Slashback: Google, Prince, Bayesian 424
Please confirm, over. After reports that the People's Republic of China was blocking access to Google, an anonymous reader writes: "I'm working in China, and for the last 3 days Google and some other sites were not accessible. But since even sending SMS to europe didn't work I don't think it was censoring, more like routing problems of some sort. Anyway, Google is back and reports of slashdot blocking are also overrated :)"
Cradle of Democracy, or Regular Cradle? Many readers have written to point out that, just like they promised to in March, the government of Greece has gone ahead and banned electronic games. xlurker, for instance, writes "In an unbelievable move the Greek government has banned all public play of computer games with enactment of law 3037/2002. An english translation of it can be read here. This has been reported in the Greek newspaper Kathimerini and recently confirmed in detail at the German Heise site (Google translation). The law encompasses all appliances that play games, as ludicrous this sounds, it spans from cells ph ones and computers to gameboys and consoles. Greek internet cafes are protesting and international gaming events are being cancelled and relocate d. The bill was passed as a last ditch effort by the government to combat gambling. Thousands of Greek citizens have protested the blanket anti-gaming law. Online petitions can be found here and at the Greek Net Cafe site."
Welcome to your new email account. In addition to the Bayesian spam filter for Qmail mentioned in a previous Slashback, an anonymous reader writes "An article here talked about using statistical methods to classify spam (and perhaps other mail) automatically. A real implementation of this has been released (currently beta) here that acts as a POP3 proxy and works with any mail client. It inserts an X-Text-Classification: header in each mail message containing a classification of the mail into any of a number of classes that the user defines. The code is mostly Perl and an LGPL library so although the current version is for Windows it will work on other platforms and the author is asking for suggestions and testers."
Yes, I'd like to be paid in unlucky-pop-star weights, please. 21mhz writes "Reuters reports: Russia's space agency has scrapped 'N Sync singer Lance Bass's plans to join an October space mission after the U.S. pop star failed to meet payment deadlines. More details from AP. The guys that do real stuff at ISS will get an extra cargo package the weight of the unlucky pop singer."
And Lo, eleven shall have been selected, and it is so. AmateurHuman writes "After two delays, Wizards of the Coast, the makers of Dungeons & Dragons, have announced that the first stage of the New Fantasy Setting Search is completed. Eleven out of 11,000 entries were selected. Good job to those lucky eleven!"
Slashdot is not responsible for the content of external links. ttyp writes "We've all seen Janis Ian's opinions about P2P and the RIAA but, man, does Prince take it to a new level! Check out the artist's commentary A Nation of Thieves wherein Prince wonders, 'How long, however, b4 a critical mass of established artists realize that it is in their best interests, both artistically and commercially, 2 leave the system 4 good? How long b4 a critical mass of young aspiring artists become aware of the enslaving aspects of the system and r careful not 2 get involved in it without a maximum of precautions? And how long b4 a critical mass of art lovers get 2gether 2 provide these artists with a real, valuable, legitimate, truthfully enthusiastic alternative audience that completes the process of rendering the xisting system artistically irrelevant?' Also check out the links to other commentaries on this page."
Prince is a script kiddie? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Prince is a script kiddie? (Score:2)
Maybe it was cool "way back when". Now it's just gay.
Re:Prince is a script kiddie? (Score:2)
Re:Prince is a script kiddie? (Score:3, Insightful)
Language is fluid, and the only spellings that are "correct" are the ones in common use. As lame as it is, I think the spelling most in danger of extinction is "you" vs. "u". Compared to other languages, "you" is pretty long for a second person pronoun.
Re:Prince is a script kiddie? (Score:2)
No matter which way I look at it, I can't seem to make "you" longer than "anata"
Re:Prince is a script kiddie? (Score:2)
Which is why I fear it. It just sounds stupid. But from a rational point of view, there's no real reason why it couldn't be accepted, given a few hundred years. What if I wake up from cryogenic sleep (not that I imagine I ever will) and everyone around me sounds like a frickin' moron? and my speech is as odd to them as Shakespeare or even Chaucer?
No! Morons like Prince should be punished for their abuse of the language! Damn language theory all to hell!
Re:Prince is a script kiddie? (Score:2)
He finally did what he's been singing in "alphabet street" -> "we're going down down down, if that's the only way, to make this cruel world hear what we've got to say. Put the right letters together and make a better day"
Baby it's the only way.
The Greek Government (Score:3, Informative)
A Cnet article [com.com] regarding the story explains that "The blanket ban was decided in February after the government admitted it was incapable of distinguishing innocuous video games from illegal gambling machines.", so since Greek authorities are too stupid to tell the difference between Teris and a Poker machine, no one gets to play anything?
The stupidity involved in this law is beyond comprehension.
Re:The Greek Government (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Greek Government (Score:2)
Illegal gambling.... (Score:2)
Re:The Greek Government (Score:2)
When computer games stop being a multi-billion dollar industry.
Don't be a paranoid idiot.
Re:I suspect you have all been trolled... (Score:3, Informative)
The online greek newspaper I saw had this dated Sept 3. Just follow the links, or use google. This is too huge to be a prank. Numerous websites all over greece and the world. Online PDF's with the full text of the law. English translations. Legal analysis. Petitions. More.
They had people rigging PacMan machines with payouts. The dopey politians couldn't figure out how to close all the loopholes so they just decided to go mosquito hunting with shotguns. It's not like any of them play electonic games.
-
How long? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, if you're spending time reading the comments section, then you should already be prepared to read lots of typos and shorthand spellings. Don't act like it's all encrypted.
Re:How long? (Score:2)
Because it's difficult to take him seriously when he writes, as another poster said, like a fourteen year old girl chatting via IM.
--Jim
Re:How long? (Score:2)
Re:How long? (Score:2)
I'm not surprised. But he still writes like a 14-year-old girl. And I still can't take him seriously.
--Jim
Re:How long? (Score:2)
That's exactly the point.
GSM SMS has a hard limit of 150 or so characters.
Instant Messengers / IRC have a time limit (for fluid conversation)
That's where I expect to see abbreviations.
