What you saw was some shitty, obscure fan-film made for fanboys at cons. It has absolutely nothing to do with Doctor Who, except for stealing the name. If people thought you meant Curse of Fatal Death instead of an awful movie that nobody else ever saw, then that's understandable. What you linked is NOT Doctor Who. It was a shitty movie that nobody watched.
Yes, let us refrain from all things in life that might give us joy, for in those things lie the risk of cancer.
Hitchens lived life unapologetically, and I feel that his memory should be celebrated the same way.
To most people, business means that consumers have choices.
So, MSFT, although being a convicted monopolist, would or would not be a business according to your definition? I hate using analogies, but I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.
What about Standard Oil? Before the government had to step in, they were a monopoly. Would you argue that that was not a business?
If you are arguing that churches in America perform like businesses where the Catholic Church
did not, I guess I would argue how you define exchanging money for goods and services.
So, you don't happen to be at all familiar with the Roman Catholic Church?
How long before the Americas were colonized by Europeans was the Church charging people "indulgences"? How many peasants had to sacrifice their time to the Church, unpaid, in order to pay for baptisms, weddings and burials? And Tithing? That is a mandatory tax on salvation that any government would love to have a piece of. Indeed, some have been doing this for centuries. (C of E, anyone?)
Religion has been a business from the first time a shaman, medicine man or elder realized that he could get others to do his work for him for the low, low price of some comforting words.
Religion as a business is nothing new. There just seems to be more money getting thrown around, but instead of it going to one entity, there are many more hands in the collection box, and one will always be around to seperate a fool from his money.
Why the *fuck* should I have to pay real money to be able to be competetive with others playing a GAME? I started playing WoW in February of this year, and have raised a character to the point where I can be competetive in PvP. I pay real money to play the game, and I cannot, for the life of me, see how it can be okay to have to pay more money to compete with others who have only been playing longer. Fuck that.
I realize we have the Firehose now but are people who read Slashdot daily using it properly? We don't need two stories in a short time frame (4 days) about the same topic.
And exactly how did you get a 4-digit UID?;)
Saying that Aero is one of the best 5 UI isn't really saying much.
I think that's the point. It was sort of a jab at MS, because they spent so much cash designing the UI, and it's no better (and, in some cases worse) than other UIs already released.
A liquor store clerk is not authorized in most states to confiscate anyone's ID under any circumstances.
Well, then the clerks at the liquor store are working under different laws than those of us who have 'just' worked at bars. In Ohio, bartenders and bouncers are obligated to retain any and all fraudulent identification. I took a course offered by the Ohio Division of Liquor Control, and was informed that, indeed, we had to retain fake IDs. As well as learning neat tidbits, like that it is okay for underage people to drink with their parents or over age spouses. Of course, the person who was trying to use the fake ID could request that a police officer verify it but, for some reason, that never came up with me.p>
Also:
MANUFACTURING FALSE ID:
It is illegal for any person other than the state to manufacture, sell, or distribute in any manner any identifaction card issued for the purpose of establishing a person's age that displays the great seal of Ohio, the words "Ohio", "State", "Official", "Chauffer", Commercial Driver", "Driver", "Operator", or any other designation that represents the card as the official driver's license or identification card of Ohio
From your link:
I do not understand why Indie artists even join these organizations ASCAP and BMI do not collect money from artists. They collect the money from venues, films, television, etc., which allows the artist's songs to be perfomed/played there.
I used to work at a bar (The Library, near OSU campus), and on occasion we would have local bands play. They were allowed to play *only* their music, with absolutely no cover songs allowed. They could do it because it was *their* music, and, ultimately, they were in control of it.
Of course they will.
If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.' They'll just have to pay up, first.
If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.' This seems to be near the lowest of the RIAA's actions. I know that some of their lawsuits are much more depraved, but it seems to me that they haven't even bothered to cover up their blackmail this time.
Is there anyway that this can even be legal? Don't the non-RIAA artists and labels get to have a say in how their music is distributed, and at what cost?
