And that is what is wrong with most art today. Artists feel entitled. That is a new phenomenon that developed because of the rise of the recorded music industry, National Endowment for the Arts, and so on, most of which arose in the past half century or so. Before that, art was not a commodity to be sold like soda pop. Now it is. So don't be surprised when it comes to the bottom line, and people want commodity prices for commodity art.
But Yahoo doesn't require me to login to Sun's registration site, or Oracle's, before they'll give me access to Yahoo.
If Microsoft has their way, I'd have to sign in to Passport before I could access Yahoo, or most anything else on the web. That's the crucial difference.
What problem? That you can't remember your own passwords? That justifies the titanic investment in infrastructure that Microsoft is making, along with Sun, and everyone else who is throwing their hat into this ring?
I doubt any of them are trying to solve the same, simple problem you want them to solve. How would solving it contribute to their bottom line? Think about it. Has Microsoft ever done anything that didn't reflect their desire to increase the bottom line? Why do you think they are spending a massive amount of money on.Net? Just so you don't have to remember many passwords? I think that's a very silly idea on its face.
But I am sure that they will continue to promote the idea that that are trying to solve that simple problem of multiple accounts and passwords. After all, who could object to that?
Look, the ICANN crowd set up the system so that domains were valuable and scarce. Now they complain when good old capitalists try to, well, capitalize on it.
The result, as we all know, is that only ICANN acredited registrars are allowed to speculate on domain names. Everybody else is subject to UDRP action. I'd like to see a UDRP complaint lodged against VRSN for holding a domain name in bad faith. Maybe someone should pick one of the thousands of expired-but-not-released names, register it as a trademark, and file a complaint.
Windows 95 can be a major problem when working with a newbie who still thinks that the mouse is a "foot pedal" like that on a sewing machine (yes it's true, I actually had a call like that). (emphasis added)
I don't believe you. I've heard the same story from many people who claimed it happened to them when they worked the support lines. This is almost a urban legend of sorts. A search on Google turns up the same story all over the place.
And why should they, if what they have works for them?
Freedom means someone might make a choice you would not have made. It also means someone may decide not to decide, and just use what is given them by the vendor.
You can certainly educate them, and give them new reasons to consider, but this is not a zero-sum game. It is to Microsoft, but that's their problem and their weakness, not ours.
After accepting or rejecting the five cookies they offer (one for the initial connection, one for having seen the flash, one for a session id, and some others for who knows what), the page appears, and looks like it was written especially for Lynx! All the images have alt tags, the text formats nicely, it's easy to read..
So now what was all that.asp redirection/browser-detection/eat-my-cookie BS for in the first place? When it comes down to it, they have a perfectly useable and readable site if they'd just dump all the fancy crap (which Lynx does for you quite nicely).
It seems pretty clear what people want, but it is diametrically opposed to what the music cartel wants. The people want control. They want to choose where, when and how they listen to the music they purchase. Problem is, the music cartel also wants control, but they have different ideas about where, when and how they want you to listen to their music. I don't think it has anything to do with the music cartel "not getting the message" from its customers. It got the message, and decided that what the customers wanted was not in its best interest.
People didn't have to write to Ford, Daimler-Chrysler and GM to tell them they wanted a large sport utility vehicle. The car manufacturers picked up on it without anyone having to organize a letter writing campaign. Same with the musci cartel. They know what people want. Don't kid yourself.
Now, as the label-backed services are set to launch, the companies are careful to position them as works in progress. "It's a very immature business (where) most of the important mistakes haven't been made yet," said Aram Sinnreich, an analyst at Jupiter Media Metrix. "They're focusing on the early adopter audience at this point." (emphasis added)
Seems to me that all the biggest mistakes have been made and repeated several times already, by all the major players. They've managed to alienate the customer base and chase them away to the competition, even to the point where few have any qualms about bootlegging and to hell with whatever the music cartel offers. I'd say Mr. Sinnreich hasn't got a clue.
Hollywood's balls left the room long, long before 9/11, even before most of you were born. When JAWS became a mega blockbuster, that was about the time Hollywood became timid. There was from that time forward, simply too much money on the line to take any real risks.
I don't begrudge anyone making money. I just don't want the spam in my mailbox. If they make money doing what they were doing before, except that they stopped sending spam, that's fine with me. Likewise, if I can use a spam-filtering *something* that is effective and costs little effort to maintain, that is fine with me too. I don't need to carry the vendetta any further.