Articles read by the general public with no real character limit, I expect to see the extended versions which don't require any deciphering. It seriously interrupts your inner monologue to stop and decode the context of '4' or 'U' in a sentence.
He appears to have an important message to get across. If he wants people to fully comprehend him, he needs to write as clearly as possible, with the least amount of distraction from his message. Abbreviations are fine if they are required. In this case, they appear to be unnecessary, and have distracted people from his message.
Re:How long? (Score:2)
I could see him doing that. "At least they're not ripping my point apart, putting words in my mouth I didn't really say." Maybe if I adopted that writing style, then the only people commenting on my point would be those who took the time to understand it.
Re:How long? (Score:2)
In this case they are required, because in the case of Prince, the particular ones he is using constitute part of his artistical trademark.
Re:How long? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what would you say if a notable person doesn't speak english as his native language? Would you guys pull this shit with him too?
I mean seriously, if you're going to measure somebody's intelligence based on their shorthand (note: these aren't even typos we're talking abouthere) then wtf's the point? We're talking about the same group of people who uses email, instant messaging, IRC, and so on. Yet you're supposed to spell check everything you say?
Sounds like an attempt at a social class to me. I'm glad I'm not that judgemental of people. I'd be missing a lot.
Re:How long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since we become accustomed to read by seeing regular word forms, "733t" is just a strain on the reader. It lessens the impact of the message, because the reader's resources are spent decyphering the medium. It's insulting to the reader because it points out he's excluded him from whatever subculture uses that "7eet" medium. It's less effective and more annoying: not the way to convince anyone.
Re:How long? (Score:2)
I guess you're not familiar with the Purple one. He's been doing that for a long, long time, way before it was 733t. Go read the lyrics to the Purple Rain album.
Re:How long? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean seriously, if you're going to measure somebody's intelligence based on their shorthand (note: these aren't even typos we're talking abouthere) then wtf's the point? We're talking about the same group of people who uses email, instant messaging, IRC, and so on. Yet you're supposed to spell check everything you say?
Well, yes. Have you ever heard of "manners"? Sure, it's fine to abbreviate and such if you're talking to people you know, but otherwise it's only polite to use proper grammar and spelling. Call it "an attempt at a social class" or whatever you like, but how you write does make an impression on people, and you know what they say about first impressions. If I didn't already know about Prince, I would have been very disinclined to read his entire commentary.
If you don't take exception to such writing styles, well, good for you--but be aware that many, many people do, and no amount of telling them "don't judge a book by its cover" will change that.
Re:How long? (Score:2)
It's bad manners for him to post 1n 31337 on his own web site, and good manners for you to rip him apart on Slashdot?
First, if he's writing a message for the general public to read (as opposed to an audience familiar with him), then regardless of where he posts it, he ought to avoid writing "1n 31337"--or at least recognize that doing so will lose him some readers. Second, I was focusing on the parent post, not on Prince's commentary itself, which I was just using as an example. Yes, I am criticizing the commentary, but hey, criticism happens; if you think Prince would be interested in hearing such criticism, feel free to pass it along, but since I don't see a "comments to" link or address on the page, I'll pass.
Prince or Dijkstra (Score:2)
Edger Dijkstra said something like, "In my opinion the most important quality in a computer programmer is a mastery of their native language." It is a good point. You have to understand what you are supposed to be doing. You have to be able to communicate with your colleagues. You have to be able to communicate with your boss, and your clients.
Dijkstra then added something like, "This explains the generally poor quality of American programmers." Ouch!
Seriously, Prince is not a foreigner. English is his native language. Not only is English his native Language, but he is a kind of professional communicator. His songs should be communicating something, no?
Here in Canada we have our own music channels. They have biographies of musicians. I have seen this short clip advertizing his biography a number of times where he says, "I got to a point in my career, where I could say anything ".
Well, too bad. If there was someone who could give him advice, that he would listen to, I think they should tell him, "Now hold on son. Forget your financial success, and rewind your ego to the point where you actually cared enough to make an effort for people to understand you."
I am not measuring his intelligence. I am measuring his ego. Sure, go ahead and be casual with spelling and grammar when you are talking with someone one on one, or in IRC or IM. But the larger your audience, and the less well you know them, the more of an effort you should make to be clear, IMO.
Well, George, doesn't Dijkstra sound like he had a big ego too? Yes. I guess he does. But Dijkstra was a computer science god. Who is going to be remembered one hundred years from now? Prince? Or Dijkstra. I sure hope it is Dijkstra.
Re:How long? (Score:2)
If someone isn't a native English speaker, he might be pardoned for using incorrect English. But to the best of my knowledge, Prince is fluent in English, and so he really has no excuse. Using phonetic/symbolic puns is the written equivalent of slang or baby talk. It might be acceptable when IM'ing with friends, but in a published work it's sloppy and dumb.
I'm glad I'm not that judgemental of people.
Your leaping to conclusions and holier-than-thou attitude regarding the previous poster's comments suggests that you are in fact judgemental.
Re:How long? (Score:2)
a.) I've never said I'm not. I don't think very highly of people who nitpick spelling, particularly when it's obvious he wrote it that way on purpose.
b.) There's a difference between judging somebody as zealously nitpicky and going off half cocked about a man's spelling when he makes a hell of a good point. At least I *read* what he said.
c.) When somebody criticizes somebody else's spelling, saying things like "he couldn't spend have spent extra time on it?", then what are they doing besides attempting to appear smarter than everybody else? It's one thing to say "Good point, but his spelling made it hard to read", it's another to say "Man, this guy sounds like a 14 year old chick on IM."
Call me judgemental if you like, but I'm the one who got value out of that article.
Re:How long? (Score:3, Insightful)
If he likes to be all style and no substance, then writing however he pleases is fine. But I get the impression that he actually cares about communicating to people, in which case he has to learn not to let the frame get in the way of the picture.
The other factor that weighs in here is that the only thing more annoying (grammer wise, at least) than people who deliberatly write like that because the like it are those who write like that because they think it makes them cool and/or different. I don't know (and don't really care) whether Prince falls into this category or not, but the possibility lowers how seriously I would take what he had to say had I been able to read the whole thing.
