I've done everything from retail to software to websites to financial services. I suffer from a perpetual identity crisis, so I like to try new things often, just for the fun of trying new things. Here are some handy tips for would-be entrepreneurs:
Prepare to work longer and harder as your own boss. Yes, I get to set my own schedule, but I still have a solid 12 hours of "work" 5 days a week.
The key to business is solving a customer's problem with fair terms. They need a place to sleep? Offer a hotel room at a fair rate. They need to eat? Why not start a diner or franchise (like a Subway or McD's)? The world around us is filled with opportunity to make money, and provide something people want at the same time. What do the people around you need? How might you help them? How can you do it a profit that justifies your effort?
There is a lot more to the retail business than eBay. Many manufacturers offer stock on consignment, and you might be suprised to see how well a specialty store can do, even if you don't live in an especially rich town. A *lot* of people prefer small, knowledgeable shops to the super-chains like WalMart, Target, etc- and they tend to have more disposable income (in my experience).
"Service sector" businesses will live or die based on the opinions of your first dozen clients. Prepare to jump through hoops and work at a loss, but know when to cut the slack and protect yourself.
There will *always* be another competitor in China or India or elsewhere who is able to do whatever you can for cheaper (I speak as an American). Don't lose sleep over it. If you can't win on price, you'll just need to find something else to serve as your competitive advantage. Example: "Well Mr. Customer, you can save $X by ordering online, or I can deliver this shiny new TV later this afternoon. Are you sure you want to wait 4-6 weeks to begin showing off to your friends?"
Software/webware is a double-edged sword. The barrier to entry can be almost nothing but your time, however, this means there will always be tons of software projects to compete with yours. No matter how brilliant and clever your idea is, I guarantee that there is a 16 year old hiding in a basement somewhere with the same idea (and the same low costs of entry). That said, You might be tempted to join forces with this aforementioned basement lurker; my advice is don't bother. Entrepreneur programmers tend to be solitarity creatures, and do not play well with others (again, in my experience).
The web is a harsh mistress. Do not expect that traffic is inevitable. If your plan is "put up a website, wait for sales" you will soon find that you need a better plan. Miva.com offers an "AdWords" competitor at much cheaper rates. Make sure you understand how Google's PageRank works, and tailor your copy (text) to appeal the almighty algorithm. SPAM/comment bots/Google hacks and other tricks are almost always a total scam, and will only result in you pissing people off.
If your goal is *money*, and not *business*, why waste your time with a business? I've also made a good chunk of money day-trading. Stocks make me nervous, so I prefer the Forex. The newest craze in Forex is using bots to trade via API automatically. If you are a "math nerd" the Forex is a dream come true (IMO).
Never put all of your eggs in one basket, or all of your hopes and dreams into one project. Smart companies diversify whenever they can, and you should too.
Every "real job" I've ever had has had things I like, and things I don't like. That's life, and it doesn't change the day after you quit. Also, if you already have a "real job" that pays a fair salary, be *very* careful when deciding to leave. The job market is still pretty ugly for tech guys, it's not like a decade ago when you might get a job offer standing in line at Starbucks (those were the days...).
Never burn bridges; old bosses make excellent clients for your new
Not me. I'd rather watch my news on the major media cable channels. I trust Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs to give me the facts, clear of any bias or corporate agendas.
From the freelancer's perspective, there is nothing I love better than a mess of spaghetti code hacked together by interns on crack and then rushed out the door by a PHB.
Where I might normally charge $250 for a few hours of patching, these desperate fools will happily pay 10x that so long as it "works by Monday morning". Of course, that's pretty easy to deliver, especially considering the PHB will almost always elect to avoid all the *real* problems (read: time-consuming). The result? Repeat business!
I used to feel kinda crooked about this (honest). But, in all fairness, a man can only give the same "TCO is relevant!" power point presentation so many times before he just gives up and takes the money.
I like poker. I play well. I enjoy a "night out with the boys" now and again, and am willing to piss away a few bucks on beer and small-antes. I play to win, but when I lose it doesn't hurt me any ($50-$100 tops).
I gamble responsibly.
I had a roommate who played online poker about 18 hours a day. He was doing so well that at one point he quit his job (it wasn't a good job) and began living entirely off of his poker winnings.
Then he had a bad week. Then he had a bad month. Then he admitted that not only had he lost thousands of dollars, he had funded this little project via credit cards at some 19% interest.
