Dude, that is way to many assumptions. And too much assumption of positive intent on the coffee owner and police. THe coffe shop owner was just pissed that the guy was using the wifi without buying coffee, so he called the cops. No altruistic kiddie-porn vigilante here, folks.
From the High Park Group website: Tom Harris has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies
He is a PR guy for corporations, and works for a think tank that is very obscure about thier stance. It's all bout FUD
Look, artists have about five options to reach a national audience on a large scale, and all of htem are RIAA members.
This is about the recording companies, not about the artists. Artists don't get paid by consumers, they are getting paid by recording companies. And the recording companies are not out for the artist's interests, they are trying to maximize thier profits. if the RIAA really cared about artists getting thier due, they woul dhave spearheaded the recent campaign to recover unpaid royalties that the recording companies withheld from the artists.
WTF?? but with the availability of cheap music artists lose their incentive to create.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Artists will create and perform with very little money to be made - COMPANIES will not want ot make music if it is always cheap.
Frankly, I think the consolidation of the music companies has undermined artists and art in music. We would all be better off with a more diverse music ecosystem and having cheap music should help reduce the barriers to entry for air time. Downoading (which doesn't involve parrots or swashbuckling, so its not piracy) could be the key to a renaissance in quality music.
Otherwise it wouldn't work. It is meant to just blend in, until like Sony's rootkit, it causes a major problem.
IF DRM was voluntary, it would be seperable from the media. An opt-in screen at the beginning askeing if you want to insure that this product is never copied or viewed on an inappropriate machine. That is voluntary.
When you hide it on my CD or DVD, it is not a voluntary acceptance.
Ah, just like the train monopolies were really in the transportation market and therefore not a legitimate test of the Sherman act.
The argument that a product is not monopolized because other possible ways to spend our time or money is exist is crap. It is the argument of the corporation sitting on a restricited market and claiming that it is serving its customers best, when what it means is it is serving its board best.
They are circumventing standard operating procedures.
Have you watched cable news in the last 10 years? SOP is to plaster media with any and all information to the point of mistaking opinion for data. Of course, that usually only happens in legal cases where young, attractive white women have been killed. It's nice to see people expose corporate and government misdeeds, rather than jump on more potential information about where in Aruba some vacationing teenager's body might be.
Any time consumers agree to rent music is bad for copyright* and fair use. If $.99 is too much, use allofmp3 -they have a great pricing model and if the music industry was truly a free market, we would see more of it.
When we rent music from MSFT or anyone else, we are agreeing to the farce of an idea that we have only purchased a license to listen, and a license that we must renew each month. I, for one, like to purchase things once and be done with it. If i have to buy it on credit, that is one thing - a house or car is a major purchase. but music does not require long term financial consideration.
*yes, copyright. the DRM'ed version that MSFt and RIAA promote is a bastardization of the real version and harmful to the concept. A reasonable limit with fair use...that would be nice.
Sorry to disagree, because the results are upsetting to me, too. But statistics is based on the idea that small samples are representanative of the overall population.
The other posters have legitimate points - no cell lines, regional limitations other sampling issues. However, just calling people who answer the phone and answer a survey idiots is not a legitimate point
The professor is a professional teacher paid to teach, and the student is the one receiving his services. I'll never understand why the student should be the only one responsible for his learning, when the teacher is the one getting paid.
This is a classic example of the school-as-service-corporation attitude that many Gen Y kids* have and it is simply wrong. It is also unfortunate for those with the attitude of "serve me, I am your student
University does not serve a commercial end. they are not-for-profit and they serve a civil end. This end is to train citizens, not consumers or employers. Unfortunately, this gets lost in the 'marketplae-as-metaphor-for-everything" world we live in here in the US. The professor is there to help you learn, and yes, he/she IS a master. That's what going throuhg the doctoral process is all about - becoming a master in a specific domain.
I realize that many professors are not good teachers, but it is even more true to say that most students are not astute about learning, their own or others. If someone feels they learn better with a laptopscreen up in front of thier face, that's nice. but what if hat interferes with other student's learning? What if that interferes with the teacher's teaching (which then intereferes with other's learning) I am in classes and meetings with laptop screens up and I find that the interaction in them is significantly lower than in places without a physical barrier between participants.
This of course is all base don teh assumption taht laptops are in the classroom to faciltate learning rather than to allow the student to surf the net and IM over the campus wifi network because they don't feel like paying attention.
