, too.)
I'm going to get a little button-sized plastic lens with a pin on the back and wear it as my flair. When people ask why I'm wearing a lens on my shirt, I'll happily tell them what it is.
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Episode-IV-Widescreen/dp/B000FQJAIW/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1242745571&sr=1-6
Wow, that's some serious flamebait there. *eyeroll*
Drunken moderation .. it's a fun game!
EVERYONE thinks they are divorced from marketing. The younger you are, the more independent you think you are.
I once ran a focus group of Gen Yers (undergraduate college age students). At the beginning of the session I asked them how much their buying decisions were affected by advertising. Not one of them would admit to ANY such effect .. they all insisted they made purchase decision entirely independent on advertising. Then later in the session, I showed them a very simple, basic ad for Pop-Tarts. It didn't even have a photo of a Pop-Tart, just a silly hand-drawn cartoon *about* Pop-Tarts. Suddenly, these fully independent masters of their own destiny started laughing about how much they'd like a Pop-Tart right now, mmmm. Pop-Tarts.
Other sessions with older participants showed that more mature people acknowledge that they are affected by advertising at varying levels, but nobody will ever outright admit than an ad persuaded them to buy something, no matter how subtle the influence it may have had.
If nothing else, they've succeeded in making all the people responsible for their own backups just a little more paranoid, and more secure practices may actually result.
Sometimes a person's (or in this case Web site's) ultimate purpose is to serve as a warning to others.