A lot of you guys are making great points, noting da Vinci and Michaelangelo as great counter-examples to blow apart Jon's latest tripe, but if you really want to destroy his credibility, one need only note the Egyptians.
The Egyptians were the first known culture to record language in writing, in the form of hieroglypics. The characters were a leap forward in technology (that of written language), while being artistic at the same time.
For those of you truly dedicated to the show, you can drop FOX an email at askfox@foxinc.com. It'll only take a minute, and it might just make a difference. I've already sent mine. What have we got to lose?
Save the back-patting until the REAL movie award competitions - the Oscars, AMA, and Blockbuster shows. Winning a couple categories in some new, obscure awards ceremony does not a "universal hit" make.
Great, I was hoping for another Star Wars thread to air a complaint if mine. I'm getting really sick of people ditching on Star Wars Episodes I and II (despite not even having seen Ep. II yet!), and holding up Lord of the Rings like some holy grail, proclaiming "Look! This is how it should have been!"
Well I'm sorry, but I've seen both movies, and LOTR was looooooong and boooooring. I didn't read the book. I didn't read any of the Star Wars books, either. But for entertainment value, if my friends and I were in Blockbuster(TM) and the choice was SW:TPM or LOTR, I personally find Ep. I far more entertaining.
Sure, LOTR is this great, untouchable, epic work, but unless you're a basement-dwelling D&D-loving introvert, it's not really that great. It was too dramatic. I mean, come on - 3 hours??? And they didn't even manage to finally destroy the ring at the end of it??? Gimmie a break. It was waaaay too drawn out. I mean, OK, sure, they have to destroy this ring. I GET THE POINT! Just destroy it already! I mean geez, just how far away is this mystical, magical volcano, anyway!?
But the good news is, we have 2 more whole movies of mono-plot, unresolving boredom to look forward to. Sure, it had its moments. And the effects were great. But you know what? Those exact same things apply to SW:TPM, and yet the know-it-all Ebert-wannabes here refuse to concede it.
Gaa! It just drives me mad to hear these guys rail against SW:AOTC before they've even seen it, criticising Lucas for wanting to make enough money to actually pay for Episode 3, and knowing that these same hypocrites are still going to pay to see Episode 2! Just so they can say "I told you so." Well guess what, Lucas will still have your money, and he doesn't care why you go see it, just as long as you go see it. And to see them turn around and hold up this agonizingly long and overhyped LOTR like some work of perfection just makes me wanna scream. So you can consider this my cyber-scream: Gaaaaa!
these f**s really don't want me to read their site huh
What they want, genius, is to be paid for the work and effort they've put into their site. Since studies show that whiners like you vehemently oppose micropayments and user fees, that leaves advertising. I'm sorry if the ads annoy you during your free ride.
I don't want to go anywhere today and wider is not better.
In the context of automobiles, a wider track equates to improved stability and better cornering and safety. I've seen your.sig before, and bite my tongue every time I read it, because it's stupid. You seem to be opposing logic, simply because GM chose to latch onto that particular tidbit as a marketing slogan. Well, I'm sorry, but just because you hate the way the fact is being used doesn't make the fact itself any less true.
There's a reason why tall, narrow SUVs roll over all the time, and why Corvettes never do. Can you guess what that reason is?
This idea is a little far-fetched, in my opinion. And it certainly isn't new. I just wanted to add a few comments about problems that seem to be being overlooked by you folks.
When I first bought my DVD-ROM and installed it in my computer, I figured I'd be watching a lot of movies on my PC. Then I watched one. I don't know if it was the MPEG decoder (Creative Dxr2) or my monitor (MegaImage 17"), but the image sucked. The colours weren't nearly as vivid as those on my TV, and the darker areas of the picture were way too dark to actually make out any detail. Not to mention the obvious drawback - the 17" screen! Heck, my TV is 27", and I consider THAT puny.
After that, I began hooking the computer up to the TV whenever we wanted to watch a DVD. The picture looked much better on the TV, but now I had this ugly, beige box sitting on the floor, with cables all over the place. My wife hated it, so into the study went the computer.
One more thing: noise. A computer is noisy. Maybe you guys are all just used to it because you've been around them for so long, but the constant hum of a fan is irritating especially during a quiet part of a movie. What other home theatre/audio components make so much noise while they're operating? None.
So while a computer is capable of doing many jobs well, it's only really ideal at a select few: reading email, surfing the net,... uh... games, I suppose... ?