So you should probably either go gather some evidence, or just shut the fuck up and not comment on it either way.
My point is, I suppose, is that there have been thousands of years to gather evidence to support one religion over another. There has been much less than that (10%?) that has been needed to gather evidence to support global warming.
I would like to start by thanking Steve Jobs for offering his provocative perspective on the role of digital rights management (DRM) in the electronic content marketplace and for bringing to the forefront an issue of great importance to both the industry and consumers.
Fuck you, Jobs.
Macrovision has been in the content protection industry for more than 20 years, working closely with content owners of many types, including the major Hollywood studios, to help navigate the transition from physical to digital distribution.
We've been helping and encouraging the entertainment industry to annoy its paying customers for more than 20 years.
We have been involved with and have supported both prevention technologies and DRM that are on literally billions of copies of music, movies, games, software and other content forms, as well as hundreds of millions of devices across the world.
Remember those squiggly lines when you tried copying a commercial VHS tape? You can thank us for that.
While your thoughts are seemingly directed solely to the music industry, the fact is that DRM also has a broad impact across many different forms of content and across many media devices. Therefore, the discussion should not be limited to just music.
We recognize that if getting rid of DRM works for the music industry, it's going to open the eyes of executives in other fields, and it could unravel Macrovision's entire business.
DRM increases not decreases consumer value. Up is down. Black is white.
I believe that most piracy occurs because the technology available today has not yet been widely deployed to make DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers.
I have, to date, succeeded in convincing the entertainment industry that DRM can stop piracy.
The solution is to accelerate the deployment of convenient DRM-protected distribution channels--not to abandon them.
The solution is more DRM. DRM everywhere.
Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas -- vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.
Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for.
Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of content, not decrease it.
I am high as a kite.
Quite simply, if the owners of high-value video entertainment are asked to enter, or stay in a digital world that is free of DRM, without protection for their content, then there will be no reason for them to enter, or to stay if they've already entered. The risk will be too great.
If it weren't for DRM, no one would attempt to sell video in digital formats.
I agree with you that there are difficult challenges associated with maintaining the controls of an interoperable DRM system, but it should not stop the industry from pursuing it as a goal.
Just because we have sold the entertainment industry on the pipe dream of "interoperable DRM" that can't actually be implemented does not mean they should stop paying Macrovision in a futile attempt to make it happen.
Truly interoperable DRM will hasten the shift to the electronic distribution of content and make it easier for consumers to manage and share content in the home -- and it will enable it in an open environment where their content is portable across a number of devices, not held hostage to just one company's products.
How the hell did you deduce he was talking about Microsoft from that quote?
I'd be lying if I said I knew what the hell you were talking about. I just pointed out a recent example I saw concerning a company doing research for the sake of research.
I didn't deduce anything from anywhere, I just brought up an example relevant to the discussion.
And this is exactly why there needs to be more "research for the sake of research" regardless of whether there is any potential direct commercial value from it.
Say what you will about Microsoft (I voted with my money, and got a Mac), but they are doing exactly this. Microsoft Research was set up for basic research in computer science, and covers topological quantam field theory as well as many other fields. Not for the immediate financial incentives, but, I guess, just because.
This is from the current (print) issue of Scientific American, and has not been posted on the 'net yet.
A quick Google search turned up this, concerning a California hate speech law. There is one the books for Pennsylvania, as well. You might not have lived anywhere where they have these laws, but they do, in fact, exist.
We have, in these enlightened times, laws that prohibit 'hate' speech. If you run across the wrong 'pig' while you are shouting your slurs, in some parts of the country you can be arrested for 'inciting hate'. I'm not entirely sure about the legal status of these bills, but at the national level there was The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005, the bill shot down in 2005. But wait! They are trying it again!
Slashdot Mirror
Chill the fuck out.
What you saw was some shitty, obscure fan-film made for fanboys at cons. It has absolutely nothing to do with Doctor Who, except for stealing the name. If people thought you meant Curse of Fatal Death instead of an awful movie that nobody else ever saw, then that's understandable. What you linked is NOT Doctor Who. It was a shitty movie that nobody watched.