Targeting websites and websites hosts is part ideological crusade, and part desperation. If the tools available were better at excluding spam from mailboxes, there'd be no need to carry it any further.
You really don't seem to understand. Customer service is a cost, not an asset. It is a drag on profit growth, not a virtue. By becoming a monopoly - or close to it - you can avoid most of the costs of customer service, because no matter how badly they are treated the customers have no where else to go. That is what all the legal aggressiveness towards the P2P services is all about. The recording industry is reaping record profits. Their financial statements filed every quarter with the SEC are the proof. No one is getting hurt but the customers and the artists, but the artists were being hurt all along, before the Internet. These are the facts. Any attempt to deal with this subject while avoiding the facts is futile, and probably dishonest too.
This is the only way...
There are always other ways. This is another lie often repeated, but repetition creates boredom, not truth.
Slashdot Mirror
It's insulting every single time a marketroid thinks that people are literally nothing but pavlovian dogs who will salivate at the ring of a bell.
.sig...
But most people are, and do.
ESPECIALLY considering the more "intelligent" demographic that enjoyed the original SW.
Uhhh... see my
And that is what is wrong with most art today. Artists feel entitled. That is a new phenomenon that developed because of the rise of the recorded music industry, National Endowment for the Arts, and so on, most of which arose in the past half century or so. Before that, art was not a commodity to be sold like soda pop. Now it is. So don't be surprised when it comes to the bottom line, and people want commodity prices for commodity art.
DUH!!
But Yahoo doesn't require me to login to Sun's registration site, or Oracle's, before they'll give me access to Yahoo.
If Microsoft has their way, I'd have to sign in to Passport before I could access Yahoo, or most anything else on the web. That's the crucial difference.
So how do you propose these problems are solved?
.Net? Just so you don't have to remember many passwords? I think that's a very silly idea on its face.
What problem? That you can't remember your own passwords? That justifies the titanic investment in infrastructure that Microsoft is making, along with Sun, and everyone else who is throwing their hat into this ring?
I doubt any of them are trying to solve the same, simple problem you want them to solve. How would solving it contribute to their bottom line? Think about it. Has Microsoft ever done anything that didn't reflect their desire to increase the bottom line? Why do you think they are spending a massive amount of money on
But I am sure that they will continue to promote the idea that that are trying to solve that simple problem of multiple accounts and passwords. After all, who could object to that?
Now there's no chance in hell that any such thing as a DRM OS will ever make it to the marketplace.
Bush II is gonna be out of office come next election, I guarantee it. His father's fate will also his own.
Once this pro-trust administration has been unseated, the next one will not fail to prohibit Microsoft from extending its monopoly this way.
The DRM OS will then die a deserved death, rotting in Microsoft's patent portfolio.
Just like your post is obviously a Troll, in hindsight.
What about those of us who are not freethinking and who are jingoistic?
Talk about flame bait... Geez!
...but you don't see me running around dismembering people.
That's because my eyes are closed.
Some children should not be exposed to violence because that will alter their behavior.
Yeah, and some kids should not be exposed to peace because that will alter their behavior, too.
Hell, even mere existence alters their behavior, which is another argument in favor of abortion, I guess.
While you've been very careful to avoid making any politically charged statement, you've managed to eviscerate any point you might have gotten near.
Others can watch all the bloody movies they want and remain perfect angles.
Which type, obtuse, acute or right?
It Is Far Better To Leave Kids With No Option But To Act Out Aggression With Peers, Rather Than With Toys.
I Mean, DUH!
Look, the ICANN crowd set up the system so that domains were valuable and scarce. Now they complain when good old capitalists try to, well, capitalize on it.
The result, as we all know, is that only ICANN acredited registrars are allowed to speculate on domain names. Everybody else is subject to UDRP action. I'd like to see a UDRP complaint lodged against VRSN for holding a domain name in bad faith. Maybe someone should pick one of the thousands of expired-but-not-released names, register it as a trademark, and file a complaint.