Don't kid yourself: gambling is dangerous (that's why its called gambling). I've seen some very clever, and otherwise intelligent people sucked into this trap. All of them were convinced it was a "sure thing" until it was far too late.
You raise a great point. Let me use myself as a real-world example.
I dropped out of H.S. and got a job at age 16. It was 1996, and the job market was very forgiving. I was able to enter a major corporation and slide up a few rungs before anyone even noticed my lack of schoolin'. I had virtually no debt, and thus, every paycheck was putting me further and further into the black.
Cue 2002: suddenly I was under-educated for my own job, and so, went $30,000 in debt to afford a college education. However, I really wanted to make something of myself so I lived plunged in with both feet. I started a small retail company to pay the bills, and was able to get my 4-years done in about 3.
Now in 2006 I have been out of school for a bit more than a year, and most job offers I see are for LESS than my 1998, HS dropout pay. The irony is, I learned far more running my own buisness than I did in school. As a result, I'm in no hurry to return to my cube. Of course, I might prefer the stability of a "real job", but not at these current wages being offered.
I'm not "unwilling" to work, I'm unwilling to work for less than I am worth. And I am no hater of capatalism; thanks to the glory of capatalism I made more money day-trading yesterday than I did freelancing.
That's an interesting pov; 11 was faked to win the race, and we had to go back (i.e. do it for real) to cover our tracks. But with the sudden spike in interest by both China and the USA after 30 years or disinterest, I could almost believe that the 1960's-70's missions were ALL made up, and now we have to get there before the Chinese do or be found out.
Of course, this is all pure "what if" conspiracy fun. Truth be told, I'd like to think we really did it just like the history books promised.
Let's give the conspiracy the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that Apollo 11 was faked and the motive for this was anti-USSR propaganda.
What was the motive for Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17? In other words, once "the sheeple" already believe our flag is sticking out of the face of the moon, why pretend to go back another 5 times? (Six times assuming Apollo 13 was just another PR move).
Yes, I find it odd that no other country has ever been to the moon in the decades since, and yes, it is odd that these tapes disappeared just as the Chinese claim that they are ready to visit the moon for the first time, which coincidentally has sparked the fist effort to return Americans to the moon since 1972. Yes, President Bush is a conspiracy theorists' wet dream, and a *lot* of what this President does is purposefully left quiet, which tends to invite a lot of debate.
But why fake it five times? And, where did those billions and billions of dollars in expenses (those which allegedly ended the age of moon exploration) really go?
Even if the footage was all faked, and NASA was nothing but a PR department gone wrong, *something* qwnt to the moon and placed very specifically calibrated censors there, coincidentally, these censors have been used WORLDWIDE for some 40 years now. Fade back...Occum's razor trumps David Duchovny for the win.
Yes, that was my (poor) attempt at a Colbert-ism. I live in New York, and have seen the long-term effects of 9/11 up-close and personal. I have witnessed the mass exodus to Long Island, and the extreme surge in patriotism out here. But if you were to go talk to a normal New Yorker on the street, a "lifer" who has already survived blackouts, looting, crime waves, multiple terrorist attacks, etc. you might be suprised at their response: more and more people out here are challenging the official story, and questioning the true motives of our current political leadership.
I'm not kidding when I say it's gotten *really* bizarre. So bizaree that I'm currently trying to buy a house elsewhere and get out for good.
For every New Yorker in support of new anti-terrorism measures, you can find another who will tell you "Bush did it".
Note: I'm not about to get involved in that debate, I am simply trying to illustrate the diversity of public opinion here at "ground zero" in the "war on terror".
Point to ponder: I tend to ramble and repeat myself often anyway. If/. wants to "dupe" my comments it's pretty much the same experience, just with less work for me.
Even intending to commit homicide but never attempting is not a crime.
IANAL & IHLMTP (I hate lawyers more than politicians) but I believe you are mistaken. If I purchase a weapon, and then boldly announce "I am going to shoot whoever drank the last mountain dew", I might be arrested for conspiracy to commit ___________ (fill in the blank here).
Consider the difference between Murder 1 (premeditated), v. Murder 2 or manslaughter (pre-medicated). The intent, and mental condition of the accused, can make all the difference in the world.
Of course, this begs the question: who in their right mind would attack civilians in America? Clearly, no one in their right mind would. Clearly, those plotting acts of terrorism against the USA are mentally defecient (either really crazy or dangerously stupid, take your pick) and unworthy to stand trial (isn't that right, Mr. President?). Therefore, how can it be argued that these same pitiful lunatics were capable of plotting elaborate schemes to injur civilians? Isn't it more likely that these feeble minded freedom-fighters lacked that capacity, and were simply following orders, under duress, as a result of key mental inadequacies?