For a serious home theatre setup, I'll be getting a dedicated DVD player/decoder, audio tuner, etc. Playing mp3s on my computer, hooked up to a $400 shelftop stereo was fine for my dorm room, but I'm in the real world now. A $15 RCA connector can only give you so much fidelity. Give me optical audio outputs anyday.
Thank you for your perfect example of why the rest of the world views the US as an arrogant hypocrite.
FYI, the US is not the only one bombing Afghanistan. Or does the U.K. not exist in your world?
Bert and Ernie are openly gay in Canada
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 1
On Canada's version of Sesame Street, carried on the national TV station CBC, Bert and Ernie came out of the closet a couple of years ago, to teach children that it's OK to be gay.
I'm dead serious. Look it up. Oh yeah, and I don't know about the US, but in Canada, they also killed off Grover to teach kids about death.
You self-proclaimed prophets really irritate me. Here's something I'll bet you don't see in your little crystal ball: people just like you came out of the woodwork after the Oklahoma City bombing and made the EXACT SAME ridiculous predictions. Underestimating the intelligence of your fellow citizens (or "Sheeple", as you like to call them) does not serve to make you look smarter - it only makes you look arrogant.
In times like this, the LAST thing your country needs is fear-mongerers like you spreading FUD. What it needs is blood donations. So can the doomsday garbage that we've all seen a thousand times before, every time there's a Columbine or a Lockerbie. It's CRAP, people are smarter than you give them credit for, and you're really annoying.
Who care what they use? Who cares if they are down now and then?
LOL! Now this is an ironic comment to find on a site that is so viciously anti-Windows/pro-Open Source. "Linux is way better than Windows, because Windows occassionally crashes. But hey, cut Slashdot some slack - who cares if they are down now and then?"
I do it 'cause [...] it seems like the
right thing to do.
So is that why these same open-source
programmers so adamently defend their right
to steal music and video? "'Cause it
seems like the right thing to do?"
I don't buy this whole great honourable,
moral, ethical persona that geeks like to
impersonate. Deep down, when the rubber
hits the road, and you look at their actions,
they readily dive into an ethical grey area,
if it means they'll save a few bucks on CDs.
People write free software for the same reason they want nice cars and big houses - so people will notice and envy them. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's no big mystery.
Quite simply, people write software of the highest quality they're capable of, then give it away, in the hopes that it will become popular, and they'll become a household name (even if only among geeks). People want to be able to go into an IRC channel, or make a Usenet post, and say something like "Oh yeah? You're saying I don't know anything about software? Well, you know vi? I wrote that."
Sklyarov violated no aspect of
traditional copyright law -- only the
outlandish provisions of the DMCA.
So, you admit that he's guilty. The fact that you disagree with the law doesn't mean it should be ignored - you work to change it! What kind of country are you working towards, Jon? One where all the dumb laws (in your opinion) can be legally ignored? What kind of defense does this guy have? "Yeah, I know what I did was illegal, but it's a stupid law." What, do you think the judge will agree, and just let the guy go, thereby annulling the entire DMCA?
Without rules, our society cannot function. And rules are nothing if they are not enforced. Our political system supports processes to work for changes to those laws, within certain guidelines. You can't just throw all that out the window because you don't happen to like it.
What, are you saying that only citizens have rights and freedoms? I'm allowed to look at whoever I want in public, right? So, why aren't businesses afforded this same freedom? Or is it that you only allow that freedom if you approve of what they're thinking when they look at you? P-shaw!
I would say watching the behind-the-scenes on DVD and hearing the hoopla over the "amazing effects [they got from the GAP]" was enough for me.
The Gap ad was completely different. The Gap ad was still during the rotation. The Matrix utilised a green screen to achieve 360+ degrees of rotation, while there was motion going on in the scene being panned
The Gap ad was not the first to use the still-movement effect. Go rent yourself a copy of "Lost in Space" They did it before the Gap.
Ultimately, it all comes down to ideas and numbers, but until the rest of society gets over the 2-year-old mentality of "THIS IS MINE. YOU CAN'T SHARE UNLESS I SAY" and people learn how to make a living regardless
This makes some very poetic hacker rhetoric, but no one seems to ever be able to explain exactly how people are supposed to make a living if they're always giving away the stuff they're working on.
I'm sure that while you're in school, and mommy and daddy are paying the bills, you're contributing all sorts of great stuff to the open source community. I'm sure from that perspective, it must boggle your mind to try and fathom why everyone doesn't see that your way is the only way.
Page me when you reach the real world. I'll be very curious to know how you pay the rent when mommy and daddy cut the umbilical cord.