Yes, because Lithuania is exactly the same as the USA. Both in size and population there is an amazing similarity.
Sometimes it is easy to tell
who is or not mentally well.
Just ask them and see
if it's just a theory
or lies straight from the pit of hell.
Let's calm down and get a grip.
I'll give all of you a good tip:
It's a boy? Then rejoice
but leave it his choice.
Avoid giving your son the snip.
Yes, let us refrain from all things in life that might give us joy, for in those things lie the risk of cancer. Hitchens lived life unapologetically, and I feel that his memory should be celebrated the same way.
Idiocy fell on his watch.
We all know that Hitch
was nobody's bitch,
so let's thank him by raising a scotch.
Steve Jobs has just passed us by. On his visions we all could rely. Now he is gone, but he will move on to that great iPad in the sky. Link
So, MSFT, although being a convicted monopolist, would or would not be a business according to your definition? I hate using analogies, but I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.
What about Standard Oil? Before the government had to step in, they were a monopoly. Would you argue that that was not a business?
If you are arguing that churches in America perform like businesses where the Catholic Church did not, I guess I would argue how you define exchanging money for goods and services.
So, you don't happen to be at all familiar with the Roman Catholic Church?
How long before the Americas were colonized by Europeans was the Church charging people "indulgences"? How many peasants had to sacrifice their time to the Church, unpaid, in order to pay for baptisms, weddings and burials? And Tithing? That is a mandatory tax on salvation that any government would love to have a piece of. Indeed, some have been doing this for centuries. (C of E, anyone?)
Religion has been a business from the first time a shaman, medicine man or elder realized that he could get others to do his work for him for the low, low price of some comforting words.
Religion as a business is nothing new. There just seems to be more money getting thrown around, but instead of it going to one entity, there are many more hands in the collection box, and one will always be around to seperate a fool from his money.
So, basically what you're saying is, "I don't like your rules, but I'm going to follow them anyway."
Voila, point made, no danger of ending up in bad situation.I'm not entirely sure what point it was that you supposedly made. They wanted to see your receipt, and you showed it to them.
That said, I'm glad someone is out there actually doing the hard work.I've never considered standing up for my rights hard work. Just a growing necessity in today's world, and something that I enjoy doing.
Why the *fuck* should I have to pay real money to be able to be competetive with others playing a GAME? I started playing WoW in February of this year, and have raised a character to the point where I can be competetive in PvP. I pay real money to play the game, and I cannot, for the life of me, see how it can be okay to have to pay more money to compete with others who have only been playing longer. Fuck that.
eBay. Same place I got mine.
I think that's the point. It was sort of a jab at MS, because they spent so much cash designing the UI, and it's no better (and, in some cases worse) than other UIs already released.
Well, then the clerks at the liquor store are working under different laws than those of us who have 'just' worked at bars. In Ohio, bartenders and bouncers are obligated to retain any and all fraudulent identification. I took a course offered by the Ohio Division of Liquor Control, and was informed that, indeed, we had to retain fake IDs. As well as learning neat tidbits, like that it is okay for underage people to drink with their parents or over age spouses. Of course, the person who was trying to use the fake ID could request that a police officer verify it but, for some reason, that never came up with me.p>
Also:
MANUFACTURING FALSE ID:It is illegal for any person other than the state to manufacture, sell, or distribute in any manner any identifaction card issued for the purpose of establishing a person's age that displays the great seal of Ohio, the words "Ohio", "State", "Official", "Chauffer", Commercial Driver", "Driver", "Operator", or any other designation that represents the card as the official driver's license or identification card of Ohio
Source (PDF warning)
That's just Ohio, though, but I can imagine that about every state has laws very similar.
I used to work at a bar (The Library, near OSU campus), and on occasion we would have local bands play. They were allowed to play *only* their music, with absolutely no cover songs allowed. They could do it because it was *their* music, and, ultimately, they were in control of it.
