why do people pay for cell phone service / a data plan, and then pay to download ring tones, wallpapers, etc.? paying for bandwidth and content isn't unique to cable TV.
yes, because having sex 2x a day with a monogamous partner is completely maintainable. have fun when that tapers off and you have to deal with her as something other than a sexual object.
yes, i'm am sure no one will figure out how to disable the click. if you're the type of person that's going around sneaking pictures, you probably have the time to figure that one out.
i disagree. i own two ipods. the last purchased a new generation nano, which i paid almost $200 for. a friend showed me a "sansa" player with the same memory, a click wheel type interface, and FM radio for which he paid $40. and, you simply drag your music / video onto it so there's nothing like itunes required. i was impressed. if you don't think there are alternatives to ipod, you need to step outside of the apple store. the hard thing is that there are many poor players out there, so it's not easy to root out the decent ones.
ipod is successful because of the itms - itunes - ipod trio. they are feed off each other. each one enforces the other two. you can't use your ipod without itunes, and itunes is a redirect to itms.
p.s., you might be more successful getting your point across if you stayed yourself from trying to make the other party feel like an idiot. comments like "wake up...", "do you honestly believe.." and "what is it you don't understand..." aren't helpful to that end.
it's in Steve's interest to do away with DMCA restrictions on DVDs, as it only makes iPods look better to consumers as the realm of movies available for them increases.
ummm. apple sells content too. it's in their interest to drive you to the apple store to purchase your content, not buy it somewhere else and rip it onto your ipod. as long as you can get it from iTMS apple is happy.
the ipod is not successful because it is the best, most full featured player out there. rather, it's the superb integration with iTMS and iTunes.
when you're dealing with an organization the size of Best Buy, you aren't going to have people taking the time to see if Geek Squad employee intentions were in the right place. To make it simple, they probably just said any employee that knew of wrong doings and didn't report them or fire the responsible party (or whatever) had to be let go... no exceptions, because that opens the door for every employee to plead their special case.
there's a difference between real, physical damage caused by second hand smoke and the possible mental anguish caused by annoying cell phone conversations.
wow i am so glad you made that point. i really, really can't hear enough negative opinions of microsoft. i especially like hearing the same ones over and over again. and wow, what really tops it off is when they are completely out of context. thank you.
no, they are not on par and i never said that. the point was that a morality based on doing what you decide is correct in your own little head doesn't work.
It's sort of like the way I purchase Star Trek for my Xbox and then download a copy for my PC as well. Sure it's illegal, but I look at it from the perspective of: I purchased it so that I could watch it, and watch it I shall.
"I don't like the DUI laws, so drink and drive I shall!"
"I think I deserve more pay, so embezzle I shall!"
"I don't have a problem with heroin, so deal it i shall!"
The most basic acceptance test of any moral or social philosophy is whether it can be applied generally. Yours boils down to: I do what I think is correct. Okay, but please don't call the cops when someone punches you in the face and takes your wallet, because I am sure that it was a perfectly acceptable action to the perpetrator. After all, they really needed the $20 and it's an insignificant amount of $$$ to you, and your nose will heal.
I don't like the way things are going either, but your only morally defensible position is to not purchase your Star Trek movie in the first place if you do not like the implicit agreements attached to it. Go ahead and violate the agreement, your not in the minority in doing so, but please, leave out the lame justification for your actions.
we punched iraq in the face, and look where that got us? yeah it matters, because the civilized world does not work like whatever high school you went to where people punch each other in the face for providing misleading information. the US is largely despised for going around "punching people in the face".
i get your point, but i really can't see how poor quality increases piracy, however much we'd like to be punishing movie studios for crap content. how does it work? this movie sucks, so i'll use up 4GB (or 1.2GB, or whatever) of my drive, and use my bandwidth to share it? i think poor quality probably deters piracy.
unfortunately for google, it's actually the other way around. y! has a much larger user base. it's google that needs to give users a reason to switch. beyond the initial hype, the only reason would have been the 2gb limit. now y! has a 1gb limit, which is more than 99.99% of the users will ever need anyway and a vastly more familiar (and therefore usable to the avg user) user interface.
