I disagree with the "stop using their products" line. In relation to media companies, what it boils down to is saying is "stop participating in the shared culture of your contemporaries".
Mmmm... yeah. As if the stuff pumped out by "media companies" could actually be considered culture in any meaningful sense of the word.
Even if the peer review program became mandatory for all applications, who in the public is going to take the time to review 1,000 patent applications a week, search for prior art, and send the relevant art to the USPTO?
Maybe college/university instructors (or maybe even high school teachers of advanceed classes) could assign students to do a certain amount of work for credit. There are ways it could be made relevant to most areas of study.
Even though we have advertising forced on us 90% of the time advertisements are (usually) asthetically pleasing, vibrant and a sign of economic growth.
I'd suggest you think so only because you're used to seeing them. North Koreans visiting a Western country would likely wonder why the hell anyone would want all that crap littering the place up.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
Doctors have to do additional work to see each patient. Artists on the other hand (and record companies) expect to be paid in perpetuity for one piece of work they might have done years ago.
And yet, I can't get past the idea that somehow, just strictly from the business point-of-view, Pink Floyd deserves more compensation for "Dark Side of the Moon" than Wild Man Fischer deserves for "An Evening with Wild Man Fisher."
The way I look at it, people are always going to find reasons to laugh at other people. You can't control that. You can, however, control what you do.
I contend that if someone's agenda is simply to avoid embarrassment, or minimize it after something happens, the best thing to do is just say, "Yeah, boy, I sure do look foolish there, I'll tell you what, heh, heh..." and hope people forget about it as quickly as possible. I would not file any lawsuits, which would call further attention to the incident and open me up to further ridicule from people who think I'm a whiney baby.
But that's just my take on it. This kid's parents apparently see the situation differently.
Am I the only one who doesn't see much to be embarrassed about in that video? Yes, it's silly, goofy, whatever. But c'mon, it's not as if each and every one of us hasn't done something similar without a camera around. I'll admit that I've played my share of air guitar, and that looks much sillier than what this kid was doing.
It's not like his pants ripped open and you could see that he was wearing girl's panties. Now, THAT would be different (just purely hypothetical; not accusing him of anything like that).
Embarrassment is what you make of it. I understand that it's difficult for most kids his age to shrug off something like that, an impossible for some, but it's his parents' job to try to help him learn to deal with stuff.
More realistically, most porn webmasters are probably sensible people and not the mindless horde running the music/movie corporations. They may realize that a large part of the population can't/won't buy pornography and that it doesn't hurt their business model in the slighest for these people to get the product for free.
This does indeed seem to be the case. Porn is one of the most profitable industries operating on the net, possibly the most profitable -- even though there's so much free porn readily available that someone could spend hours every day collecting it and never have to think about spending a cent.
Seems to me the industry wants to offer downloads just because they've heard people like to download movies, as if they (the movie execs) think the act of downloading were, in itself, the objective. And if it flops because people don't like the prices and/or the restrictions, the executives won't understand -- because, after all, they were letting us "download."
... is that it reduces all parties involved to being nothing more than meat.
Two things about that: 1. A huge number of jobs that are commonly thought of as honest and respectable do exactly the same thing. If GE Appliances hires you to screw washing machines together, do you think they care about you beyond your ability to show up on time and screw washing machines together? No, not at all; you're just a robot made of meat. If you're looking for fulfillment in life, that's not the company's problem. They simply want washing machines screwed together.
2. There's room for all sorts of approaches to sex. Sometimes my wife and I get romantic and make love. Sometimes we get creative and play. And sometimes, we just get down and dirty and bang one out. It's all good.
The experts don't concern themselves much about the split infinitive these days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
There's no real reason to avoid it as long as the "to" and the verb aren't so far apart that it causes the reader to lose track of the infinitive construction. If you have that much extra stuff packed in, it's likely there are a number of other reasons why you should rethink the construction of the sentence, anyway (unless you're William Faulkner).
That said - the wikipedia article on sex is properly better than sex.com for education. Plus there are no pictures (I have just checked)
However, Wikipedia has an article about sex positions that's illustrated with pen-and-ink drawings. They're more clinical-looking than titillating, but if someone's desperate enough...
If you want to look at individual capitalists, let's also look at the shopkeeper whose window got broken. When he replaces the window, he's spending money just to bring his business back to the same condition it was in before. How is he going to regard that as anything but a needless waste of money?