Re:How long? (Score:2)
Pity, you missed a good point that way.
Prince really screwed them (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2000 he changed his name back to Prince when his contract expired.
Re:Prince really screwed them (Score:2)
The post-cool pop star that seemed to be past his prime launched into a high-profile temper tantrum that brought a lot of media attention to himself and sold a lot more records and made them a lot more money.
I guess he showed them!
Re:Prince really screwed them (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, the Minneapolis Star Tribune used that weird symbol for his name fairly consistantly (even though it fucked up their printing process a little). The St. Paul Pioneer press with with the "TAFKAP" option. Both papers did call him "the Artist" on occation, but only in the context of an article where the meaning would be obvious.
The thing was, Warner held the rights to the name "Prince" for the duration of his contract (even though he went by that name before he even began his career at WB). By changing it to a symbol with no pronounciation, his fans would still call him "Prince", even though he never, ever directly told them to in any media events. Notice how the first album relased with that symbol-name had, as its first single, a song where he shouts, over and over, "my name is Prince". That's all he ever wanted to be called.
And now you probably know more about TAFKATAFKAP (as I like to call him), than you ever cared to.
Or don't check it out, because it's nonsense... (Score:4, Insightful)
How could we possibly "check that out"? How can anyone read and comprehend that sort of crap? I guess people no longer need IM to prove they are idiots; now they can write whole manifestoes and remove all doubt. Or maybe Prince is trying to be artsy, I dunno. He just comes off as unintelligible, which flies in the face of communication's goals just a bit if he's trying to accomplish something with his writing.
"The technology and entertainment industries r simply 2 big 4 us 2 xpect any overnight changes." And they probably took at least one English class, too, so you probably aren't going to convince anyone to do anything that you want them to do if you attempt to use the written word, Prince...
-B
Every writer needs a good editor (Score:5, Interesting)
A Nation of Thieves?
Something happened on the way to the 21st century. Media and entertainment companies started converging and shareholder value became far more important than customer service and respect for company employees ever managed to be. Compensation packages for company executives hit the stratosphere while holding them accountable for their companys results became nearly impossible.
These executives are indeed very naïve if they think that people havent noticed.
People are noticing that something isnt quite right that something is indeed very wrong. After a decade during which the stock market gained apparent respectability as a legitimate, sensible form of investing, the recent slew of huge corporate scandals reveals that it is still what it has always been: a sick place where neurotic, puerile gamblers get their kicks off the backs of millions of anonymous workers and individuals, who have no control over what happens to their hard-earned retirement savings.
Yet this is the place that most company executives feel is much more important to watch than the actual people for whom they produce their goods and services. This is the place where the fate of thousands of employees is decided every day by people staring at computer monitors showing ever-changing, meaningless lists of numbers and charts. And if you happen to personally hold shares in a company that has just announced that it is restructuring in order to improve its bottom-line and thus increase its shareholder value, dont kid yourself: When the company is talking about shareholders, its not talking about you and ur measly couple of thousands of shares. Its only talking about big shareholders i.e. other companies that own a more significant share of its market value.
This is a world where hostile takeovers and government-approved mergers are feeding a never-ending cycle of fewer and fewer executives wielding more and more power on a multinational scale. Soon enough, the World Company and George Orwells 1984 will no longer be the stuff of satire or fiction but prophetic descriptions of a very real New World Order gradually unfolding before are eyes.
A Little History
Lets start with a simple list: America Online, Time, Life, Warner Bros., Fortune, Elektra, Sports Illustrated, HBO, Turner Broadcasting, CNN, Cinemax, Entertainment Weekly, New Line Cinema, In Style, Warner/Chappell Music, Time Warner Cable, WBN, ICQ, Warner Music Group, Netscape, People, Reprise, Rhino, Atlantic, WEA, TNT, MapQuest, WinAmp, In Demand, Erato, Moviefone, Road Runner, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (AOL Time Warner).
And another one: Universal Music Group, Verve, Nathan, Canal+, Impulse!, Cegetel, USA Networks, Decca, Interscope, Geffen, A&M, Barclay, Armand Colin, LExpress, Universal Studios, Larousse, Sierra, MP3.com, MCA Records, Deutsche Grammophon, Cineplex, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (Vivendi Universal).
And yet another one: Disney, ABC, ESPN, Hyperion, Miramax, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, A&E, The History Channel, E! Entertainment, RTL-2, Buena Vista, Mr. Showbiz, Wall of Sound, Mammoth Records, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (Walt Disney).
Need we say more? See for yourself Theres already only 7 of these corporate giants in total and how long will it be before there are even fewer?
It all began innocently enough. Young entrepreneurs in the early 20th century started up new companies with a mix of creative ambition and business acumen. Then these companies grew bigger and bigger, and whatever entrepreneurial vision was present at their birth became more and more diluted and less and less relevant. Then corporate accountants suggested merging with or taking over other companies and it all became an all-too-real game of Monopoly.
Then the Internet and new technologies came about, and the accountants next big idea was convergence i.e. the merging of content providers and access providers in order to control everything from the inception of a cultural product to its ultimate consumption by the unsuspecting masses.
The Art of Manipulation
It is easy to guess what got lost along the way Creativity. Artistry. Independence. Critical objectivity. Uncontrolled access. The ability to break thru cultural barriers. Cultural diversity. Innovation. Freedom. Real music. Real art.
Juggling between art and commerce is a delicate balance at the best of times and these are definitely NOT the best of times.
So now we have a so-called magazine reporting on the latest new blockbuster movie with a 10-page, full-color spread as if the reporters werent aware that the same company that produced the movie also owns their magazine Yes, this is still called a magazine. These are still called reporters. And this is still called journalism And yet millions of people are gleefully letting themselves be had.
Maybe we should stop calling this art, or even entertainment for that matter for what is so entertaining about being involved in a collective hallucination? Maybe we should start calling it what it really is, i.e. unfettered MANIPULATION.