It's called the law of unintended consequences. Just as soon as a prosecutor gets creative with definitions and terminology, a defense attorney will follow suit, or vice-versa. The current administration has bent, molded and outright redefined many staples of American law enforcement. Do I fear a police state as a result? No, I fear the opposite. I fear that America is getting so sick of this current culture of fear that it's anyone's guess which way an argument like the one I presented above might go in front of a jury; especially if 70% of that jury already oppose this "blame terrorism" freak show.
Without any law, we have anarchy; without any anarchy, we have tyranny. When citizens refuse to compromise, and swing the pendelum of public opinion too far in any given direction, it almost always swings back to smack them in their faces.
Recently, slashdot ran this article about Ask.com's growing market share. CEO Jim Lanzone has complained that his service is superior to competitors, but has not yet approached the market share of the Google-ocracy. The reason? Like Xerox before it, Google has become a part of our common venacular in 2006 (to google, I googled it, etc). Some expect Google will remain on top for this reason alone, others claim that superior technology is how Google became #1 in the first place, and so, Ask.com has a chance.
So what does this have to do with MySpace? MySpace currently finds itself in a similar position; unlike rivals such as Facebook or Friendster (remember them?) their market share is simply in a league all its own. I also see another important difference which secures this position for MySpace- when trying another search engine, my total expended time equals about 10 seconds; type, click, go. I don't need to register for anything, and my experience is dependant on nothing more than the latest search algorithms. With a social network, I must invest a significant amount of time in order to setup my profile, and the experience is dependant on how many friends (or similar-minded people) I can find also using the service. Once I have become comfortable using one service, I might be hesitant to "start over" at another, especially if none of my friends were using it either.
Simply put: we have seen, and will continue to see "MySpace killers" and "MySpace clones" boasting the latest AJAX-happy Web 2.0 goodness; but will the users of MySpace take notice? If they notice, will they care enough to make a switch?
MySpace is a very powerful web brand, and I for one think it has only just begun. If I were Rubert Murdoch, I would begin expanding the resources and revenue streams availble to it. When will "MySpace Records" begin distribution in the major retail outlets? And what about tv? How many pilot episodes is fox sitting on right now? Why allow a boardroom to make those decisions? The users on MySpace could do a better job selecting the next "big hit", all without expecting one red cent in compensation! After all, how many of these same users will be buying these same shows on DVD next year?
As MySpace has shown us: we a nation of aspiring and puedo-celebrities. In MySpace I see the potential for hundreds of new reality tv shows, dozens of new animated series, thousands of screenplays...I could go on and on. Properly managed, MySpace can, and I believe will, become a self-sustaining, media-generating, media-consuming machine.
This is a very good point. Ballmer was sitting on more than enough cash circa July '05 to outbid News Corp. It really makes you wonder why they didn't bother.
...otherwise family-friendly movies that just had to drop a few F-bombs to earn a PG-13 rating.
I'll skip the George Carlin-isms, and I respect that your children's useage of language is your responsibility. You also have an excellent point regarding the context of language. I tend to have a potty mouth myself, but when around children or people who find it offensive, I bite my tongue.
This is why I oppose this ruling; editing a PG version from a movie you have PURCHASED or LEASED is perfectly acceptable IMO. The problem here is that your right to do so has been called into question; rather than offering multiple versions (like HBO v. network TV already does for example), the "powers that be" are offering some blather about the "aritstic integrity" of "X-Men IV: happy meal justice". As a result, we have two bad choices: a) keep the bad language, forcing YOU to adapt to MY preferences, or b) lose the bad language, forcing ME to adapt to YOUR preferences.
The way I see it, you have the RIGHT to raise puritan children, and I have the RIGHT to worship filth. Rather than focus on a "working solution" or "fair compromise", I see more polarizing, radical opinions being used to divide and conquer.
It would seem to me that this problem is better solved with common courtesy and common sense, not legal opinions by those without the authority to enforce it.
How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.
This may be the single most bizare case of baseless causality I've ever seen.
Maybe it's because I dropped out of a vagina, or maybe it's because I sucked on a tit until I was a year old, or maybe it's because without sex I wouldn't exist, but I find it hard to follow this logic.