Is there anyway that this can even be legal? Don't the non-RIAA artists and labels get to have a say in how their music is distributed, and at what cost?
My point is, I suppose, is that there have been thousands of years to gather evidence to support one religion over another. There has been much less than that (10%?) that has been needed to gather evidence to support global warming.
A majority of the evidence says global warming is true. A majority of the scientists say global warming is true because that what the evidence says.
The same, however, cannot be said of religion. There is no evidence, so it doesn't matter what the majority of people believe.
But you are correct. It is good enough for global warming to have the evidence...
Where does that leave religion?
A failed car analogy on /.?
I am shocked.
I would like to start by thanking Steve Jobs for offering his provocative perspective on the role of digital rights management (DRM) in the electronic content marketplace and for bringing to the forefront an issue of great importance to both the industry and consumers.
Fuck you, Jobs.
Macrovision has been in the content protection industry for more than 20 years, working closely with content owners of many types, including the major Hollywood studios, to help navigate the transition from physical to digital distribution.
We've been helping and encouraging the entertainment industry to annoy its paying customers for more than 20 years.
We have been involved with and have supported both prevention technologies and DRM that are on literally billions of copies of music, movies, games, software and other content forms, as well as hundreds of millions of devices across the world.
Remember those squiggly lines when you tried copying a commercial VHS tape? You can thank us for that.
While your thoughts are seemingly directed solely to the music industry, the fact is that DRM also has a broad impact across many different forms of content and across many media devices. Therefore, the discussion should not be limited to just music.
We recognize that if getting rid of DRM works for the music industry, it's going to open the eyes of executives in other fields, and it could unravel Macrovision's entire business. DRM increases not decreases consumer value. Up is down. Black is white.
I believe that most piracy occurs because the technology available today has not yet been widely deployed to make DRM-protected legitimate content as easily accessible and convenient as unprotected illegitimate content is to consumers.
I have, to date, succeeded in convincing the entertainment industry that DRM can stop piracy.
The solution is to accelerate the deployment of convenient DRM-protected distribution channels--not to abandon them.
The solution is more DRM. DRM everywhere.
Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas -- vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely. Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.
Abandoning DRM will prevent us from forcing our customers to keep paying us over and over again for the same movies and songs they've already paid for.
Well maintained and reasonably implemented DRM will increase the electronic distribution of content, not decrease it.
I am high as a kite.
Quite simply, if the owners of high-value video entertainment are asked to enter, or stay in a digital world that is free of DRM, without protection for their content, then there will be no reason for them to enter, or to stay if they've already entered. The risk will be too great.
If it weren't for DRM, no one would attempt to sell video in digital formats.
I agree with you that there are difficult challenges associated with maintaining the controls of an interoperable DRM system, but it should not stop the industry from pursuing it as a goal.
Just because we have sold the entertainment industry on the pipe dream of "interoperable DRM" that can't actually be implemented does not mean they should stop paying Macrovision in a futile attempt to make it happen.
Truly interoperable DRM will hasten the shift to the electronic distribution of content and make it easier for consumers to manage and share content in the home -- and it will enable it in an open environment where their content is portable across a number of devices, not held hostage to just one company's products.
Magic
I'd be lying if I said I knew what the hell you were talking about. I just pointed out a recent example I saw concerning a company doing research for the sake of research.
I didn't deduce anything from anywhere, I just brought up an example relevant to the discussion.
Say what you will about Microsoft (I voted with my money, and got a Mac), but they are doing exactly this. Microsoft Research was set up for basic research in computer science, and covers topological quantam field theory as well as many other fields. Not for the immediate financial incentives, but, I guess, just because.
This is from the current (print) issue of Scientific American, and has not been posted on the 'net yet.
A quick Google search turned up this, concerning a California hate speech law. There is one the books for Pennsylvania, as well. You might not have lived anywhere where they have these laws, but they do, in fact, exist.
It seems that speech isn't really "free"