Instead, just like with music, I suppose if people don't want to/pay/ for low quality product then they should just download it and watch it for free?
That's the real issue - everyone is complaining that the studios are trying to foist crap off on us; but that's a bit of a straw man. Even the studios seems to be falling into the same trap.
The problem here is that "shouldn't be expected to pay for" is not the same as "should get for free". You can easily meet "shouldn't be expected to pay for" by not going to see the movie after you hear the reviews.
The 'try before you buy' concept is just what people tell themselves to justify their behavior. The real reason is that the people doing this have not learned to wait for the things they want; or to make choices on how they expend their resources. (If I buy that new game, I can't see this movie for another three weeks. So I'll wait for the movie. Or I'll wait for the game.)
And why should they? There's an entire culture made up of these people telling each other "I can get the game,/and/ see the movie -- for 'free'!"
And google's result for oil is/sooo/ much more helpful if you're looking for oil change info. While I agree that a one word search should work just fine, expecting to get useful information on changing oil by searching for the word "oil" is rather silly. I hope that this was a contrived example, and your search skills aren't really that poor...
Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.
Erm... so the FCC basically held this over the companies' heads as a condition for approval? How does this differ from extortion again?
Don't be afraid, my cowardly friend, for there is nothing to fear here. Will your life end if you are 'modded down'? Will there be any consequence at all for speaking your mind forthrightly under your true false name?
Don't give these things more weight than they deserve...
Now don't get me started on why I don't think that you should go to jail for drug crimes, but that's another matter.
But it's not another matter. Some kid gets put away at 18 for distribution of marijuana. Maybe he only serves a year -- but that's a felony charge. He will/never/ hold a job as a professional in any industry which does a background check; and if a background check does not get done, he will always have the threat of getting fired hanging over his head if his employer finds out. (He can't admit up front, because many corporate policies prohibit hiring such 'criminals'). This is in addition to the experience of being in prison itself. Our not-so-hypothetical criminal is now essentially banned from most jobs which would allow him to live in a decent neighborhood, nevermind support a family without living hand-to-mouth.
This system of ours makes it very difficult to live a productive, normal life once you have been branded as 'criminal' for/any/ reason. And that's before we even get started on the sex crime laws.
Somewhat offtopic: Frankly, I would love it if every politician who has publicly admitted to doing drugs at some point were brought up on charges - you can bet this 'war on drugs' would end real fast.
I've never understood how such places (be they prisons or other institutions) are in any way suitable to help people actually recover/change. I am curious how you got in there in the first place - was it a voluntary commitment? (Feel free to ignore, it's none of my business - but your story piqued my curiosity.)
I have money in an offshore account left to me by my dying dog may he rest in Jesus' arms, $30,000,000 MILLION USD. Please act as my feduciary agent in moving this moneys safely onshore, and I shall with you share 10%, that is $10,000 THOUSAND USD.
that offshore jobs will go first. They're cheaper than local jobs.
Only in the short term. What's happening now (based on my anecdotal evidence, which is all one really needs here on/.) is that a lot of large companies are realizing this. Difficulty in communications, poor timing (What, you need that fix now? Sorry, you'll have to wait until tomorrow morning), and some of the shoddiest work you've ever seen are all contributing factors.
On the surface,it's a very appealing model: you write up some requirements, communciate them to your offshore team and wow! magic! they return to you a finished product.
But here's what they don't tell you in the brochures (again, based on my experience managing and working with offshore vendors): a) if you don't spell out every single technical detail - almost literally to the point of writing the software yourself -- , you can't rely on them to do it right. b) you can't rely on them to communicate to you the things that they need clarification on, unless you are ready to spend a lot of time asking for t. c) the code you get back wll be virtually unmaintainable, with no thought given to refactoring, common functionality, or future mainitenance d) most of the development seems to be done by people with low experience (just out of the schools, which don't seem to teach anything relevant to the real world) and little skill e) if they have issues, do not expect to learn about them unless you constant ask for them. DO expect them to sit idle and not take any initiative if an issue occurs.
So all of this goes to say: it looks too good to be true, because it is. The old saying is that you get what you pay for -- and it still holds true. And after many years of budget overruns and software that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, companies are finally beginning to realize that.
Hahaha - first thing that greets me when I attempt to go there:
Secure Connection Failed
www.cacert.org uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown.
(Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer)
* This could be a problem with the server's configuration, or it could be someone trying to impersonate the server.
* If you have connected to this server successfully in the past, the error may be temporary, and you can try again later.
