I'm not sure why the parent comment is moderated as "funny"; effectively disabling an account without notice and continuing to to accept subscription fees is outright fraud.
This is the correct response when you become an instant global entertainer--not a $351,000 lawsuit. Or are you going to sue me now for teasing you about losing a lucrative merchandising opportunity?
He became a lawyer, what did you expect to happen?
the problem with this sentiment is that I have (many) friends who, because they can, allot 0 dollars for entertainment and download every movie, song and game they want from the torrents.
Yeah, and, next, you'll be telling us that people aren't buying records anymore because those darn kids are all building crystal radio sets.
Technology and art are always playing a game of leapfrog when art is created for commerce (although, one questions if it's truly art when it's for made specifically for sale, but that's another discussion entirely).
We had sheet music, then we had technology to make perfect copies of that sheet music. The industry cried Armageddon, copyright law caught up and struck a reasonable balance.
We had music on records, then we had technology that allowed people to share music, invisibly, through the air for kids to listen to it, using radio sets, for free. The entertainment industry cried Armageddon, radio operators made a deal to compensate them using what, back then, must have sounded like absolutely ridiculous pie-in-the-sky... yet, it's still the longest-lasting single form of music distribution ever conceived. They agreed to strike a reasonable balance.
We have movies on recordable VHS tapes that people could privately mix, match and copy in their own homes. The industry cried Armageddon, copyright law caught up to strike a reasonable balance.
Now we can buy any form of entertainment (music, videos, books, etc.), convert it to any format and distribute it via the Internet for basically no money that can be downloaded for basically no money. The industry is crying Armageddon. What do you think is going to happen?
Those who forget history are doomed to repeated. The AA's obviously failed history class.
They then use that 100-200 dollars that would otherwise have been entertainment funds to buy more pot, better brands of cigarettes or a better brand of beer/beer at a more expensive bar depending on their preferred method of intoxication.
Hahahahahahaha... so, now the entertainment industry is concerned about our morals? This is the same industry that promoted "sex, drugs and rock'n roll".
Their sole interest in their profits, no matter what the moral or ethical costs. Don't ever forget that.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. "High artistic quality" doesn't necessarily mean "wow factor". Artistic value is, by definition, understanding the purpose and portraying it. Sometimes that purpose calls for something simple (but not boring), sometimes it calls for more. Stock imagery is boring; artistic imagery portrays the requirements exactly.
Say the FDA were to go away, who do you think would be trying out these new experimental treatments first? The poor who can't afford the expensive, tested treatments.
Solution: public healthcare (oh no, socialism!!111eleventyone)
Your treatment needn't be determined by your financial status, but by your medical status. What a concept, huh?
Hematopoietic stem cells (the basic makeup of bone marrow) can only stem blood cells, not renal tissue cells, skin cells, bone cells, brain cells... just blood cells. I know this and doctors certainly know this. There is no question that this procedure is what killed her.
Were these real doctors or doctors like Dr. Pepper is a doctor?
I think your premise is correct: the market for artisan-quality photography used to be smaller than the talent pool.
I think it still is. The number of truly talented and original photographers isn't much higher than it used to be, because the mass perception is that buying a $400 DSLR will turn you into a "professional". The reality is that thousands of "camera enthusiasts" (not photographers) buy into this myth and never amount to anything because they weren't interested in art in the first place. Now the world is filled with worse-than-mediocre imagery printed on our brochures, postcards and publications.
However, I disagree with your conclusion...
someone's writing an academic book and needs a bunch of 2-by-2-inch stock photos, of things like Parthenon, or an Atari, or clouds. They used to have to license these from a professional photographer, even though the quality they need is not really particularly high.
In this instant-on, give-me-satisfaction-now, zero-patience age, there is not enough appreciation for quality. Stock images are usually boring, uninspired snapshots used to occupy otherwise empty space. Using a photograph of high artistic quality can inspire people to imagine beyond the text; I don't think enough people take the time to understand and respect that.
but in the end, what is science for? It is for making living better or more interesting.
You say that as if one is more important than the other. Many life-saving discoveries were made by people who endeavored to conduct science because it was "interesting".