* it's not just Gen Y'ers MBa students are probably worse - any student group wit a sense of entitlement is really a pain in the ass
YOur understanding of choice is mistaken given much of what is presented about the sweatshops. These are places where you go, get a loan from the company to rent an apartment from the company and buy food at the company store. Then you work for a nickel a day and use that to pay your rent (1/5) - by your food - (1/5) pay principle (.5/5) and interest (2.5/5) on your debt
Many people chose to work at these factories and are stuck there for thier lives. Not a very pleasant choice
Like what? Beer commercials that are about doing manly-silly stunts? Or (other) beer comercials that say that "It's time to grow up and start drinking our beer?"
YOu are defining advertising as legitimate if it discusses the aspects of the product. Advertisers really haven't cared about that since the 1980's. Advertising now is about creating a realationship with ht eproduct/service. Ideally, advertising makes the customer feel like the product is part of thier personal identity (for example "I'm a ford guy")
Connecting to your personal identity is not about "unbiased,complete data on a subject matter,highlighting some compelling aspects of a product,concept,or feature." That's what consumer reports are for
It's only a cost if you think of your time as a monetized commodity. Which we in the US have been trained to due by thinking of hourly wages and billable time.
With OSS on teh little benjamin PC, any user can modify and improve the OS and any program on there. With OSS software, they are providing a structured but changeable environment for the users. this may not work for the peopel that techies usually think of as end users, but for as many grandmas and word procesors there are yet exposed to computers, there are also some hard core coders out there tha have yet to realize they are hard core coders.
And they would love to spend hours nad hours programming to learn and create their own markets
China may not be an ultrapoor country, but it is a country with millions of ultrapoor individuals.
Looking for a corporate model to subsidize this right now is foolish. The project is a long term one, and little more than mock-ups have come out. The idea I see is the humanitarian need driving the development and the corporate market being tapped later. Later could be in 5 years. We need to look at this from a perspective other than the 90 day corporate timeframe
Stock analysts do not work for stock holders. They work for stock speculators. Mark cuban has an intereisting article about speculating in the current market - like many here, he does not believe that there are many investors anymore.
http://blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000173073470/
Look, this person was tryig to form a guild. Completely legit.
They wanted to make it specifically GBLT friendly. Completely legit.
To say that this is inappropriate becuase it may cause others to harass people is akin to saying a women who wears shorts is responsible for being raped, or a black person who goes to church is responsible for the KKK burning the building down.
The way Blizzard is trying to enforce their harassment policy is, ironically, highly descriminatory. They are not trying to protect the GBLT players, but rather to protect themselves from pissing off thier core constituency by enforcing a policy that they have.
How about protecting citizens from financial extortion? The invisible hand of the market does not solve all problems, and the idea that the bank is losing money off of this is silly - they are losing potential money, not actual money. It is greed and money-grubbing at the expense of citizens.
The problem is not the government, rather it is the fact that corporations are pathalogical in thier striving for profits and do not consider being a a responsible citizen. And they are given the rights of a citizen in the U.S.
Yeah, the small business owner was too much of a wimp to go toe-to-toe lin litigation with the richest company in the world. Its his own damn fault for being poor. How dare he even think about being in business if he won't fight against the tyrant or at least isn't give M$FT the finger?
Just like noone could do anything about businesses with 'black only' and 'white only' entrances and seating areas.
This is a question of civile rights. The constitution of the US gaurantees us certain rights, and in that gaurantee is an implication that if some powerful group tries to abridge those rights, the US government is obliged to protect the infringed upon.
It may not be a law that customers can say wha they like while in a school (Funny how that sound different when written that way.) But a right to free speech does extend to the school, and it does extend to the mall, ball park, or any private place. As long as that speech is not endangering or breaking some other laws such as slander, inciting riots, etc., we do have that right
There are two problems with my position tha tI must acknowledge. First, we have a government that believes it is okay to regulate speech to an extent that protesting the government is only allowed in 'free speech zones' that are effectively outside the range of impacting hte protested parties. This is under a guise of safety, but really is more of a marketing ploy - everyone in Lake Woebegone is above average and happy with the president.
Second, as Americans, we tend to roll over and give up our rights for some reason that I cannot understand. Apparently the media has convinced us that corporations should be protected from regulation whil ebeing given the rights of citizens. Somehow the idea that businesses need only worryt about making money is a good thing. We have been beaten down to this point where we do not expect the government to protect us from anything but a nuke, which they can't protect us from. Fankly, if we don't have the right to free speech in private setting in the US, it is because we have given it away.