Or you can add an exceptionâ¦
Ooh, here's an idea: Pirate music until the industry dies (supporting the artists through concert attendance in the meantime), then when artists go independent, buy their music THEN! That way they make even MORE money! What a novel idea!
Ooh, here's an idea: don't buy music until the industry dies (supporting the artist through concert attendance in the mean time). How does 'pirating' (ridiculous term if there ever was one) benefit the artist in any way? Just do without if you're not going to spend the money anyway. What a novel idea!
However put your straw man to rest... buy one or two cds and go to a concert. The artist gets even/more/ money that way than if you went to a concert but downloaded the songs. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Of course, because I have an unlimited supply of money. In this hypothetical scenario, I can afford to buy CDs and go to concerts after I already said I couldn't.
Most times, when people can't afford to do things, they must choose between them. Why should it be different in this case?
Not quite - the content type is determined automatically, while/reporting something different based on file extension/ . Then again - Windows does tend to do the 'favor' of saying "Windows Media Player" file in the description, and not "MP3 file"...
My thought is that then the user would/see/ that it was an ASF (not mp3 content, where the user expected MP3), assuming that the operating system reported content honestly.
BUt I wasn't replying to GGP, I was replying directly to someone else's rather stupid statement. I agree 100% with voting not to spend - but it's not-so-subtly different than voting to download instead of spending.
ow do you buy music from artists that are represented by the RIAA? Seems to me that most of the money you spend when buying most of the music the RIAA cares about isn't going to the artist in the first place.
Nothing to do with concerts. However put your straw man to rest... buy one or two cds and go to a concert. The artist gets even/more/ money that way than if you went to a concert but downloaded the songs. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Not that easy. A large number of third party applications embed portions of IE functionality (ranging from GUI control styles to embedded web browsers - yes Quicken I'm talking to YOU you POS) removing it would break those applications.
More Linux folks = more justification to write software for Linux.
And that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of why OSS people write software. Unless by 'people' you mean 'corporations'; which then shows a fundamental misunderstanding of GP's post.
Slashdot Mirror
I so hate you right now.
Instead, just like with music, I suppose if people don't want to /pay/ for low quality product then they should just download it and watch it for free?
That's the real issue - everyone is complaining that the studios are trying to foist crap off on us; but that's a bit of a straw man. Even the studios seems to be falling into the same trap.
The problem here is that "shouldn't be expected to pay for" is not the same as "should get for free". You can easily meet "shouldn't be expected to pay for" by not going to see the movie after you hear the reviews.
The 'try before you buy' concept is just what people tell themselves to justify their behavior. The real reason is that the people doing this have not learned to wait for the things they want; or to make choices on how they expend their resources. (If I buy that new game, I can't see this movie for another three weeks. So I'll wait for the movie. Or I'll wait for the game.)
And why should they? There's an entire culture made up of these people telling each other "I can get the game, /and/ see the movie -- for 'free'!"
Oh, and get off my lawn.
And google's result for oil is /sooo/ much more helpful if you're looking for oil change info. While I agree that a one word search should work just fine, expecting to get useful information on changing oil by searching for the word "oil" is rather silly. I hope that this was a contrived example, and your search skills aren't really that poor...
So am I. Be afraid.
Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.
Erm... so the FCC basically held this over the companies' heads as a condition for approval? How does this differ from extortion again?
A fucking parrot can do that
I'm almost positive that you meant an ex-parrot?
My ISP returns the appropriate result indicating host not found, when host is not found...
Don't give these things more weight than they deserve...
Now don't get me started on why I don't think that you should go to jail for drug crimes, but that's another matter.
But it's not another matter. Some kid gets put away at 18 for distribution of marijuana. Maybe he only serves a year -- but that's a felony charge. He will /never/ hold a job as a professional in any industry which does a background check; and if a background check does not get done, he will always have the threat of getting fired hanging over his head if his employer finds out. (He can't admit up front, because many corporate policies prohibit hiring such 'criminals'). This is in addition to the experience of being in prison itself. Our not-so-hypothetical criminal is now essentially banned from most jobs which would allow him to live in a decent neighborhood, nevermind support a family without living hand-to-mouth.
This system of ours makes it very difficult to live a productive, normal life once you have been branded as 'criminal' for /any/ reason. And that's before we even get started on the sex crime laws.
Somewhat offtopic: Frankly, I would love it if every politician who has publicly admitted to doing drugs at some point were brought up on charges - you can bet this 'war on drugs' would end real fast.