In 1995, Clear Channel Communications owned 43 radio stations. Now it owns more than 1,200 and its army of so-called independent promoters are letting legalized payola dictate what you get (or rather dont get) to hear on the radio.
Everywhere you look, the story is the same: more and more money, less and less choice, less and less freedom of access, fewer and fewer companies. How far will this have to go before a big shift in peoples attitude causes this commercial hubris to collapse onto itself and implode?
Power Struggles
The first major cracks in this highly concentrated corporate world have, of course, already begun to appear, in what has been making the headlines in the past few months, i.e. shady accounting practices involving enormous amounts of money enough to shake the economy of the most powerful nation of the world. And the hysterical stock markets have of course been swayed by this news, at the expense of tens of thousands of workers worldwide and millions of small investors who thought that their holdings had nowhere to go but up.
The value of AOL Time Warners stock is now a quarter of what it was at the time of the merger between AOL and Time Warner, and this decline 4ced the company to take a $54 billion writedown earlier this year. And now it to is being investigated about its accounting practices. The story at Vivendi Universal is similar. Disney shares are near an 8-year low. And there is little doubt in peoples mind that the problems are similar everywhere, in every big conglomerate that has become utterly out of touch with the reality of everyday work and the essence of human creativity.
In addition, people also realize all to well that governments have little if any power left when it comes to regulating these multinational monsters. Governments have much more power when it comes to regulating the lives of ordinary, law-abiding citizens and they use and abuse this power as a way to distract peoples attention from how much control the conglomerates have over what we get to hear, watch, read, eat, drink, buy, and generally experience as free citizens of the world.
One of the areas where this struggle is most acutely felt is, of course, the online world a sprawling, anarchic community that is still in its infancy and whose exponential development in the last decade took everyone by surprise. And nothing exemplifies the struggle between government, big business, and individual rights better than the highly controversial issue of peer-2-peer file sharing and its many digital variations.
A Nation of Thieves?
Will the media/technology giants recover from the latest stock market slump? They probably will but at what cost? In all likelihood, the cost will be more restructuring, more layoffs, more executive shuffles and golden parachutes, causing even further alienation from their own employees and customers. And this, in turn, will further encourage the very behaviors that they claim are illegal and want punished by criminal law all the while preserving their own impunity as they continue to carelessly flounder a capital that they do not own.
Napster may have gone bankrupt and become a closed chapter in the Internets short history, but its death is by no means a reflection of a decline in peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, quite the contrary. If anything, P2P has grown even further but since its becoming totally decentralized, there is no easy way to measure its significance.
What is for sure, however, is that, in spite of its many claims to the contrary, the recording industry has yet to provide evidence that P2P is actually detrimental to music making as an artistic endeavor, and even as a commercial venture. It is worth remembering, for example, that sales of music CDs actually increased when Napster was at its peak, and declined after Napster was abruptly shut down. Even economists who thought that file sharing should be hurting the recording industry are now expressing their doubts, based on what they say is simply not happening.
More importantly, many well-respected artists have sided with Internet users against corporate greed and actually use the Internet to promote alternative ways to distribute their music and reach out to a non-captive, legitimate audience of authentic music lovers.
This does not mean, of course, that all forms of file sharing are equally innocuous. There is little doubt that, when people use the Internet as a substitute for radio, i.e. as a way to discover new music, it can help promote the work of artists. But when a young junior high school student downloads tracks off the Internet and makes CD-R copies of them that he then sells for $5 in the schoolyard, it hurts sales of the original CD and its disrespectful of the artist regardless of how small a cut of the actual CD price the artist actually gets after all the executives and the middlemen in the recording industry have taken their piece of the pie.
Still, can we really go as far as to say that digital technology is creating a nation of thieves who no longer recognize the just value of art?
Protecting the Product
It is worth noting, to begin with, that the recording industry itself is far from having distinguished itself by recognizing the true value of art. Instead, it has consistently fought to be allowed to deprive many artists of their most fundamental rights. It has allowed popular artists to go bankrupt even though their albums were selling by the millions. It has reduced the artists cut of the album sales pie to a ridiculously small portion of the actual income generated by these sales. It has consistently pushed commercial musical products at the expense of real musical artistry.
This hardly entitles the recording industry to lecture anyone about recognizing the just value of art.
It is also interesting to note that the cultural products that seem to be the primary concern of the industry giants are those that are already the most popular ones, and that things such as CD copy protection are being experimentally used mostly with items that will sell millions regardless of whether they are copy-protected or not.
So are most citizens really being completely disrespectful of the value of art and the need to provide appropriate compensation to the artists for their works? Weve said it before and well say it again: the rise of digital technology and peer-to-peer file sharing has little to do with peoples intrinsic respect for art and artists, and everything to do with the cynical attitude of big industry conglomerates, which have consistently pushed for more and more commercial, highly profitable products at the expense of authentic art and respect for artists.
If people do not feel enough guilt to prevent them from making digital copies of the latest episode of a popular TV show or hit pop song, it is precisely because the industry giants have succeeded in making these works purely commercial products, with little or no consideration for their actual artistic value. It is precisely because these companies have been consistently promoting commercial products at the expense of artistic works.
The fact that actual works of art still manage to seep thru the cracks of this huge profit-driven industry does not change anything about the fundamental equations that have been driving and still drive the industry, 2day more than ever i.e. that art = money, artists = money-makers, and art lovers = consumers.
As a simple example of how little music is valued as an art form by the industry, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of music ever recorded is currently available and, of this 20 percent, what proportion is actually readily available to music lovers? What proportion is not the current 100 top albums on the SoundScan charts?
It simply appears that the instinctive reaction of the lover of art (b it music, TV shows, movies, or other forms of art) is such that, if the industry has no respect for his or her identity as an appreciator of art, then he or she has no reason to have any respect for the industry as a purveyor of art. By making digital copies of so-called cultural products, many people are not demonstrating their lack of respect for art and for artists, but are expressing consciously or not their frustration with the way the entertainment industry profits from art at the expense of both art makers and art lovers.
The consumers of the commercial products of the entertainment industry are only as cynical as the industry has deliberately made them, by dumbing down their products, by exploiting artists, by making profit-driven choices and decisions, and by providing their own kind with obscene compensations and legal impunity that are completely out of touch with the real world of ordinary people.