First, a supply shortage of what? Each store gets more premium consolse - the ones that have more involved production wise, as well as a higher margin - which would argue against a lack of supply.
Also, the whole idea that purchasers have to buy two games with the console (remember when a console had a FREE game?)has no basis in supply-demand. It is simply marketing to an extent that is greedy to the core. I can't see a convincing argument that this is anything other than marketing trying to create a buzz. Watch- "new xbox sells out on first day" will be news story in USA Today.
I am curious to see how they dealt with Wal-Mart. I can't imagine a Wal-Mart accepting only 20 units in each store. Two companies accostum to bullying thier business partners - who wins that one?
I noted earlier in the post that my name isn't really viable anymore, except when I get in Very early on something. I was lucky enough to get my first initial-last name on hotmail and gmail, but on Slashdot and other communities I have come late to, I deal with " childhood nickname + favorite #" of course, I did say I passed on "some" services. obviously, Slashdot is too cool to pass up on.
I do catch the irony. but felt I should put up a (feeble) defense...
When a name is all you know. I've got two perspectives on this. First, I a have had the same email address cross domain since my first in 1991. I Passed up on some services because my email name was not available and I was offered those annoying 'number+name' combinations. I value that name as a way for people to know I am me. As it stands now, I try to use Monkeyboy4 as my email name was a fairly common combination.
Second, I do research on virtual groups and social identity. Our names matter when we interact fora long time online. A name represents a person exclusively online. Even pictures are minimal in effect compared to names, because the name occrs every time you interact with the person. Psych research in onthis question is showing the importance of our online names both to us as individuals and to the smooth running of social structures.
Finally, to all those crapping on CmdrTaco for postin this, leave the discusion. If you don't think it is worth discussing, then DON'T. If you have aposition within the discussion that disagrees with his stance, byu all means chime in. But to dicuss about whether the post is worthy of being in discussion is ironic and a waste of time.
A $5/mo rent to play a game I already own is $5 too much. This is also the reason that I neer played EQ or its ilk - subscriptions on top of $50/game are just bending consumers over and asking themto open wide.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, that is way to many assumptions. And too much assumption of positive intent on the coffee owner and police. THe coffe shop owner was just pissed that the guy was using the wifi without buying coffee, so he called the cops. No altruistic kiddie-porn vigilante here, folks.
From the High Park Group website:
Tom Harris has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies
He is a PR guy for corporations, and works for a think tank that is very obscure about thier stance.
It's all bout FUD
Look, artists have about five options to reach a national audience on a large scale, and all of htem are RIAA members.
This is about the recording companies, not about the artists. Artists don't get paid by consumers, they are getting paid by recording companies. And the recording companies are not out for the artist's interests, they are trying to maximize thier profits. if the RIAA really cared about artists getting thier due, they woul dhave spearheaded the recent campaign to recover unpaid royalties that the recording companies withheld from the artists.
WTF?? but with the availability of cheap music artists lose their incentive to create.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Artists will create and perform with very little money to be made - COMPANIES will not want ot make music if it is always cheap.
Frankly, I think the consolidation of the music companies has undermined artists and art in music. We would all be better off with a more diverse music ecosystem and having cheap music should help reduce the barriers to entry for air time. Downoading (which doesn't involve parrots or swashbuckling, so its not piracy) could be the key to a renaissance in quality music.
Otherwise it wouldn't work. It is meant to just blend in, until like Sony's rootkit, it causes a major problem.
IF DRM was voluntary, it would be seperable from the media. An opt-in screen at the beginning askeing if you want to insure that this product is never copied or viewed on an inappropriate machine. That is voluntary.
When you hide it on my CD or DVD, it is not a voluntary acceptance.
Ah, just like the train monopolies were really in the transportation market and therefore not a legitimate test of the Sherman act.
The argument that a product is not monopolized because other possible ways to spend our time or money is exist is crap. It is the argument of the corporation sitting on a restricited market and claiming that it is serving its customers best, when what it means is it is serving its board best.
They are circumventing standard operating procedures.
Have you watched cable news in the last 10 years? SOP is to plaster media with any and all information to the point of mistaking opinion for data. Of course, that usually only happens in legal cases where young, attractive white women have been killed. It's nice to see people expose corporate and government misdeeds, rather than jump on more potential information about where in Aruba some vacationing teenager's body might be.
Any time consumers agree to rent music is bad for copyright* and fair use. If $.99 is too much, use allofmp3 -they have a great pricing model and if the music industry was truly a free market, we would see more of it.