Then again, I was also fond of movies about robots from the future murdering innocent people, and yet, so far, I've yet to meet a single robot from the future or murder a single innocent person (they were all guilty I tells ya).
And, what if the sex scene in question was in regards to oral sex, or perhaps vaginal sex with a condom. By your "monkey see, monkey do" logic, this would lead in a direct DECREASE in teenage pregnancy, would it not?
I will assume the mods meant +5 funny and clicked the wrong button.
censorship
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
censor
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Example: you are a f***ing moron. (Here I, a private citizen, have elected to censor myself).
You see MySpace as a threat? I didn't read that in your parent post. Care to elaborate?
Well, since you asked so nicely, sure. Ok everyone, tinfoil hats on...
Turn on your TV. If you're like me, you probably have well over 100 channels available to you. As such, you would probably mock any talk of "conspiracy" as absolutely silly; after all, who could control all those channels? But take a closer look. How many of those channels are owned by News Corp, Warner Bros, Disney or Viacom? Why, almost all of them. Odd.
So what? I love Futurama (FOX) and thought The Matrix (WB) was a great movie. What does it matter if they happen to be owned by super-national mega corps? After all, TV shows and movies are very expensive to produce, and they require massive amounts of capital and risk.
After all, we still have newspapers and magazines, right? After all, even if *everything* on TV was total bullshit, the truth would still get out. In fact, I've got my copy of "Wired" right here with me now. But wait a minute- take a closer look at some of your favorite publications and you will see that a shocking percentage tie back to one of those aforementioned parent companies.
Well, so what? I'll listen to radio instead. After all, some doofy talk radio host is far too irrelelvant to be part of this "conspiracy", right? Wrong.
The way I see it, the Internet is probably the last refuge for "truth" in the world today. Of course, that is not to say that everything on the Internet is true, far from it. But among the massive amounts of misinformation out here, I have been able to find a few truly independent sources that *I* feel are trustworthy, and most importantly, free of any specific political/business agenda. Not even slashdot is immune; is it any wonder that this fourm owned by the OSTG (open-source technology group) is home to so many GNU/Linux fans?
News corp is not alone is wanting a piece of this pie, Viacom and others have been eyeing the "online social network" phenomena for awhile now. But with the Internet, there is NO legitimate barrier to entry. Any bobo with $20 can start a "branded" website, or launch a free blog (+1 BILLION hits on Google!) in a matter of minutes. When a mega corp comes in spending HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars for a WEBSITE, the agenda is clear: they wish to "grow the brand" and "stay in touch" with their consumer base. Rather than attempt genuine, organic growth, they prefer to buy the most popular destinations. After all, writing a check is a lot easier (especially when using other people's money).
These mega corps already control TV, print, and radio, and they are buying more and more of the Internet everyday. First they profit from the creation of this media, then profit from the first-run distribution of the media (movies, premium tv), they profit from advertising as the media is offered "freely", and then finally profit yet again as you discuss this same media with your friends on the web. Lest we forget, these are the real puppetmasters behind the MPAA, RIAA and all of the DRM-esque nonesense we love to berate here on slashdot.
Now, in case your crack-pot-o-meter is already in the red, I love many, many "properties" (tv shows, movies, radio shows, publications, etc) controlled by these parent corps. Not *everything* they do is bad. However, without *genuine compeition*, collusion and corruption become the norm. What do I mean by this? I'll say it like this: why is it Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly both lead with the same "major stories" every night, and voice the same "issues" and "positions" again and again as
There are many, many ways to keep in contact with F-R-I-E-N-D-S which do not require one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. Like I already said, I understand you don't care, I understand you don't see a threat. That's exactly why I'm so nervous about it.
When News Corp bought MySpace back in '05 I expected membership would begin to drop like a stone, as the "anti-establishment", Bush-hating, Indie-music loving, media-toppling population of MySpacers fled on to "the next big thing".
Sure enough, dozens of "Web 2.0" MySpace clones appeared, offering better features and the same "fight for the little guy" mentality that MySpace had become famous for. I expected those MySpacers would be off in no time. Being that I'm a tad too old (26) for those "wacky kids", I diverted my attention and awaited the sound bite that "the MySpace phenomena was over".
A year later, I'm still waiting. Meanwhile, the juaggurnaut that is MySpace continues to grow like WalMart on crack, and other News Corp properties (FX, Fox, Fox News) have jumped on the bandwagon. Call me naive, but I expected the "corporate parent" to stay well hidden from MySpace for fear of losing their main demo (Q: what are you rebelling against? A: what do you got?). Instead the opposite has happened: MySpace and fox passed the "sell out" threshold months ago, and millions more have poured onto MySpace as a result (I find myself meeting people well into their 30's and 40's with freaking MySpace accounts these days!).