Dont Get It Twisted
That being said, the whole debate about file sharing and digital piracy is, most of all, a convenient way for industry conglomerates to deflect attention from their own shady business practices and dubious alliances.
For example, it is worth noting that the Warner Music Group is heavily involved in the recording industrys fight against piracy, but that its own parent company, AOL Time Warner, is directly benefiting from file sharing, as a provider of Internet access to millions of Internet users worldwide. When AOL Time Warner repeatedly flaunts its ever-increasing number of members (34 million and counting) and the billions of hours that they spend online, is there any doubt that a good part of this growth involves the unlawful exchange of computer files at the detriment of recording artists?
In other words, the real thieves are not necessarily those that are currently getting the blame Rather than a nation of thieves, the current situation looks, to us, much more like an elite of thieves.
And the real victims of this thievery are very much, as usual, the recording artists themselves, who will never get their share of AOLs profits as an Internet access provider, even though these profits are partly based on the content that they originally provided. And the real victims also include authentic music lovers, who already suffer from restricted access to the full range of music that they would like to explore, and who are also likely to suffer from technological restrictions that will soon prevent them from making legitimate copies of the works that they have lawfully purchased for their own enjoyment.
Make no mistake: the entertainment industry (including TV, movies and music) might be big, but the technology industry is even bigger. Remember that it is AOL that bought Time Warner, and not the other way around. Remember that Sony makes much more money in electronics and computer equipment than it does in record sales
If the technology industry ends up implementing technological limitations that prevent users from lawfully enjoying their purchases as it is threatening to do the beneficiaries will not be the artists whose works are thus being allegedly protected. And it will certainly not be the art lovers whose enjoyment of art will thus be restricted. No, it will simply be, once again the industry conglomerates, who will have yet another generation of incompatible media and devices to sell to us under the guise of technological improvement.
Conclusion
The technology and entertainment industries are simply to big for us to expect any overnight changes. The industry giants will continue to do their best to deflect peoples attention away from their own wrongdoings and to blame falling profits and commercial failures on piracy at the same time that they are encouraging their customers to adopt the very technologies that make piracy possible. Artists will continue to be lured by unrealistic promises and contracts with big numbers and lots of small print.
How long, however, before a critical mass of established artists realize that it is in their best interests, both artistically and commercially, to leave the system for good? How long before a critical mass of young aspiring artists become aware of the enslaving aspects of the system and are careful not to get involved in it without a maximum of precautions? And how long before a critical mass of art lovers get together to provide these artists with a real, valuable, legitimate, truthfully enthusiastic alternative audience that completes the process of rendering the existing system artistically irrelevant?
It all depends on us and it all depends on you.
Re:Or don't check it out, because it's nonsense... (Score:2)
Probably that was before you opened your eyes to the world.
Re:Or don't check it out, because it's nonsense... (Score:2)
That's a huge question. And a good one. It often is, but not this time; my opinion remains that Prince is more than a little unintelligeable and because of this he is not that bright. As I said previously, Prince's actively trying to make communication more difficult while simultaneously trying use that communication to further his aims should bear this opnion out as being more fact than fiction.
However, the answer in this case should be obvious; this is, after all, Slashdot. It's groupthink truth that counts here, not real truth. Prince says <insert media conglomerate name here> is bad, music from/for the masses is good. I say he's not helping anyone's cause by adopting (purely for the sake of being artsy, IMO) the writing style of a horny 14 year-old IM freak. Because Prince == freedom and goodness (for the moment) and my post was critical of Prince, I'm therefore being critical of (against) free music, which is never good (even when true). My post, by that reasoning, was meant to do nothing but be critically inflammatory of anyone advocating free music and so should have been moderated as such (I'd have been happier if it was modded as "inciteful").
At least I think that's what "they" think. The moderator, god help them, could have simply been a Prince fan and I was dissing his boy (far too easy a target). It's hard to say sometimes. Not that I care, especially. Slashdot lost it's audience three years ago or so and is now not much more than an amusement. There's the occasional good bit, though, and sometimes "lightweight" banter is what a mind needs.
Overall, I'd say moderation does an OK job, but it's never something to worry about. Remember that even guys like Galileo and Vesalius and Copernicus were once modded down as flamebait too. (By which I am merely illustrating a point, not comparing anything I've ever uttered to anything any of them have done or written...)
Well, that's about 10 minutes more thought than I wanted to give to Prince. The short answer is "Don't swim upstream."
-B
Re:Or don't check it out, because it's nonsense... (Score:2)
Just try listening to his lyrics. I mean listen to more than just the punchline 'sign o the times', but listen to the whole story. Yes Prince is actually a music artist that uses songs to tell complete stories instead of repeating the same thing until the three minutes are up. And they are stories that convey a feeling, or an opinion, or are meant to make people think about something.
Lance's continuing adventures (Score:4, Funny)
"Reuters reports: Russia's space agency has scrapped 'N Sync singer Lance Bass's plans to join an October space mission after the U.S. pop star failed to meet payment deadlines."
Watch Lance get himself into AOTC: $-5
Watch Lance get rejected by Lucas: $5000
Watch Lance get on space mission: $-10000
Watch Lance's VISA bounce: priceless!
For everything else there's MasterCard.
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
...the producer sponsoring the deal said that a chunk of the money would be delivered within the next couple of days. So it looks like the deal is still on.
Hopefully there will be a landing pad fire or something. Pity we'd have to lose good cosmonauts to get rid of the pesky fucker.
Prince... (Score:2, Troll)
Why don't we hear the artists who aren't Top 20, platinum album, millions in the bank jumping up and down in favor of this?
Oh yeah.. that's right... because they actually want the chance to get up there themselves.
Re:Prince... (Score:2, Insightful)
Duh....
Re:Prince... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that aside, you are missing the point of his article.
His article is not about defending the file-sharing people : he is writing about protecting artists' rights. Yes, he wants to make lots more money. But he has the right to, like everybody else.