When we rent music from MSFT or anyone else, we are agreeing to the farce of an idea that we have only purchased a license to listen, and a license that we must renew each month. I, for one, like to purchase things once and be done with it. If i have to buy it on credit, that is one thing - a house or car is a major purchase. but music does not require long term financial consideration.
*yes, copyright. the DRM'ed version that MSFt and RIAA promote is a bastardization of the real version and harmful to the concept. A reasonable limit with fair use...that would be nice.
Sorry to disagree, because the results are upsetting to me, too. But statistics is based on the idea that small samples are representanative of the overall population. The other posters have legitimate points - no cell lines, regional limitations other sampling issues. However, just calling people who answer the phone and answer a survey idiots is not a legitimate point
The professor is a professional teacher paid to teach, and the student is the one receiving his services. I'll never understand why the student should be the only one responsible for his learning, when the teacher is the one getting paid. This is a classic example of the school-as-service-corporation attitude that many Gen Y kids* have and it is simply wrong. It is also unfortunate for those with the attitude of "serve me, I am your student
University does not serve a commercial end. they are not-for-profit and they serve a civil end. This end is to train citizens, not consumers or employers. Unfortunately, this gets lost in the 'marketplae-as-metaphor-for-everything" world we live in here in the US. The professor is there to help you learn, and yes, he/she IS a master. That's what going throuhg the doctoral process is all about - becoming a master in a specific domain.
I realize that many professors are not good teachers, but it is even more true to say that most students are not astute about learning, their own or others. If someone feels they learn better with a laptopscreen up in front of thier face, that's nice. but what if hat interferes with other student's learning? What if that interferes with the teacher's teaching (which then intereferes with other's learning) I am in classes and meetings with laptop screens up and I find that the interaction in them is significantly lower than in places without a physical barrier between participants.
This of course is all base don teh assumption taht laptops are in the classroom to faciltate learning rather than to allow the student to surf the net and IM over the campus wifi network because they don't feel like paying attention.
* it's not just Gen Y'ers MBa students are probably worse - any student group wit a sense of entitlement is really a pain in the ass
YOur understanding of choice is mistaken given much of what is presented about the sweatshops. These are places where you go, get a loan from the company to rent an apartment from the company and buy food at the company store. Then you work for a nickel a day and use that to pay your rent (1/5) - by your food - (1/5) pay principle (.5/5) and interest (2.5/5) on your debt
Many people chose to work at these factories and are stuck there for thier lives. Not a very pleasant choice
Legitimate advertising?
,complete data on a subject matter,highlighting some compelling aspects of a product,concept,or feature." That's what consumer reports are for
Like what? Beer commercials that are about doing manly-silly stunts? Or (other) beer comercials that say that "It's time to grow up and start drinking our beer?"
YOu are defining advertising as legitimate if it discusses the aspects of the product. Advertisers really haven't cared about that since the 1980's. Advertising now is about creating a realationship with ht eproduct/service. Ideally, advertising makes the customer feel like the product is part of thier personal identity (for example "I'm a ford guy")
Connecting to your personal identity is not about "unbiased
Advertising is about emotion.
OR a valid counter point.
If people agree, that diesn't mean it isn't FUD. That just means its effective FUD.
It's only a cost if you think of your time as a monetized commodity. Which we in the US have been trained to due by thinking of hourly wages and billable time.
With OSS on teh little benjamin PC, any user can modify and improve the OS and any program on there.
With OSS software, they are providing a structured but changeable environment for the users. this may not work for the peopel that techies usually think of as end users, but for as many grandmas and word procesors there are yet exposed to computers, there are also some hard core coders out there tha have yet to realize they are hard core coders.
And they would love to spend hours nad hours programming to learn and create their own markets
Some quick responses:
China may not be an ultrapoor country, but it is a country with millions of ultrapoor individuals.
Looking for a corporate model to subsidize this right now is foolish. The project is a long term one, and little more than mock-ups have come out. The idea I see is the humanitarian need driving the development and the corporate market being tapped later. Later could be in 5 years. We need to look at this from a perspective other than the 90 day corporate timeframe
Stock analysts do not work for stock holders. They work for stock speculators. Mark cuban has an intereisting article about speculating in the current market - like many here, he does not believe that there are many investors anymore. http://blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000173073470/
I call bullshit.
Look, this person was tryig to form a guild. Completely legit.
They wanted to make it specifically GBLT friendly. Completely legit.