So, the simple answer here in regards to the recent scam-ware MySpace epidemic is: duh. My opinion of those "60 million" antidisetablishmentarianist (take THAT grammar nazis) hit rock bottom awhile ago.
So why do I get so fired up about a website I never used in the first place? Because I give people too much credit, that's why. I was first exposed to MySpace by searching technorati and ending up in "the blogs". Believe it or not, not ALL MySpacers are completely illiterate retards. A few made excellent points regarding DRM, media and political collusions, and the evils of Fox News. But when all of this "dissent" can be bought up by "the enemy" in 5 minutes, and NO ONE EVEN CARES, it simply blows my mind.
But then I admit to myself that I still use Google, and therefore, am an ugly stinking hypocrite according to my own psuedo-morality.
Slashdot Mirror
I've done everything from retail to software to websites to financial services. I suffer from a perpetual identity crisis, so I like to try new things often, just for the fun of trying new things. Here are some handy tips for would-be entrepreneurs:
Not me. I'd rather watch my news on the major media cable channels. I trust Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs to give me the facts, clear of any bias or corporate agendas.
From the freelancer's perspective, there is nothing I love better than a mess of spaghetti code hacked together by interns on crack and then rushed out the door by a PHB.
Where I might normally charge $250 for a few hours of patching, these desperate fools will happily pay 10x that so long as it "works by Monday morning". Of course, that's pretty easy to deliver, especially considering the PHB will almost always elect to avoid all the *real* problems (read: time-consuming). The result? Repeat business!
I used to feel kinda crooked about this (honest). But, in all fairness, a man can only give the same "TCO is relevant!" power point presentation so many times before he just gives up and takes the money.
I like poker. I play well. I enjoy a "night out with the boys" now and again, and am willing to piss away a few bucks on beer and small-antes. I play to win, but when I lose it doesn't hurt me any ($50-$100 tops).
I gamble responsibly.
I had a roommate who played online poker about 18 hours a day. He was doing so well that at one point he quit his job (it wasn't a good job) and began living entirely off of his poker winnings.
Then he had a bad week. Then he had a bad month. Then he admitted that not only had he lost thousands of dollars, he had funded this little project via credit cards at some 19% interest.
Don't kid yourself: gambling is dangerous (that's why its called gambling). I've seen some very clever, and otherwise intelligent people sucked into this trap. All of them were convinced it was a "sure thing" until it was far too late.
You raise a great point. Let me use myself as a real-world example.
I dropped out of H.S. and got a job at age 16. It was 1996, and the job market was very forgiving. I was able to enter a major corporation and slide up a few rungs before anyone even noticed my lack of schoolin'. I had virtually no debt, and thus, every paycheck was putting me further and further into the black.
Cue 2002: suddenly I was under-educated for my own job, and so, went $30,000 in debt to afford a college education. However, I really wanted to make something of myself so I lived plunged in with both feet. I started a small retail company to pay the bills, and was able to get my 4-years done in about 3.
Now in 2006 I have been out of school for a bit more than a year, and most job offers I see are for LESS than my 1998, HS dropout pay. The irony is, I learned far more running my own buisness than I did in school. As a result, I'm in no hurry to return to my cube. Of course, I might prefer the stability of a "real job", but not at these current wages being offered.
I'm not "unwilling" to work, I'm unwilling to work for less than I am worth. And I am no hater of capatalism; thanks to the glory of capatalism I made more money day-trading yesterday than I did freelancing.
That's an interesting pov; 11 was faked to win the race, and we had to go back (i.e. do it for real) to cover our tracks. But with the sudden spike in interest by both China and the USA after 30 years or disinterest, I could almost believe that the 1960's-70's missions were ALL made up, and now we have to get there before the Chinese do or be found out.
Of course, this is all pure "what if" conspiracy fun. Truth be told, I'd like to think we really did it just like the history books promised.
You sir are a hero. If you do not have children yet, here's hoping you raise a dozen new patriots all your own.
Note: above comment is not sarcastic or disgenuine in any way.
Ya' go out, buy new hardware, load it up, pop onto slashdot, and see: "price war coming soon".
C'mon people, show of hands: how many of you are checking up on return policies right now?