The record companies get the lion-share for simply saying "Yeah, you can use our artist's music" and providing the AAC rips and artwork
don't they pay to produce the music? an investement that is a gamble at best? please don't respond with "it's still not fair!". i am not sayng that. i'm saying that they do more than give permission to sell the music. really, if that's all it is, then the artist are morons and they deserve what they get.
there's a diff between saying "i don't want my work to further violence" and "violence is never, ever justified". i think the intent is the former, not the latter.
i guess they should have come up with the "my work shall not be used to further violence except if it's some really bad shit like hitler or something" clause in their licensing.
i appreciate that you're trying to wax philosphical on your "art", but really. anyone, and i mean anyone, knows the difference between what happenend w/ the reuters picture and adjusting the freaking white balance. if you want an objective as possible way to decide if an image has been exaggerated, how about "... manipulation sufficient to cause the human eye to recognize primary objects that are not present in the original." so... lighting, color balance, shot angle, exposure, contrast, focus... NOT exaggeration. using a tool to add smoke where there was no smoke? placing a wailing woman in front of a house that she's never seen? adding blood where there was no blood? exaggeration. any questions?
the post you responded to isn't talking about bias in writing, it's talking about fake or exaggerated images or video, by means of digital manipulation. but thank you for outing the media. now we all know that they have opinions and that those opinions sometimes get reflected in their reporting. another slashdot exclusive.
the fact that the wikipedia admins caught and corrected this means nothing. the only reason that happenend is because he talked about it on a widely viewed cable television program.
the point he was making is not even up for contention. it's widely known that wikipedia is open to such abuses and there are many documented cases of it especially in the political arena. mr. colbert probably should have done it quietly and then came back a month later to prove that it was still there.
no, not okay, but yes, that would have been much more humane to avoid most or all of the deaths from the WTC destruction. can you actually be suggesting otherwise? are you saying there is no difference between blowing up a building full of civilians, and giving warning to those civilians so they can get to safety first?
are you really comparing an engineered, manufactured item like a car to music? the quality of a car can be measured. you can measure it's reliability, gas mileage, cost of ownership, etc. etc. like i said, come up with an objective method of measuring the quality of music, and then we can talk.
and why would you not factor price into the "goodness" of a car? your failure to consider cost in evaluation of the car just shows that that is also completely subjective. the criteria for judging goodness is even subjective!
and this may come as a shock, but most people do not listen to mozart on a regular basis. so why is it good? because they make you listen to it in music appreciation class in community college? i remember in my music appreciation class, the instructor was getting visibly upset about metallica because he didn't like the lyrics. so is metallica "good"? most critics think so. my music appreciation instructor, an "expert" one might say, the same "expert" that praised mozart, did not think metallica was "good". how can that be explained?
Slashdot Mirror
i have also become way out of touch with ways to increase my lovemaking potential, sexy chat lines, and cures to my thinning hair.
why do people pay for cell phone service / a data plan, and then pay to download ring tones, wallpapers, etc.? paying for bandwidth and content isn't unique to cable TV.
yes we all believe you, really.
yes, because having sex 2x a day with a monogamous partner is completely maintainable. have fun when that tapers off and you have to deal with her as something other than a sexual object.
yes, i'm am sure no one will figure out how to disable the click. if you're the type of person that's going around sneaking pictures, you probably have the time to figure that one out.
I hear they paid an astronomical amount for MySQL.
$1B.
derby is not (only) an embedded DB. it also has a network server.
just like anything else ... your word, or common sense in this case, against theirs.
i disagree. i own two ipods. the last purchased a new generation nano, which i paid almost $200 for. a friend showed me a "sansa" player with the same memory, a click wheel type interface, and FM radio for which he paid $40. and, you simply drag your music / video onto it so there's nothing like itunes required. i was impressed. if you don't think there are alternatives to ipod, you need to step outside of the apple store. the hard thing is that there are many poor players out there, so it's not easy to root out the decent ones.
...", "do you honestly believe .." and "what is it you don't understand ..." aren't helpful to that end.
ipod is successful because of the itms - itunes - ipod trio. they are feed off each other. each one enforces the other two. you can't use your ipod without itunes, and itunes is a redirect to itms.
p.s., you might be more successful getting your point across if you stayed yourself from trying to make the other party feel like an idiot. comments like "wake up
it's in Steve's interest to do away with DMCA restrictions on DVDs, as it only makes iPods look better to consumers as the realm of movies available for them increases.
ummm. apple sells content too. it's in their interest to drive you to the apple store to purchase your content, not buy it somewhere else and rip it onto your ipod. as long as you can get it from iTMS apple is happy.
the ipod is not successful because it is the best, most full featured player out there. rather, it's the superb integration with iTMS and iTunes.
when you're dealing with an organization the size of Best Buy, you aren't going to have people taking the time to see if Geek Squad employee intentions were in the right place. To make it simple, they probably just said any employee that knew of wrong doings and didn't report them or fire the responsible party (or whatever) had to be let go ... no exceptions, because that opens the door for every employee to plead their special case.
there's a difference between real, physical damage caused by second hand smoke and the possible mental anguish caused by annoying cell phone conversations.
wow i am so glad you made that point. i really, really can't hear enough negative opinions of microsoft. i especially like hearing the same ones over and over again. and wow, what really tops it off is when they are completely out of context. thank you.
no, they are not on par and i never said that. the point was that a morality based on doing what you decide is correct in your own little head doesn't work.