Re:Prince... (Score:4, Insightful)
DZM
Re:Prince... (Score:3, Insightful)
> platinum album, millions in the bank jumping up
> and down in favor of this?
You do. Have you not found any of the huge number of mp3 showcase sites for artists not on major labels?
Lots of music waiting to be downloaded.
Re:Prince... (Score:5, Interesting)
He sells to far fewer people, but he keeps more of what he makes.
Most of his money from his "Purple Rain" days went into Paisley Park studios, which turned out to be an unprofitable venture. (It's a kick-ass studio, but one of many in the Minneapolis area. Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis have their own operation just an hour or so away.)
The fabulous wealth he currently enjoys was made outside the studio system. He's not "Top 20" for two reasons:
1. He gets zero airplay now that he doesn't have a pimp... er... label.
2. Nearly all of his sales are sold on-line by the NPG site, so Billboard doesn't even track most of the sales he gets.
If he wanted to become a mega-star, by your definition, again, it would probably only take one phone call to Sony or Geffin. He feels that he's better off where he's at, and he's trying to point out that many other musicians would be, too.
Re:Prince... (Score:2)
So I wonder if Prince would like to get played on internet radio along with other independants, famous and unknown. For that matter, I wonder if he'd like to run an internet radio station and pick the unknowns he thinks should skip the major label phase.
Re:Prince... (Score:2)
For those complaining about Prince's spelling - it doesn't really matter. Not many people will actually read the words of his article, but the fact that he's made his general position clear is pretty important. He's still remembered as a big star by enough of the general public that adding his name to the growing list of disgruntled artists is a good thing. More importantly he's pretty well respected by artists across a range of genres, right down to and including today's disposable bubble gum popstars (who will probably be the first to rebel en masse, once they are dropped for the next big thing and/or they try to grow into their older more artistic wannabe phase).
Sure, Prince is coming out and saying this when he really has nothing to lose (in fact, he's probably counting on a new model for future revenue). But sooner or later rich and poor artists alike will need to wake up to the new reality.
Re:Prince... (Score:2)
Re:Prince... (Score:2)
OK, for those too lazy to click on the link:
"Peer-to-peer technology is sortof like the high tech version of students playing their CDs in their cars. It has the potential to do what word of mouth did for me... You give something to your audience, and it always seems to come back somehow."
--Peter Breinholt [bigparade.com]
He's one of several local [sunfallfestival.com] Utah artists [shupe.net] who have eschewed label deals -- not because they couldn't get them, but because they knew they'd likely get ripped off. Each of those bands make money when they play a show, and sell lots of CDs. Why sign with the label if you will suddenly make no money off of CD sales until you go platinum?
Prince may have been not particularly articulate, but he's right. Artists are realizing the system doesn't do much for them, and standing outside. They lose the possibility of making it huge overnight, but they keep control of their art and careers, and the good ones -- funny thing -- succeed anyway.
And P2P, as it turns out, can help. Again, funny thing.
Re:Prince... (Score:2)
Why would the media care about them enough to repeat their words? I've heard more of the same and nastier from midlabel and unsigned artists... but if you get your news from TV, you wouldn't know this, would you?
I got interested in this because I'm working on a promotional project for an indie musician right now that depends on the existence of P2P and what's left of Internet Radio to work. One of the headaches with respect to the project is that the targets keep shifting as RIAA closes them down.
I expect to be able to go into active marketing in about 3 weeks. Due to your buddies at RIAA, I have no idea where we'll be uploading our promo MP3 tracks and won't until just before we do.
You are just another RIAA-brainwashed idiot who mistakes a promotional tool (128K MP3) for a product (CD album)... you probably can't hear the difference.
Re:Prince... (Score:2)
As for the young artists - it's a bit like the people who leapt into the
Anyone who signs a recording contract expecting to get rich is almost certainly an idiot. Might as well go after lottery tickets. Especially as new contracts become more oppressive (artists could once rely on tours and merchandise sales to make up for the fact albums usually lose money; now even that avenue is being hovered up by recording companies).
And FWIW, I'd rather burn a copy of the new CDs I want and send the artists $10 cash. It'd be 10 times what they get now, cost me one third of what I pay (plus blank media). Which is the kind of deal Prince is promoting. If people actually did this, artists would actually get rich.
WOTC should publish the losers (Score:2)
Heck, they could combine them into one giant 10,000+ page PDF and charge a few bucks to download it.
Re:WOTC should publish the losers (Score:2)
Check out EN World [enworld.org], one of the best D&D sites on the net. They have a bunch of the loser settings available for download, and they're thinking of publishing their "best loser" (by some kind of voting process) under their Natural 20 Press PDF product label.
Actually, that particular announcement is probably off the front page now, so try this link: Setting Proposals [enworld.org].
-Grant
It's obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Prince U R an illiter8 bastard! (Score:4, Funny)
I think the changing of his name to that stupid symbol was a preemptive strike to make his songs hard to download on gnutella. Or a pathetic cry for help. One of those.
Re:Prince U R an illiter8 bastard! (Score:2)
Re:Prince U R an illiter8 bastard! (Score:2)
Seriously.
huh? (Score:2)
Plus he's probably written many songs and helped many artists that you do like.
English please! (Score:2)
A few typographical errors are one thing, but this is just plain stupid.
Bayesian implementation for procmail in perl. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hope y'all find it useful.
-- Greg
Support (Score:2)
None of them are 100%, but if it helps...
other Bayesian filters (Score:2, Informative)
Any other Bayesian spam filters?
Re:other Bayesian filters (Score:2, Informative)
If both SpamAssassin and the bayesian filter agree that a message is spam, it gets routed to my Spam mailbox. If both agree that the message is not spam, it gets delivered to my inbox. In case of a disagreement, the message is stored in a separate mailbox/database where I can manually check it (previously all messages flagged by SpamAssassin went here).
After running the combined filter for a week, the results are quite impressive; Zero false positives, zero false negatives and the amount of messages that I have to check manually has decreased to 1/10 of the previous number.
De-l33t-ified (long) (Score:4, Informative)
Yeesh. If you have something worthwhile to say, then say it in language everyone can understand. Moron.