Let's give the conspiracy the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that Apollo 11 was faked and the motive for this was anti-USSR propaganda.
What was the motive for Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17? In other words, once "the sheeple" already believe our flag is sticking out of the face of the moon, why pretend to go back another 5 times? (Six times assuming Apollo 13 was just another PR move).
Yes, I find it odd that no other country has ever been to the moon in the decades since, and yes, it is odd that these tapes disappeared just as the Chinese claim that they are ready to visit the moon for the first time, which coincidentally has sparked the fist effort to return Americans to the moon since 1972. Yes, President Bush is a conspiracy theorists' wet dream, and a *lot* of what this President does is purposefully left quiet, which tends to invite a lot of debate.
But why fake it five times? And, where did those billions and billions of dollars in expenses (those which allegedly ended the age of moon exploration) really go?
What these conspiracy theorists always forget is that we placed beacons on the moon which we "ping" with lasers constantly.
Behold more mass-media lies (part of the conspiracy no doubt) here!!
Even if the footage was all faked, and NASA was nothing but a PR department gone wrong, *something* qwnt to the moon and placed very specifically calibrated censors there, coincidentally, these censors have been used WORLDWIDE for some 40 years now. Fade back...Occum's razor trumps David Duchovny for the win.
Yes, that was my (poor) attempt at a Colbert-ism. I live in New York, and have seen the long-term effects of 9/11 up-close and personal. I have witnessed the mass exodus to Long Island, and the extreme surge in patriotism out here. But if you were to go talk to a normal New Yorker on the street, a "lifer" who has already survived blackouts, looting, crime waves, multiple terrorist attacks, etc. you might be suprised at their response: more and more people out here are challenging the official story, and questioning the true motives of our current political leadership.
I'm not kidding when I say it's gotten *really* bizarre. So bizaree that I'm currently trying to buy a house elsewhere and get out for good.
For every New Yorker in support of new anti-terrorism measures, you can find another who will tell you "Bush did it".
Note: I'm not about to get involved in that debate, I am simply trying to illustrate the diversity of public opinion here at "ground zero" in the "war on terror".
Point to ponder: I tend to ramble and repeat myself often anyway. If /. wants to "dupe" my comments it's pretty much the same experience, just with less work for me.
Even intending to commit homicide but never attempting is not a crime.
IANAL & IHLMTP (I hate lawyers more than politicians) but I believe you are mistaken. If I purchase a weapon, and then boldly announce "I am going to shoot whoever drank the last mountain dew", I might be arrested for conspiracy to commit ___________ (fill in the blank here).
Consider the difference between Murder 1 (premeditated), v. Murder 2 or manslaughter (pre-medicated). The intent, and mental condition of the accused, can make all the difference in the world.
Of course, this begs the question: who in their right mind would attack civilians in America? Clearly, no one in their right mind would. Clearly, those plotting acts of terrorism against the USA are mentally defecient (either really crazy or dangerously stupid, take your pick) and unworthy to stand trial (isn't that right, Mr. President?). Therefore, how can it be argued that these same pitiful lunatics were capable of plotting elaborate schemes to injur civilians? Isn't it more likely that these feeble minded freedom-fighters lacked that capacity, and were simply following orders, under duress, as a result of key mental inadequacies?
It's called the law of unintended consequences. Just as soon as a prosecutor gets creative with definitions and terminology, a defense attorney will follow suit, or vice-versa. The current administration has bent, molded and outright redefined many staples of American law enforcement. Do I fear a police state as a result? No, I fear the opposite. I fear that America is getting so sick of this current culture of fear that it's anyone's guess which way an argument like the one I presented above might go in front of a jury; especially if 70% of that jury already oppose this "blame terrorism" freak show.
Without any law, we have anarchy; without any anarchy, we have tyranny. When citizens refuse to compromise, and swing the pendelum of public opinion too far in any given direction, it almost always swings back to smack them in their faces.
Recently, slashdot ran this article about Ask.com's growing market share. CEO Jim Lanzone has complained that his service is superior to competitors, but has not yet approached the market share of the Google-ocracy. The reason? Like Xerox before it, Google has become a part of our common venacular in 2006 (to google, I googled it, etc). Some expect Google will remain on top for this reason alone, others claim that superior technology is how Google became #1 in the first place, and so, Ask.com has a chance.