Windows 95 can be a major problem when working with a newbie who still thinks that the mouse is a "foot pedal" like that on a sewing machine (yes it's true, I actually had a call like that). (emphasis added)
m l
m
I don't believe you. I've heard the same story from many people who claimed it happened to them when they worked the support lines. This is almost a urban legend of sorts. A search on Google turns up the same story all over the place.
http://www.cyberspaceplace.com/nightbeforepgrm.ht
http://www.mathstat.usouthal.edu/humor.html
http://eserver.org/cyber/befuddle.txt
http://www.laughnet.net/archive/compute/helpme.ht
http://www.auricular.com/TST/tst1.html
http://www.elsop.com/wrc/humor/truetech.htm
And why should they, if what they have works for them?
Freedom means someone might make a choice you would not have made. It also means someone may decide not to decide, and just use what is given them by the vendor.
You can certainly educate them, and give them new reasons to consider, but this is not a zero-sum game. It is to Microsoft, but that's their problem and their weakness, not ours.
lynx -useragent='Mozilla/4.0 (lynx; faked; hahahaha)' http://www.kpmg.com/
After accepting or rejecting the five cookies they offer (one for the initial connection, one for having seen the flash, one for a session id, and some others for who knows what), the page appears, and looks like it was written especially for Lynx! All the images have alt tags, the text formats nicely, it's easy to read..
So now what was all that
It seems pretty clear what people want, but it is diametrically opposed to what the music cartel wants. The people want control. They want to choose where, when and how they listen to the music they purchase. Problem is, the music cartel also wants control, but they have different ideas about where, when and how they want you to listen to their music. I don't think it has anything to do with the music cartel "not getting the message" from its customers. It got the message, and decided that what the customers wanted was not in its best interest.
People didn't have to write to Ford, Daimler-Chrysler and GM to tell them they wanted a large sport utility vehicle. The car manufacturers picked up on it without anyone having to organize a letter writing campaign. Same with the musci cartel. They know what people want. Don't kid yourself.
Now, as the label-backed services are set to launch, the companies are careful to position them as works in progress. "It's a very immature business (where) most of the important mistakes haven't been made yet," said Aram Sinnreich, an analyst at Jupiter Media Metrix. "They're focusing on the early adopter audience at this point." (emphasis added)
Seems to me that all the biggest mistakes have been made and repeated several times already, by all the major players. They've managed to alienate the customer base and chase them away to the competition, even to the point where few have any qualms about bootlegging and to hell with whatever the music cartel offers. I'd say Mr. Sinnreich hasn't got a clue.
But he's right, it's a very immature business .
Hey. Dude. Calm down. I got the +1 bonus, so it only took one person to mod me up to 3. Haven't you figured this place out yet?
Oh, and by the way, the gun and bullet were for him, not his wife. Kinda changes the whole slant, doncha think?
Sure: there is no spoon.
Hollywood's balls left the room long, long before 9/11, even before most of you were born. When JAWS became a mega blockbuster, that was about the time Hollywood became timid. There was from that time forward, simply too much money on the line to take any real risks.
How about replacing PowerPoint with competent sales people? You'd think no one ever closed a deal before PowerPoint....
A gun. And a bullet.
I don't begrudge anyone making money. I just don't want the spam in my mailbox. If they make money doing what they were doing before, except that they stopped sending spam, that's fine with me. Likewise, if I can use a spam-filtering *something* that is effective and costs little effort to maintain, that is fine with me too. I don't need to carry the vendetta any further.
Targeting websites and websites hosts is part ideological crusade, and part desperation. If the tools available were better at excluding spam from mailboxes, there'd be no need to carry it any further.
Fair use issues aside...
...
...
The copyright fascists always start here.
They are willing to please the consumers
You really don't seem to understand. Customer service is a cost, not an asset. It is a drag on profit growth, not a virtue. By becoming a monopoly - or close to it - you can avoid most of the costs of customer service, because no matter how badly they are treated the customers have no where else to go. That is what all the legal aggressiveness towards the P2P services is all about. The recording industry is reaping record profits. Their financial statements filed every quarter with the SEC are the proof. No one is getting hurt but the customers and the artists, but the artists were being hurt all along, before the Internet. These are the facts. Any attempt to deal with this subject while avoiding the facts is futile, and probably dishonest too.
This is the only way
There are always other ways. This is another lie often repeated, but repetition creates boredom, not truth.
Sure, playing games will be slow, but games are wasteful of valuable bandwidth, especially given the current shortage.
Fuck you, too, elitist moron!