So now, we have a paradox: you want to be chasing these storms to save the very lives of the redneck hicks that get in your way (and, consequently, put themselves in danger) when you could just leave it alone and it would... let's say, "sort itself out";)
I'm sure they'll find the drug abuse resistance gene in no time. (Which seems like a really priority scientific endeavor.)
Yeah, what a silly endeavor. It's not like there are millions of people who need to take powerful pharmaceuticals multiple times a day to maintain a normal level of health or even to just stay alive.
Apple's imaginary value is greater than Microsoft's imaginary value. Now I'll have to spend some of my imaginary money to buy an imaginary Apple to get some imaginary work done.
There's no way it actually costs that much. Consider that an HP #15 black ink cartridge (a common cartridge for HP consumer inkjets) contains 25mL of actual ink and costs $35.99 US. That comes to $1,439.60 per litre or $6535.78 per gallon. Right, HP, we totally believe that ink costs this much.
If you must buy an inkjet, be sure to check, beforehand, that there are realistically-priced replacements cartridges available from third-parties. I have an older Epson printer (model C62) for which I can buy replacement cartridges at about five bucks a pop. This actually makes inkjet printing a practical option. There is nothing wrong with the ink either; the results are perfect and glossy photo prints are great. I wouldn't expect them to last for years and years without fading, but if I want an archival print, I'll take it down the local print shop to have it professionally done anyways.
HP, do you really expect me to believe that the remaining $30 is for R&D and manufacturing costs?
What kind of stupid, half-witted, pseudo-concern is this? This is the same as asking if a cure for cancer is morally wrong; after all, it, too, is [ultimately] due to faulty genetics.
It's not my fault that if I injure myself others feel compelled to help me. If I think I can go it alone, who does it hurt? Do you really think it's my responsibility to make sure people like you can live in a society that takes compassion on me without having to pay for it? Why can't you let other people take responsibility for themselves?
I don't want free health care. Now, I have to pay for it. That doesn't seem like a good situation to me.
This is a tired and selfish argument that needs to end.
Do you expect to shell out big bucks when you need the police to investigate your stolen car and TV, the fire department to put out the blaze that's destroying your home, the library to loan you books, the school system to teach your children and the postal service to send your letters?
The cheapest route sounds like to get fired from your job, go on welfare to get your food and housing paid for, then get free health care. Who needs to work? That was the plan wasn't it?
Sure, but you could do this in many other western countries with public healthcare, yet most people are still contributing members of a functioning society.
So, what are trying to say? That Americans are inherently lazy?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why the parent comment is moderated as "funny"; effectively disabling an account without notice and continuing to to accept subscription fees is outright fraud.
Hence, "garbage".
And just how many Slashdotters do you think didn't wrap that first line in quotes and punch it into Google before reading your comment? ;)
He became a lawyer, what did you expect to happen?
Yeah, and, next, you'll be telling us that people aren't buying records anymore because those darn kids are all building crystal radio sets.
Technology and art are always playing a game of leapfrog when art is created for commerce (although, one questions if it's truly art when it's for made specifically for sale, but that's another discussion entirely).
We had sheet music, then we had technology to make perfect copies of that sheet music. The industry cried Armageddon, copyright law caught up and struck a reasonable balance.
We had music on records, then we had technology that allowed people to share music, invisibly, through the air for kids to listen to it, using radio sets, for free. The entertainment industry cried Armageddon, radio operators made a deal to compensate them using what, back then, must have sounded like absolutely ridiculous pie-in-the-sky... yet, it's still the longest-lasting single form of music distribution ever conceived. They agreed to strike a reasonable balance.
We have movies on recordable VHS tapes that people could privately mix, match and copy in their own homes. The industry cried Armageddon, copyright law caught up to strike a reasonable balance.
Now we can buy any form of entertainment (music, videos, books, etc.), convert it to any format and distribute it via the Internet for basically no money that can be downloaded for basically no money. The industry is crying Armageddon. What do you think is going to happen? Those who forget history are doomed to repeated. The AA's obviously failed history class.