It's called "Value-Added", and it's the reason most people buy stuff at stores, rather than wholesale.
No, actually, the reason people don't buy things wholesale is because the manufacturers usually won't sell to individuals at wholesale. It's not economically viable, especially for larger products like furniture.
That's the whole reason organizations like UCC exist.
You made the comment that subscription fees and cover prices alone can't even come close to covering the cost of producing a magazine. I would like to employ a proof by contradiction to show that this statement is false. Mad Magazine has been producing monthly issues for decades, with no advertising at all in the magazines. The entire magazine, from cover to cover, is just content - no ads whatsoever. It is all completely funded by subscription fees and cover prices.
Look. We all know that Napster is breaking the law. We agree that the law sucks, but still, it is theft. We can hold a contest to see how many different ways we can come up with the justify what we're doing, but deep down, it is still just petty theft.
The artists and labels deserve to be paid for their work, just like any of us do. How much they deserve to be paid is so utterly subjective that no court in its right mind we even try to touch that one. But, through Napster, the artist and labels are being paid jack squat, and we all know they deserve more than nothing at all.
We can make idle threats about boycotting certain labels or whatever, but we know damn well it's all just talk. We're pissed off about it, but we'll still buy our favorite band's new CD. You know it's true.
Napster basically wants to sell other peoples' work at a fraction of the price that the labels are getting for it right now. While I think that the RIAA and their ilk are greedy bastards, I can't really hold it against them. I'd probably do it too. That's capitalism, folks. If you don't like it, move to Korea. Vendors will charge what the market will bear. It's simple supply and demand.
Napster will lose. The RIAA simply has more money, more lawyers, more politicians, and frankly, more morality on their side. Napster doesn't care about paying artists. The RIAA does, albeit they have a huge stake in the profits themselves.
It was an exciting ride while it lasted, but we knew all along that what we were doing was wrong. Now, it's time to go back to the time-tested business model that is legal, ethical, and honest.
You do a great job of focusing on the positive aspects of gamers, then immediately highlight the negative aspects of the status quo. What about the negative qualities of gamers? Social problems, for example, a strong aversion to tried-and-true methods ("that method is old, therefore it must be bad, I'll re-invent the wheeel").
The way you go on about gamers, you could say the same thing about high-school football jocks (great teamwork abilities, goal-oriented, hard-driven). Yeah, but dumb-as-a-rock! Come on, Jon, you make it sound as though gamers are our saviours, but they're not. They're just pale-skinned, socially-inept kids with well above average problem solving skills. They're not managers or business people, just generally great at solving difficult, but narrowly-scoped problems.
How is it an invasion of your privacy? If you're in a public place, is it any more "invasive" than someone taking your picture (such as a security camera) or smelling your cologne, or getting your fingerprint off a mug? Get real. There's no "invasion of privacy" here, just an oppotunity to get criminals off the streets. I say we seize it.
I thought you meant that somehow a Nabisco(tm) product had endangered them or something. The title of the Slashdot article is very misleading. When I read the CNet article, it made much more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of you guys are making great points, noting da Vinci and Michaelangelo as great counter-examples to blow apart Jon's latest tripe, but if you really want to destroy his credibility, one need only note the Egyptians.
The Egyptians were the first known culture to record language in writing, in the form of hieroglypics. The characters were a leap forward in technology (that of written language), while being artistic at the same time.
But don't tell Jon ...
There are already Java bytecode compilers for both Eiffel and Smalltalk.
For those of you truly dedicated to the show, you can drop FOX an email at askfox@foxinc.com. It'll only take a minute, and it might just make a difference. I've already sent mine. What have we got to lose?
Save the back-patting until the REAL movie award competitions - the Oscars, AMA, and Blockbuster shows. Winning a couple categories in some new, obscure awards ceremony does not a "universal hit" make.
Great, I was hoping for another Star Wars thread to air a complaint if mine. I'm getting really sick of people ditching on Star Wars Episodes I and II (despite not even having seen Ep. II yet!), and holding up Lord of the Rings like some holy grail, proclaiming "Look! This is how it should have been!"
Well I'm sorry, but I've seen both movies, and LOTR was looooooong and boooooring. I didn't read the book. I didn't read any of the Star Wars books, either. But for entertainment value, if my friends and I were in Blockbuster(TM) and the choice was SW:TPM or LOTR, I personally find Ep. I far more entertaining.