--
Something happened on the way to the 21st century. Media and entertainment companies started "converging" and "shareholder value" became far more important than customer service and respect for company employees ever managed to b. Compensation packages for company executives hit the stratosphere - while holding them accountable for their company's results became nearly impossible.
These executives are indeed very naive if they think that people haven't noticed.
People are noticing that something isn't quite right - that something is indeed very wrong. After a decade during which the stock market gained apparent respectability as a legitimate, sensible form of investing, the recent slew of huge corporate scandals reveals that it is still what it has always been: a sick place where neurotic, puerile gamblers get their kicks off the backs of millions of "anonymous" workers and individuals, who have no control over what happens to their hard-earned retirement savings.
Yet this is the place that most company executives feel is much more important to watch than the actual people for whom they produce their goods and services. This is the place where the fate of thousands of employees is decided every day by people staring at computer monitors showing ever-changing, meaningless lists of numbers and charts. And if you happen to personally hold shares in a company that has just announced that it is "restructuring" in order to improve its bottom-line and thus increase its "shareholder value", don't kid urself: When the company is talking about "shareholders", it's not talking about you and your measly couple of thousands of shares. It's only talking about big shareholders - i.e. other companies that own a more significant share of its market value.
This is a world where "hostile takeovers" and government-approved "mergers" are feeding a never-ending cycle of fewer and fewer executives wielding more and more power on a multinational scale. Soon enough, the "World Company" and George Orwell's 1984 will no longer be the stuff of satire or fiction - but prophetic descriptions of a very real "New World Order" gradually unfolding before our eyes.
A Little History
Let's start with a simple list: America Online, Time, Life, Warner Bros., Fortune, Elektra, Sports Illustrated, HBO, Turner Broadcasting, CNN, Cinemax, Entertainment Weekly, New Line Cinema, In Style, Warner/Chappell Music, Time Warner Cable, WBN, ICQ, Warner Music Group, Netscape, People, Reprise, Rhino, Atlantic, WEA, TNT, MapQuest, WinAmp, In Demand, Erato, Moviefone, Road Runner, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (AOL Time Warner).
And another one: Universal Music Group, Verve, Nathan, Canal+, Impulse!, Cegetel, USA Networks, Decca, Interscope, Geffen, A&M, Barclay, Armand Colin, L'Express, Universal Studios, Larousse, Sierra, MP3.com, MCA Records, Deutsche Grammophon, Cineplex, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (Vivendi Universal).
And yet another one: Disney, ABC, ESPN, Hyperion, Miramax, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, A&E, The History Channel, E! Entertainment, RTL-2, Buena Vista, Mr. Showbiz, Wall of Sound, Mammoth Records, etc. All owned by the same corporate giant (Walt Disney).
Need we say more? See for yourself... There's already only 7 of these corporate giants in total - and how long will it be before there are even fewer?
It all began innocently enough. Young entrepreneurs in the early 20th century started up new companies with a mix of creative ambition and business acumen. Then these companies grew bigger and bigger, and whatever entrepreneurial vision was present at their birth became more and more diluted and less and less relevant. Then corporate accountants suggested merging with or taking over other companies - and it all became an all-too-real game of Monopoly.
Then the Internet and "new technologies" came about, and the accountants' next big idea was convergence - i.e. the merging of "content" providers and "access" providers in order to control everything from the inception of a "cultural product" to its ultimate consumption by the unsuspecting masses.
The Art of Manipulation
It is easy to guess what got lost along the way... Creativity. Artistry. Independence. Critical objectivity. Uncontrolled access. The ability to "break thru" cultural barriers. Cultural diversity. Innovation. Freedom. Real music. Real art.
Juggling between art and commerce is a delicate balance at the best of times... and these are definitely NOT the best of times.
So now we have a so-called magazine "reporting" on the latest new blockbuster movie with a 10-page, full-color spread - as if the reporters weren't aware that the same company that produced the movie also owns their magazine... Yes, this is still called a "magazine". These are still called "reporters". And this is still called "journalism"... And yet millions of people are gleefully letting themselves be had.
Maybe we should stop calling this "art", or even "entertainment" for that matter - for what is so entertaining about being involved in a collective hallucination? Maybe we should start calling it what it really is, i.e. unfettered MANIPULATION.
In 1995, Clear Channel Communications owned 43 radio stations. Now it owns more than 1,200 - and its army of so-called "independent promoters" are letting legalized payola dictate what you get (or rather don't get) to hear on the radio.
Everywhere you look, the story is the same: more and more money, less and less choice, less and less freedom of access, fewer and fewer companies. How far will this have to go before a big shift in people's attitude causes this commercial hubris to collapse onto itself and implode?
Power Struggles
The first major cracks in this highly concentrated corporate world have, of course, already begun to appear, in what has been making the headlines in the past few months, i.e. shady accounting practices involving enormous amounts of money - enough to shake the economy of the most powerful nation of the world. And the hysterical stock markets have of course been swayed by this news, at the expense of tens of thousands of workers worldwide and millions of small investors who thought that their holdings had nowhere to go but up.
The value of AOL Time Warner's stock is now a quarter of what it was at the time of the merger between AOL and Time Warner, and this decline forced the company to take a $54 billion writedown earlier this year. And now it too is being investigated about its accounting practices. The story at Vivendi Universal is similar. Disney shares are near an 8-year low. And there is little doubt in people's mind that the problems are similar everywhere, in every big conglomerate that has become utterly out of touch with the reality of everyday work and the essence of human creativity.
In addition, people also realize all too well that governments have little - if any - power left when it comes to regulating these multinational monsters. Governments have much more power when it comes to regulating the lives of ordinary, law-abiding citizens - and they use and abuse this power as a way to distract people's attention from how much control the conglomerates have over what we get to hear, watch, read, eat, drink, buy, and generally experience as "free" citizens of the world.
One of the areas where this struggle is most acutely felt is, of course, the online world - a sprawling, anarchic community that is still in its infancy and whose exponential development in the last decade took everyone by surprise. And nothing exemplifies the struggle between government, big business, and individual rights better than the highly controversial issue of "peer-to-peer" file sharing and its many digital variations.