Hahahahahahaha... so, now the entertainment industry is concerned about our morals? This is the same industry that promoted "sex, drugs and rock'n roll".
Their sole interest in their profits, no matter what the moral or ethical costs. Don't ever forget that.
There goes Microsoft copying Apple again!
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. "High artistic quality" doesn't necessarily mean "wow factor". Artistic value is, by definition, understanding the purpose and portraying it. Sometimes that purpose calls for something simple (but not boring), sometimes it calls for more. Stock imagery is boring; artistic imagery portrays the requirements exactly.
Solution: public healthcare (oh no, socialism!!111eleventyone)
Your treatment needn't be determined by your financial status, but by your medical status. What a concept, huh?
Hematopoietic stem cells (the basic makeup of bone marrow) can only stem blood cells, not renal tissue cells, skin cells, bone cells, brain cells... just blood cells. I know this and doctors certainly know this. There is no question that this procedure is what killed her.
Were these real doctors or doctors like Dr. Pepper is a doctor?
I think it still is. The number of truly talented and original photographers isn't much higher than it used to be, because the mass perception is that buying a $400 DSLR will turn you into a "professional". The reality is that thousands of "camera enthusiasts" (not photographers) buy into this myth and never amount to anything because they weren't interested in art in the first place. Now the world is filled with worse-than-mediocre imagery printed on our brochures, postcards and publications.
However, I disagree with your conclusion...
In this instant-on, give-me-satisfaction-now, zero-patience age, there is not enough appreciation for quality. Stock images are usually boring, uninspired snapshots used to occupy otherwise empty space. Using a photograph of high artistic quality can inspire people to imagine beyond the text; I don't think enough people take the time to understand and respect that.
"Natural ability without education has more often raised a man to glory and virtue than education without natural ability"
You say that as if one is more important than the other. Many life-saving discoveries were made by people who endeavored to conduct science because it was "interesting".
So now, we have a paradox: you want to be chasing these storms to save the very lives of the redneck hicks that get in your way (and, consequently, put themselves in danger) when you could just leave it alone and it would ... let's say, "sort itself out" ;)
I don't know of any non-webmail email services that secure their pop connections. Plus, there's also session hijacking.
Yeah, what a silly endeavor. It's not like there are millions of people who need to take powerful pharmaceuticals multiple times a day to maintain a normal level of health or even to just stay alive.
Not.
Where's the mod option for "creepy stalker"?
If you "can protect against [the bugs] with proper coding practices", are they really "bugs"? I would say not.
See? This is why NASA cutbacks are a bad idea.
Apple's imaginary value is greater than Microsoft's imaginary value. Now I'll have to spend some of my imaginary money to buy an imaginary Apple to get some imaginary work done.
Hogwash. All of it.
There's no way it actually costs that much. Consider that an HP #15 black ink cartridge (a common cartridge for HP consumer inkjets) contains 25mL of actual ink and costs $35.99 US. That comes to $1,439.60 per litre or $6535.78 per gallon. Right, HP, we totally believe that ink costs this much.
If you must buy an inkjet, be sure to check, beforehand, that there are realistically-priced replacements cartridges available from third-parties. I have an older Epson printer (model C62) for which I can buy replacement cartridges at about five bucks a pop. This actually makes inkjet printing a practical option. There is nothing wrong with the ink either; the results are perfect and glossy photo prints are great. I wouldn't expect them to last for years and years without fading, but if I want an archival print, I'll take it down the local print shop to have it professionally done anyways.
HP, do you really expect me to believe that the remaining $30 is for R&D and manufacturing costs?
What kind of stupid, half-witted, pseudo-concern is this? This is the same as asking if a cure for cancer is morally wrong; after all, it, too, is [ultimately] due to faulty genetics.
Duh
This is a tired and selfish argument that needs to end.
Do you expect to shell out big bucks when you need the police to investigate your stolen car and TV, the fire department to put out the blaze that's destroying your home, the library to loan you books, the school system to teach your children and the postal service to send your letters?
Sure, but you could do this in many other western countries with public healthcare, yet most people are still contributing members of a functioning society.
So, what are trying to say? That Americans are inherently lazy?