Sure, LOTR is this great, untouchable, epic work, but unless you're a basement-dwelling D&D-loving introvert, it's not really that great. It was too dramatic. I mean, come on - 3 hours??? And they didn't even manage to finally destroy the ring at the end of it??? Gimmie a break. It was waaaay too drawn out. I mean, OK, sure, they have to destroy this ring. I GET THE POINT! Just destroy it already! I mean geez, just how far away is this mystical, magical volcano, anyway!?
But the good news is, we have 2 more whole movies of mono-plot, unresolving boredom to look forward to. Sure, it had its moments. And the effects were great. But you know what? Those exact same things apply to SW:TPM, and yet the know-it-all Ebert-wannabes here refuse to concede it.
Gaa! It just drives me mad to hear these guys rail against SW:AOTC before they've even seen it, criticising Lucas for wanting to make enough money to actually pay for Episode 3, and knowing that these same hypocrites are still going to pay to see Episode 2! Just so they can say "I told you so." Well guess what, Lucas will still have your money, and he doesn't care why you go see it, just as long as you go see it. And to see them turn around and hold up this agonizingly long and overhyped LOTR like some work of perfection just makes me wanna scream. So you can consider this my cyber-scream: Gaaaaa!
What they want, genius, is to be paid for the work and effort they've put into their site. Since studies show that whiners like you vehemently oppose micropayments and user fees, that leaves advertising. I'm sorry if the ads annoy you during your free ride.
In the context of automobiles, a wider track equates to improved stability and better cornering and safety. I've seen your .sig before, and bite my tongue every time I read it, because it's stupid. You seem to be opposing logic, simply because GM chose to latch onto that particular tidbit as a marketing slogan. Well, I'm sorry, but just because you hate the way the fact is being used doesn't make the fact itself any less true.
There's a reason why tall, narrow SUVs roll over all the time, and why Corvettes never do. Can you guess what that reason is?
When I first bought my DVD-ROM and installed it in my computer, I figured I'd be watching a lot of movies on my PC. Then I watched one. I don't know if it was the MPEG decoder (Creative Dxr2) or my monitor (MegaImage 17"), but the image sucked. The colours weren't nearly as vivid as those on my TV, and the darker areas of the picture were way too dark to actually make out any detail. Not to mention the obvious drawback - the 17" screen! Heck, my TV is 27", and I consider THAT puny.
After that, I began hooking the computer up to the TV whenever we wanted to watch a DVD. The picture looked much better on the TV, but now I had this ugly, beige box sitting on the floor, with cables all over the place. My wife hated it, so into the study went the computer.
One more thing: noise. A computer is noisy. Maybe you guys are all just used to it because you've been around them for so long, but the constant hum of a fan is irritating especially during a quiet part of a movie. What other home theatre/audio components make so much noise while they're operating? None.
So while a computer is capable of doing many jobs well, it's only really ideal at a select few: reading email, surfing the net, ... uh ... games, I suppose ... ?
For a serious home theatre setup, I'll be getting a dedicated DVD player/decoder, audio tuner, etc. Playing mp3s on my computer, hooked up to a $400 shelftop stereo was fine for my dorm room, but I'm in the real world now. A $15 RCA connector can only give you so much fidelity. Give me optical audio outputs anyday.
Thank you for your perfect example of why the rest of the world views the US as an arrogant hypocrite.
FYI, the US is not the only one bombing Afghanistan. Or does the U.K. not exist in your world?
On Canada's version of Sesame Street, carried on the national TV station CBC, Bert and Ernie came out of the closet a couple of years ago, to teach children that it's OK to be gay.
I'm dead serious. Look it up. Oh yeah, and I don't know about the US, but in Canada, they also killed off Grover to teach kids about death.
In times like this, the LAST thing your country needs is fear-mongerers like you spreading FUD. What it needs is blood donations. So can the doomsday garbage that we've all seen a thousand times before, every time there's a Columbine or a Lockerbie. It's CRAP, people are smarter than you give them credit for, and you're really annoying.
Who care what they use? Who cares if they are down now and then?
LOL! Now this is an ironic comment to find on a site that is so viciously anti-Windows/pro-Open Source. "Linux is way better than Windows, because Windows occassionally crashes. But hey, cut Slashdot some slack - who cares if they are down now and then?"
right thing to do.
So is that why these same open-source
programmers so adamently defend their right
to steal music and video? "'Cause it
seems like the right thing to do?"
I don't buy this whole great honourable,
moral, ethical persona that geeks like to
impersonate. Deep down, when the rubber
hits the road, and you look at their actions,
they readily dive into an ethical grey area,
if it means they'll save a few bucks on CDs.
Ego.