I've never understood how such places (be they prisons or other institutions) are in any way suitable to help people actually recover/change. I am curious how you got in there in the first place - was it a voluntary commitment? (Feel free to ignore, it's none of my business - but your story piqued my curiosity.)
I have money in an offshore account left to me by my dying dog may he rest in Jesus' arms, $30,000,000 MILLION USD. Please act as my feduciary agent in moving this moneys safely onshore, and I shall with you share 10%, that is $10,000 THOUSAND USD.
Could you print that out and put it on a wooden table? Aw, crap! Wrong meme! Wrong site! Epic fail!
And in NJ, that would be about the annual rate for a cardboard box on an average suburban streetcorner.
that offshore jobs will go first. They're cheaper than local jobs.
Only in the short term. What's happening now (based on my anecdotal evidence, which is all one really needs here on /.) is that a lot of large companies are realizing this. Difficulty in communications, poor timing (What, you need that fix now? Sorry, you'll have to wait until tomorrow morning), and some of the shoddiest work you've ever seen are all contributing factors.
On the surface ,it's a very appealing model: you write up some requirements, communciate them to your offshore team and wow! magic! they return to you a finished product.
But here's what they don't tell you in the brochures (again, based on my experience managing and working with offshore vendors): a) if you don't spell out every single technical detail - almost literally to the point of writing the software yourself -- , you can't rely on them to do it right. b) you can't rely on them to communicate to you the things that they need clarification on, unless you are ready to spend a lot of time asking for t. c) the code you get back wll be virtually unmaintainable, with no thought given to refactoring, common functionality, or future mainitenance d) most of the development seems to be done by people with low experience (just out of the schools, which don't seem to teach anything relevant to the real world) and little skill e) if they have issues, do not expect to learn about them unless you constant ask for them. DO expect them to sit idle and not take any initiative if an issue occurs.
So all of this goes to say: it looks too good to be true, because it is. The old saying is that you get what you pay for -- and it still holds true. And after many years of budget overruns and software that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, companies are finally beginning to realize that.
How do you know if you like a restaurant before you eat there for the first time? Why should this be different?
Free SSL certificates!
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Hahaha - first thing that greets me when I attempt to go there: Secure Connection Failed www.cacert.org uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown. (Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer) * This could be a problem with the server's configuration, or it could be someone trying to impersonate the server. * If you have connected to this server successfully in the past, the error may be temporary, and you can try again later. Or you can add an exceptionâ¦
Ooh, here's an idea: Pirate music until the industry dies (supporting the artists through concert attendance in the meantime), then when artists go independent, buy their music THEN! That way they make even MORE money! What a novel idea!
Ooh, here's an idea: don't buy music until the industry dies (supporting the artist through concert attendance in the mean time). How does 'pirating' (ridiculous term if there ever was one) benefit the artist in any way? Just do without if you're not going to spend the money anyway. What a novel idea!
However put your straw man to rest... buy one or two cds and go to a concert. The artist gets even /more/ money that way than if you went to a concert but downloaded the songs. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Of course, because I have an unlimited supply of money. In this hypothetical scenario, I can afford to buy CDs and go to concerts after I already said I couldn't.
Most times, when people can't afford to do things, they must choose between them. Why should it be different in this case?
Not quite - the content type is determined automatically, while /reporting something different based on file extension/ . Then again - Windows does tend to do the 'favor' of saying "Windows Media Player" file in the description, and not "MP3 file"...
My thought is that then the user would /see/ that it was an ASF (not mp3 content, where the user expected MP3), assuming that the operating system reported content honestly.
BUt I wasn't replying to GGP, I was replying directly to someone else's rather stupid statement. I agree 100% with voting not to spend - but it's not-so-subtly different than voting to download instead of spending.
ow do you buy music from artists that are represented by the RIAA? Seems to me that most of the money you spend when buying most of the music the RIAA cares about isn't going to the artist in the first place.
Nothing to do with concerts. However put your straw man to rest... buy one or two cds and go to a concert. The artist gets even /more/ money that way than if you went to a concert but downloaded the songs. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Not that easy. A large number of third party applications embed portions of IE functionality (ranging from GUI control styles to embedded web browsers - yes Quicken I'm talking to YOU you POS) removing it would break those applications.
More Linux folks = more justification to write software for Linux.
And that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of why OSS people write software. Unless by 'people' you mean 'corporations'; which then shows a fundamental misunderstanding of GP's post.