It won't completely eliminate spam, but it will knock-out the extremely low-response rate "c1a l1z" emails.
How? Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me as if any spam that can get through their filters now will continue to get through -- in addition to the mailings from companies that pay the fee to get their mail passed on through.
Okay, so all these devices are the same, and they require you to enter a "personal code" in order to generate a door-knock. This suggests to me that the weak point in the system is not the pattern of knocks, but rather the user keeping his code a secret.
What if I have two computers and want to watch the video on the other one? The article is a bit weak on the details...
...and what about those of us who don't want to watch movies on our computers? I don't mind watching a short movie that way, but when you're talking about feature films, I want to burn the damn thing, put it in my DVD player, lie back on the sofa and relax.
If you really care about it, I would suggest disabling the feature or using a product from a company / group that is not trying to make a profit (ie open source).
But, of course, if Apple really wants iTunes to send them the info, they'll design it to do so whether the ministore is visible or not. The only way to be sure is not to use iTunes.
If this were windows media player (again - it phoned home when you played DVDs, and was resoundly condemded in many circles) there wouldn't be a person on slashdot without a torch or pitchfork.
Not speaking for anyone but myself, but if Microsoft actually sold DVDs, I'd opt out of the angry mob. On the other hand, if they just collected the info for the sole purpose of selling it, well, that's just being a weasel.
Basic common courtesy dictates you ask people for personal information, you don't take it.
I agree here. On the other hand, I just assume that any time someone can collect information, they will. That's probably not the reality in every case, but it helps avoid nasty surprises when stories about information-gathering come out.
Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.
But then again, I for one have always assumed that any music files that iTunes touched got reported back to Apple in some way, regardless of whether I was seeing any evidence of it. Well, maybe that sounds a bit more "tinfoil-hat wearing" than I want to be. Let's just say I made my peace with the idea that it could be happenening and decided not to worry about it.
People who want to see what someone with the budget for a cast of thousands, exotic locations, thousands of CGI processors chugging away, etc., aren't going to go away. But the people producing works like that can't do so if everything they do is ripped off.
I keep hearing that, yet the industry keeps pumping out high-budget movies. Should I assume, then, that the rate of piracy isn't really very bad?
One of the reasons I *don't* buy from iTunes (among the many like lower quality for higher price, DRM, etc) is that I went a couple times to see if I could an album that I wanted, and they didn't include all the tracks that were on the CD! Usually it was a couple of missing tracks that I thought the album was incomplete without.
I've seen albums that I was looking for on iTunes listed as "partial." What was missing were bonus tracks. They had all the songs included on the original release, which is all I really wanted. But I wouldn't swear that this is the case for all their partial albums.
But you also need to factor in the business they lose when regular, honest people get fed up with being scammed, or get scared by all the stories of other people getting scammed, and quit using ebay.
The government can't go on fishing expeditions with the data because they don't receive it unless there is an actual emergency.
That makes it look okay at first glance. But then, if some government entity wants that info, it would be easy enough for them to find an "emergency" that would justify getting it. After the info-gathering has gone on long enough for people to get used to it, you'd probably see law enforcement demanding info in connection with terrorism investigations and such.
1. Stop producing crap artists with guaranteed star power and invest long-term in less popular but more qualified artists that you are currently rejecting
That would be nice for those of us who love music but don't see anything on the charts worth our money. But from the record companies' point of view, what sense does it make to stop producing the types of acts that are selling the most?
Slashdot Mirror
Mmmm... yeah. As if the stuff pumped out by "media companies" could actually be considered culture in any meaningful sense of the word.
Maybe college/university instructors (or maybe even high school teachers of advanceed classes) could assign students to do a certain amount of work for credit. There are ways it could be made relevant to most areas of study.
I'd suggest you think so only because you're used to seeing them. North Koreans visiting a Western country would likely wonder why the hell anyone would want all that crap littering the place up.
And yet, I can't get past the idea that somehow, just strictly from the business point-of-view, Pink Floyd deserves more compensation for "Dark Side of the Moon" than Wild Man Fischer deserves for "An Evening with Wild Man Fisher."