It's sort of like the way I purchase Star Trek for my Xbox and then download a copy for my PC as well. Sure it's illegal, but I look at it from the perspective of: I purchased it so that I could watch it, and watch it I shall.
"I don't like the DUI laws, so drink and drive I shall!"
"I think I deserve more pay, so embezzle I shall!"
"I don't have a problem with heroin, so deal it i shall!"
The most basic acceptance test of any moral or social philosophy is whether it can be applied generally. Yours boils down to: I do what I think is correct. Okay, but please don't call the cops when someone punches you in the face and takes your wallet, because I am sure that it was a perfectly acceptable action to the perpetrator. After all, they really needed the $20 and it's an insignificant amount of $$$ to you, and your nose will heal.
I don't like the way things are going either, but your only morally defensible position is to not purchase your Star Trek movie in the first place if you do not like the implicit agreements attached to it. Go ahead and violate the agreement, your not in the minority in doing so, but please, leave out the lame justification for your actions.
we punched iraq in the face, and look where that got us? yeah it matters, because the civilized world does not work like whatever high school you went to where people punch each other in the face for providing misleading information. the US is largely despised for going around "punching people in the face".
i get your point, but i really can't see how poor quality increases piracy, however much we'd like to be punishing movie studios for crap content. how does it work? this movie sucks, so i'll use up 4GB (or 1.2GB, or whatever) of my drive, and use my bandwidth to share it? i think poor quality probably deters piracy.
unfortunately for google, it's actually the other way around. y! has a much larger user base. it's google that needs to give users a reason to switch. beyond the initial hype, the only reason would have been the 2gb limit. now y! has a 1gb limit, which is more than 99.99% of the users will ever need anyway and a vastly more familiar (and therefore usable to the avg user) user interface.
The record companies get the lion-share for simply saying "Yeah, you can use our artist's music" and providing the AAC rips and artwork
don't they pay to produce the music? an investement that is a gamble at best? please don't respond with "it's still not fair!". i am not sayng that. i'm saying that they do more than give permission to sell the music. really, if that's all it is, then the artist are morons and they deserve what they get.
there's a diff between saying "i don't want my work to further violence" and "violence is never, ever justified". i think the intent is the former, not the latter.
i guess they should have come up with the "my work shall not be used to further violence except if it's some really bad shit like hitler or something" clause in their licensing.
i appreciate that you're trying to wax philosphical on your "art", but really. anyone, and i mean anyone, knows the difference between what happenend w/ the reuters picture and adjusting the freaking white balance. if you want an objective as possible way to decide if an image has been exaggerated, how about "... manipulation sufficient to cause the human eye to recognize primary objects that are not present in the original." so ... lighting, color balance, shot angle, exposure, contrast, focus ... NOT exaggeration. using a tool to add smoke where there was no smoke? placing a wailing woman in front of a house that she's never seen? adding blood where there was no blood? exaggeration. any questions?
or if you are just trolling, kudos! got me.
the post you responded to isn't talking about bias in writing, it's talking about fake or exaggerated images or video, by means of digital manipulation. but thank you for outing the media. now we all know that they have opinions and that those opinions sometimes get reflected in their reporting. another slashdot exclusive.
the fact that the wikipedia admins caught and corrected this means nothing. the only reason that happenend is because he talked about it on a widely viewed cable television program.
the point he was making is not even up for contention. it's widely known that wikipedia is open to such abuses and there are many documented cases of it especially in the political arena. mr. colbert probably should have done it quietly and then came back a month later to prove that it was still there.
no, not okay, but yes, that would have been much more humane to avoid most or all of the deaths from the WTC destruction. can you actually be suggesting otherwise? are you saying there is no difference between blowing up a building full of civilians, and giving warning to those civilians so they can get to safety first?
are you really comparing an engineered, manufactured item like a car to music? the quality of a car can be measured. you can measure it's reliability, gas mileage, cost of ownership, etc. etc. like i said, come up with an objective method of measuring the quality of music, and then we can talk.
and why would you not factor price into the "goodness" of a car? your failure to consider cost in evaluation of the car just shows that that is also completely subjective. the criteria for judging goodness is even subjective!
and this may come as a shock, but most people do not listen to mozart on a regular basis. so why is it good? because they make you listen to it in music appreciation class in community college? i remember in my music appreciation class, the instructor was getting visibly upset about metallica because he didn't like the lyrics. so is metallica "good"? most critics think so. my music appreciation instructor, an "expert" one might say, the same "expert" that praised mozart, did not think metallica was "good". how can that be explained?