So what does this have to do with MySpace? MySpace currently finds itself in a similar position; unlike rivals such as Facebook or Friendster (remember them?) their market share is simply in a league all its own. I also see another important difference which secures this position for MySpace- when trying another search engine, my total expended time equals about 10 seconds; type, click, go. I don't need to register for anything, and my experience is dependant on nothing more than the latest search algorithms. With a social network, I must invest a significant amount of time in order to setup my profile, and the experience is dependant on how many friends (or similar-minded people) I can find also using the service. Once I have become comfortable using one service, I might be hesitant to "start over" at another, especially if none of my friends were using it either.
Simply put: we have seen, and will continue to see "MySpace killers" and "MySpace clones" boasting the latest AJAX-happy Web 2.0 goodness; but will the users of MySpace take notice? If they notice, will they care enough to make a switch?
MySpace is a very powerful web brand, and I for one think it has only just begun. If I were Rubert Murdoch, I would begin expanding the resources and revenue streams availble to it. When will "MySpace Records" begin distribution in the major retail outlets? And what about tv? How many pilot episodes is fox sitting on right now? Why allow a boardroom to make those decisions? The users on MySpace could do a better job selecting the next "big hit", all without expecting one red cent in compensation! After all, how many of these same users will be buying these same shows on DVD next year?
As MySpace has shown us: we a nation of aspiring and puedo-celebrities. In MySpace I see the potential for hundreds of new reality tv shows, dozens of new animated series, thousands of screenplays...I could go on and on. Properly managed, MySpace can, and I believe will, become a self-sustaining, media-generating, media-consuming machine.
This is a very good point. Ballmer was sitting on more than enough cash circa July '05 to outbid News Corp. It really makes you wonder why they didn't bother.
What I rarely see about myspace, is what a brilliant idea it is.
When GeoCities offered the same thing circa '95, the called that "brilliant" too.
Now excuse me while I go "cyber-flirt" with some cop pretending to be a 16 year old girl with a trust fund.
I'll skip the George Carlin-isms, and I respect that your children's useage of language is your responsibility. You also have an excellent point regarding the context of language. I tend to have a potty mouth myself, but when around children or people who find it offensive, I bite my tongue.
This is why I oppose this ruling; editing a PG version from a movie you have PURCHASED or LEASED is perfectly acceptable IMO. The problem here is that your right to do so has been called into question; rather than offering multiple versions (like HBO v. network TV already does for example), the "powers that be" are offering some blather about the "aritstic integrity" of "X-Men IV: happy meal justice". As a result, we have two bad choices: a) keep the bad language, forcing YOU to adapt to MY preferences, or b) lose the bad language, forcing ME to adapt to YOUR preferences.
The way I see it, you have the RIGHT to raise puritan children, and I have the RIGHT to worship filth. Rather than focus on a "working solution" or "fair compromise", I see more polarizing, radical opinions being used to divide and conquer.
It would seem to me that this problem is better solved with common courtesy and common sense, not legal opinions by those without the authority to enforce it.
How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.
This may be the single most bizare case of baseless causality I've ever seen.
Maybe it's because I dropped out of a vagina, or maybe it's because I sucked on a tit until I was a year old, or maybe it's because without sex I wouldn't exist, but I find it hard to follow this logic.
Then again, I was also fond of movies about robots from the future murdering innocent people, and yet, so far, I've yet to meet a single robot from the future or murder a single innocent person (they were all guilty I tells ya).
And, what if the sex scene in question was in regards to oral sex, or perhaps vaginal sex with a condom. By your "monkey see, monkey do" logic, this would lead in a direct DECREASE in teenage pregnancy, would it not?
I will assume the mods meant +5 funny and clicked the wrong button.
censorship
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
censor
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Example: you are a f***ing moron. (Here I, a private citizen, have elected to censor myself).
Irony: using mass media as evidence of a mass media conspiracy
As long as they don't censor anything (e.g. if you can't blog about how the latest product of parent company sucked), I don't see the threat.
Threat: they *could* censor.
Bigger threat: are you sure they don't already?
I would give this a (+6 funny) if it were up to me. ;)
You see MySpace as a threat? I didn't read that in your parent post. Care to elaborate?
Well, since you asked so nicely, sure. Ok everyone, tinfoil hats on...
Turn on your TV. If you're like me, you probably have well over 100 channels available to you. As such, you would probably mock any talk of "conspiracy" as absolutely silly; after all, who could control all those channels? But take a closer look. How many of those channels are owned by News Corp, Warner Bros, Disney or Viacom? Why, almost all of them. Odd.