To say that this is inappropriate becuase it may cause others to harass people is akin to saying a women who wears shorts is responsible for being raped, or a black person who goes to church is responsible for the KKK burning the building down.
The way Blizzard is trying to enforce their harassment policy is, ironically, highly descriminatory. They are not trying to protect the GBLT players, but rather to protect themselves from pissing off thier core constituency by enforcing a policy that they have.
This is truly offensive.
Huh?
How about protecting citizens from financial extortion? The invisible hand of the market does not solve all problems, and the idea that the bank is losing money off of this is silly - they are losing potential money, not actual money. It is greed and money-grubbing at the expense of citizens.
The problem is not the government, rather it is the fact that corporations are pathalogical in thier striving for profits and do not consider being a a responsible citizen. And they are given the rights of a citizen in the U.S.
IIR, the wrestlers sued the environmentalist and ended up having to change their name.
Yeah, the small business owner was too much of a wimp to go toe-to-toe lin litigation with the richest company in the world. Its his own damn fault for being poor.
How dare he even think about being in business if he won't fight against the tyrant or at least isn't give M$FT the finger?
Just like noone could do anything about businesses with 'black only' and 'white only' entrances and seating areas.
This is a question of civile rights. The constitution of the US gaurantees us certain rights, and in that gaurantee is an implication that if some powerful group tries to abridge those rights, the US government is obliged to protect the infringed upon.
It may not be a law that customers can say wha they like while in a school (Funny how that sound different when written that way.) But a right to free speech does extend to the school, and it does extend to the mall, ball park, or any private place. As long as that speech is not endangering or breaking some other laws such as slander, inciting riots, etc., we do have that right
There are two problems with my position tha tI must acknowledge. First, we have a government that believes it is okay to regulate speech to an extent that protesting the government is only allowed in 'free speech zones' that are effectively outside the range of impacting hte protested parties. This is under a guise of safety, but really is more of a marketing ploy - everyone in Lake Woebegone is above average and happy with the president.
Second, as Americans, we tend to roll over and give up our rights for some reason that I cannot understand. Apparently the media has convinced us that corporations should be protected from regulation whil ebeing given the rights of citizens. Somehow the idea that businesses need only worryt about making money is a good thing. We have been beaten down to this point where we do not expect the government to protect us from anything but a nuke, which they can't protect us from. Fankly, if we don't have the right to free speech in private setting in the US, it is because we have given it away.
First, a supply shortage of what? Each store gets more premium consolse - the ones that have more involved production wise, as well as a higher margin - which would argue against a lack of supply.
Also, the whole idea that purchasers have to buy two games with the console (remember when a console had a FREE game?)has no basis in supply-demand. It is simply marketing to an extent that is greedy to the core. I can't see a convincing argument that this is anything other than marketing trying to create a buzz. Watch- "new xbox sells out on first day" will be news story in USA Today.
I am curious to see how they dealt with Wal-Mart. I can't imagine a Wal-Mart accepting only 20 units in each store. Two companies accostum to bullying thier business partners - who wins that one?
I noted earlier in the post that my name isn't really viable anymore, except when I get in Very early on something. I was lucky enough to get my first initial-last name on hotmail and gmail, but on Slashdot and other communities I have come late to, I deal with " childhood nickname + favorite #"
of course, I did say I passed on "some" services. obviously, Slashdot is too cool to pass up on.
I do catch the irony. but felt I should put up a (feeble) defense...
When a name is all you know. I've got two perspectives on this. First, I a have had the same email address cross domain since my first in 1991. I Passed up on some services because my email name was not available and I was offered those annoying 'number+name' combinations. I value that name as a way for people to know I am me. As it stands now, I try to use Monkeyboy4 as my email name was a fairly common combination.
Second, I do research on virtual groups and social identity. Our names matter when we interact fora long time online. A name represents a person exclusively online. Even pictures are minimal in effect compared to names, because the name occrs every time you interact with the person. Psych research in onthis question is showing the importance of our online names both to us as individuals and to the smooth running of social structures.
Finally, to all those crapping on CmdrTaco for postin this, leave the discusion. If you don't think it is worth discussing, then DON'T. If you have aposition within the discussion that disagrees with his stance, byu all means chime in. But to dicuss about whether the post is worthy of being in discussion is ironic and a waste of time.
A $5/mo rent to play a game I already own is $5 too much. This is also the reason that I neer played EQ or its ilk - subscriptions on top of $50/game are just bending consumers over and asking themto open wide.