I contend that if someone's agenda is simply to avoid embarrassment, or minimize it after something happens, the best thing to do is just say, "Yeah, boy, I sure do look foolish there, I'll tell you what, heh, heh..." and hope people forget about it as quickly as possible. I would not file any lawsuits, which would call further attention to the incident and open me up to further ridicule from people who think I'm a whiney baby.
But that's just my take on it. This kid's parents apparently see the situation differently.
It's not like his pants ripped open and you could see that he was wearing girl's panties. Now, THAT would be different (just purely hypothetical; not accusing him of anything like that).
Embarrassment is what you make of it. I understand that it's difficult for most kids his age to shrug off something like that, an impossible for some, but it's his parents' job to try to help him learn to deal with stuff.
This does indeed seem to be the case. Porn is one of the most profitable industries operating on the net, possibly the most profitable -- even though there's so much free porn readily available that someone could spend hours every day collecting it and never have to think about spending a cent.
Well, I dunno. That's the way it sounds to me.
But when revenues continue to come in, that counts as active.
Two things about that: 1. A huge number of jobs that are commonly thought of as honest and respectable do exactly the same thing. If GE Appliances hires you to screw washing machines together, do you think they care about you beyond your ability to show up on time and screw washing machines together? No, not at all; you're just a robot made of meat. If you're looking for fulfillment in life, that's not the company's problem. They simply want washing machines screwed together.
2. There's room for all sorts of approaches to sex. Sometimes my wife and I get romantic and make love. Sometimes we get creative and play. And sometimes, we just get down and dirty and bang one out. It's all good.
The experts don't concern themselves much about the split infinitive these days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive There's no real reason to avoid it as long as the "to" and the verb aren't so far apart that it causes the reader to lose track of the infinitive construction. If you have that much extra stuff packed in, it's likely there are a number of other reasons why you should rethink the construction of the sentence, anyway (unless you're William Faulkner).
However, Wikipedia has an article about sex positions that's illustrated with pen-and-ink drawings. They're more clinical-looking than titillating, but if someone's desperate enough...
If you want to look at individual capitalists, let's also look at the shopkeeper whose window got broken. When he replaces the window, he's spending money just to bring his business back to the same condition it was in before. How is he going to regard that as anything but a needless waste of money?
How? Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me as if any spam that can get through their filters now will continue to get through -- in addition to the mailings from companies that pay the fee to get their mail passed on through.
Okay, so all these devices are the same, and they require you to enter a "personal code" in order to generate a door-knock. This suggests to me that the weak point in the system is not the pattern of knocks, but rather the user keeping his code a secret.
But, of course, if Apple really wants iTunes to send them the info, they'll design it to do so whether the ministore is visible or not. The only way to be sure is not to use iTunes.
Not speaking for anyone but myself, but if Microsoft actually sold DVDs, I'd opt out of the angry mob. On the other hand, if they just collected the info for the sole purpose of selling it, well, that's just being a weasel.
Basic common courtesy dictates you ask people for personal information, you don't take it.
I agree here. On the other hand, I just assume that any time someone can collect information, they will. That's probably not the reality in every case, but it helps avoid nasty surprises when stories about information-gathering come out.
But then again, I for one have always assumed that any music files that iTunes touched got reported back to Apple in some way, regardless of whether I was seeing any evidence of it. Well, maybe that sounds a bit more "tinfoil-hat wearing" than I want to be. Let's just say I made my peace with the idea that it could be happenening and decided not to worry about it.
I keep hearing that, yet the industry keeps pumping out high-budget movies. Should I assume, then, that the rate of piracy isn't really very bad?
I've seen albums that I was looking for on iTunes listed as "partial." What was missing were bonus tracks. They had all the songs included on the original release, which is all I really wanted. But I wouldn't swear that this is the case for all their partial albums.
But you also need to factor in the business they lose when regular, honest people get fed up with being scammed, or get scared by all the stories of other people getting scammed, and quit using ebay.
That makes it look okay at first glance. But then, if some government entity wants that info, it would be easy enough for them to find an "emergency" that would justify getting it. After the info-gathering has gone on long enough for people to get used to it, you'd probably see law enforcement demanding info in connection with terrorism investigations and such.
That would be nice for those of us who love music but don't see anything on the charts worth our money. But from the record companies' point of view, what sense does it make to stop producing the types of acts that are selling the most?
Yeah, well, put a picture of Geena Davis on it and I might buy one.