So what? I love Futurama (FOX) and thought The Matrix (WB) was a great movie. What does it matter if they happen to be owned by super-national mega corps? After all, TV shows and movies are very expensive to produce, and they require massive amounts of capital and risk.
After all, we still have newspapers and magazines, right? After all, even if *everything* on TV was total bullshit, the truth would still get out. In fact, I've got my copy of "Wired" right here with me now. But wait a minute- take a closer look at some of your favorite publications and you will see that a shocking percentage tie back to one of those aforementioned parent companies.
Well, so what? I'll listen to radio instead. After all, some doofy talk radio host is far too irrelelvant to be part of this "conspiracy", right? Wrong.
The way I see it, the Internet is probably the last refuge for "truth" in the world today. Of course, that is not to say that everything on the Internet is true, far from it. But among the massive amounts of misinformation out here, I have been able to find a few truly independent sources that *I* feel are trustworthy, and most importantly, free of any specific political/business agenda. Not even slashdot is immune; is it any wonder that this fourm owned by the OSTG (open-source technology group) is home to so many GNU/Linux fans?
News corp is not alone is wanting a piece of this pie, Viacom and others have been eyeing the "online social network" phenomena for awhile now. But with the Internet, there is NO legitimate barrier to entry. Any bobo with $20 can start a "branded" website, or launch a free blog (+1 BILLION hits on Google!) in a matter of minutes. When a mega corp comes in spending HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars for a WEBSITE, the agenda is clear: they wish to "grow the brand" and "stay in touch" with their consumer base. Rather than attempt genuine, organic growth, they prefer to buy the most popular destinations. After all, writing a check is a lot easier (especially when using other people's money).
These mega corps already control TV, print, and radio, and they are buying more and more of the Internet everyday. First they profit from the creation of this media, then profit from the first-run distribution of the media (movies, premium tv), they profit from advertising as the media is offered "freely", and then finally profit yet again as you discuss this same media with your friends on the web. Lest we forget, these are the real puppetmasters behind the MPAA, RIAA and all of the DRM-esque nonesense we love to berate here on slashdot.
Now, in case your crack-pot-o-meter is already in the red, I love many, many "properties" (tv shows, movies, radio shows, publications, etc) controlled by these parent corps. Not *everything* they do is bad. However, without *genuine compeition*, collusion and corruption become the norm. What do I mean by this? I'll say it like this: why is it Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly both lead with the same "major stories" every night, and voice the same "issues" and "positions" again and again as
There are many, many ways to keep in contact with F-R-I-E-N-D-S which do not require one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. Like I already said, I understand you don't care, I understand you don't see a threat. That's exactly why I'm so nervous about it.
When News Corp bought MySpace back in '05 I expected membership would begin to drop like a stone, as the "anti-establishment", Bush-hating, Indie-music loving, media-toppling population of MySpacers fled on to "the next big thing".
Sure enough, dozens of "Web 2.0" MySpace clones appeared, offering better features and the same "fight for the little guy" mentality that MySpace had become famous for. I expected those MySpacers would be off in no time. Being that I'm a tad too old (26) for those "wacky kids", I diverted my attention and awaited the sound bite that "the MySpace phenomena was over".
A year later, I'm still waiting. Meanwhile, the juaggurnaut that is MySpace continues to grow like WalMart on crack, and other News Corp properties (FX, Fox, Fox News) have jumped on the bandwagon. Call me naive, but I expected the "corporate parent" to stay well hidden from MySpace for fear of losing their main demo (Q: what are you rebelling against? A: what do you got?). Instead the opposite has happened: MySpace and fox passed the "sell out" threshold months ago, and millions more have poured onto MySpace as a result (I find myself meeting people well into their 30's and 40's with freaking MySpace accounts these days!).
So, the simple answer here in regards to the recent scam-ware MySpace epidemic is: duh. My opinion of those "60 million" antidisetablishmentarianist (take THAT grammar nazis) hit rock bottom awhile ago.
So why do I get so fired up about a website I never used in the first place? Because I give people too much credit, that's why. I was first exposed to MySpace by searching technorati and ending up in "the blogs". Believe it or not, not ALL MySpacers are completely illiterate retards. A few made excellent points regarding DRM, media and political collusions, and the evils of Fox News. But when all of this "dissent" can be bought up by "the enemy" in 5 minutes, and NO ONE EVEN CARES, it simply blows my mind.
But then I admit to myself that I still use Google, and therefore, am an ugly stinking hypocrite according to my own psuedo-morality.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: D'oh.