People write free software for the same reason they want nice cars and big houses - so people will notice and envy them. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's no big mystery.
Quite simply, people write software of the highest quality they're capable of, then give it away, in the hopes that it will become popular, and they'll become a household name (even if only among geeks). People want to be able to go into an IRC channel, or make a Usenet post, and say something like "Oh yeah? You're saying I don't know anything about software? Well, you know vi? I wrote that."
So, you admit that he's guilty. The fact that you disagree with the law doesn't mean it should be ignored - you work to change it! What kind of country are you working towards, Jon? One where all the dumb laws (in your opinion) can be legally ignored? What kind of defense does this guy have? "Yeah, I know what I did was illegal, but it's a stupid law." What, do you think the judge will agree, and just let the guy go, thereby annulling the entire DMCA?
Without rules, our society cannot function. And rules are nothing if they are not enforced. Our political system supports processes to work for changes to those laws, within certain guidelines. You can't just throw all that out the window because you don't happen to like it.
What, are you saying that only citizens have rights and freedoms? I'm allowed to look at whoever I want in public, right? So, why aren't businesses afforded this same freedom? Or is it that you only allow that freedom if you approve of what they're thinking when they look at you? P-shaw!
Didn't you see "Speed?" Keanu is quite capable of developing muscles for a movie, when called for.
This makes some very poetic hacker rhetoric, but no one seems to ever be able to explain exactly how people are supposed to make a living if they're always giving away the stuff they're working on.
I'm sure that while you're in school, and mommy and daddy are paying the bills, you're contributing all sorts of great stuff to the open source community. I'm sure from that perspective, it must boggle your mind to try and fathom why everyone doesn't see that your way is the only way.
Page me when you reach the real world. I'll be very curious to know how you pay the rent when mommy and daddy cut the umbilical cord.
No, actually, the reason people don't buy things wholesale is because the manufacturers usually won't sell to individuals at wholesale. It's not economically viable, especially for larger products like furniture.
That's the whole reason organizations like UCC exist.
You made the comment that subscription fees and cover prices alone can't even come close to covering the cost of producing a magazine. I would like to employ a proof by contradiction to show that this statement is false. Mad Magazine has been producing monthly issues for decades, with no advertising at all in the magazines. The entire magazine, from cover to cover, is just content - no ads whatsoever. It is all completely funded by subscription fees and cover prices.
The artists and labels deserve to be paid for their work, just like any of us do. How much they deserve to be paid is so utterly subjective that no court in its right mind we even try to touch that one. But, through Napster, the artist and labels are being paid jack squat, and we all know they deserve more than nothing at all.
We can make idle threats about boycotting certain labels or whatever, but we know damn well it's all just talk. We're pissed off about it, but we'll still buy our favorite band's new CD. You know it's true.
Napster basically wants to sell other peoples' work at a fraction of the price that the labels are getting for it right now. While I think that the RIAA and their ilk are greedy bastards, I can't really hold it against them. I'd probably do it too. That's capitalism, folks. If you don't like it, move to Korea. Vendors will charge what the market will bear. It's simple supply and demand.
Napster will lose. The RIAA simply has more money, more lawyers, more politicians, and frankly, more morality on their side. Napster doesn't care about paying artists. The RIAA does, albeit they have a huge stake in the profits themselves.
It was an exciting ride while it lasted, but we knew all along that what we were doing was wrong. Now, it's time to go back to the time-tested business model that is legal, ethical, and honest.
You do a great job of focusing on the positive aspects of gamers, then immediately highlight the negative aspects of the status quo. What about the negative qualities of gamers? Social problems, for example, a strong aversion to tried-and-true methods ("that method is old, therefore it must be bad, I'll re-invent the wheeel"). The way you go on about gamers, you could say the same thing about high-school football jocks (great teamwork abilities, goal-oriented, hard-driven). Yeah, but dumb-as-a-rock! Come on, Jon, you make it sound as though gamers are our saviours, but they're not. They're just pale-skinned, socially-inept kids with well above average problem solving skills. They're not managers or business people, just generally great at solving difficult, but narrowly-scoped problems.
How is it an invasion of your privacy? If you're in a public place, is it any more "invasive" than someone taking your picture (such as a security camera) or smelling your cologne, or getting your fingerprint off a mug? Get real. There's no "invasion of privacy" here, just an oppotunity to get criminals off the streets. I say we seize it.
I thought you meant that somehow a Nabisco(tm) product had endangered them or something. The title of the Slashdot article is very misleading. When I read the CNet article, it made much more sense.