A Nation of Thieves?
Will the media/technology giants recover from the latest stock market slump? They probably will - but at what cost? In all likelihood, the cost will be more "restructuring", more layoffs, more executive shuffles and golden parachutes, causing even further alienation from their own employees and customers. And this, in turn, will further encourage the very behaviors that they claim are illegal and want punished by criminal law - all the while preserving their own impunity as they continue to carelessly flounder a capital that they do not own.
Napster may have gone bankrupt and become a closed chapter in the Internet's short history, but its death is by no means a reflection of a decline in peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, quite the contrary. If anything, P2P has grown even further - but since it's becoming totally decentralized, there is no easy way to measure its significance.
What is for sure, however, is that, in spite of its many claims to the contrary, the recording industry has yet to provide evidence that P2P is actually detrimental to music making as an artistic endeavor, and even as a commercial venture. It is worth remembering, for example, that sales of music CDs actually increased when Napster was at its peak, and declined after Napster was abruptly shut down. Even economists who thought that file sharing "should be" hurting the recording industry are now expressing their doubts, based on what they say is simply not happening.
More importantly, many well-respected artists have sided with Internet users against corporate greed and actually use the Internet to promote alternative ways to distribute their music and reach out to a non-captive, legitimate audience of authentic music lovers.
This does not mean, of course, that all forms of file sharing are equally innocuous. There is little doubt that, when people use the Internet as a substitute for radio, i.e. as a way to discover new music, it can help promote the work of artists. But when a young junior high school student downloads tracks off the Internet and makes CD-R copies of them that he then sells for $5 in the schoolyard, it hurts sales of the original CD and it's disrespectful of the artist - regardless of how small a cut of the actual CD price the artist actually gets after all the executives and the middlemen in the recording industry have taken their piece of the pie.
Still, can we really go as far as to say that digital technology is creating a "nation of thieves" who no longer recognize the just value of art?
Protecting the Product
It is worth noting, to begin with, that the recording industry itself is far from having distinguished itself by recognizing the true value of art. Instead, it has consistently fought to be allowed to deprive many artists of their most fundamental rights. It has allowed popular artists to go bankrupt even though their albums were selling by the millions. It has reduced the artists' cut of the album sales pie to a ridiculously small portion of the actual income generated by these sales. It has consistently pushed commercial musical products at the expense of real musical artistry.
This hardly entitles the recording industry to lecture anyone about recognizing the just value of art.
It is also interesting to note that the cultural products that seem to be the primary concern of the industry giants are those that are already the most popular ones, and that things such as CD copy protection are being experimentally used mostly with items that will sell millions regardless of whether they are copy-protected or not.
So are most citizens really being completely disrespectful of the value of art and the need to provide appropriate compensation to the artists for their works? We've said it before and we'll say it again: the rise of digital technology and peer-to-peer file sharing has little to do with people's intrinsic respect for art and artists, and everything to do with the cynical attitude of big industry conglomerates, which have consistently pushed for more and more commercial, highly profitable products at the expense of authentic art and respect for artists.
If people do not feel enough guilt to prevent them from making digital copies of the latest episode of a popular TV show or hit pop song, it is precisely because the industry giants have succeeded in making these works purely commercial products, with little or no consideration for their actual artistic value. It is precisely because these companies have been consistently promoting commercial products at the expense of artistic works.
The fact that actual works of art still manage to seep thru the cracks of this huge profit-driven industry does not change anything about the fundamental equations that have been driving and still drive the industry, today more than ever - i.e. that art = money, artists = money-makers, and art lovers = consumers.
As a simple example of how little music is valued as an art form by the industry, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of music ever recorded is currently available - and, of this 20 percent, what proportion is actually readily available to music lovers? What proportion is not the current 100 top albums on the SoundScan charts?
It simply appears that the instinctive reaction of the lover of art (be it music, TV shows, movies, or other forms of art) is such that, if the industry has no respect for his or her identity as an appreciator of art, then he or she has no reason to have any respect for the industry as a purveyor of art. By making digital copies of so-called cultural products, many people are not demonstrating their lack of respect for art and for artists, but are expressing - consciously or not - their frustration with the way the entertainment industry profits from art at the expense of both art makers and art lovers.
The consumers of the commercial products of the entertainment industry are only as cynical as the industry has deliberately made them, by dumbing down their products, by exploiting artists, by making profit-driven choices and decisions, and by providing their own kind with obscene compensations and legal impunity that are completely out of touch with the real world of ordinary people.
Don't Get It Twisted
That being said, the whole debate about file sharing and digital piracy is, most of all, a convenient way for industry conglomerates to deflect attention from their own shady business practices and dubious alliances.
for example, it is worth noting that the Warner Music Group is heavily involved in the recording industry's fight against piracy, but that its own parent company, AOL Time Warner, is directly benefiting from file sharing, as a provider of Internet access to millions of Internet users worldwide. When AOL Time Warner repeatedly flaunts its ever-increasing number of members (34 million and counting) and the billions of hours that they spend online, is there any doubt that a good part of this growth involves the "unlawful" exchange of computer files at the detriment of recording artists?
In other words, the real "thieves" are not necessarily those that are currently getting the blame... Rather than a "nation of thieves", the current situation looks, to us, much more like an "elite of thieves".
And the real victims of this thievery are very much, as usual, the recording artists themselves, who will never get their share of AOL's profits as an Internet access provider, even though these profits are partly based on the content that they originally provided. And the real victims also include authentic music lovers, who already suffer from restricted access to the full range of music that they would like to explore, and who are also likely to suffer from technological restrictions that will soon prevent them from making legitimate copies of the works that they have lawfully purchased for their own enjoyment.
Make no mistake: the entertainment industry (including TV, movies and music) might be big, but the technology industry is even bigger. Remember that it is AOL that bought Time Warner, and not the other way around. Remember that Sony makes much more money in electronics and computer equipment than it does in record sales...
If the technology industry ends up implementing technological limitations that prevent users from lawfully enjoying their purchases - as it is threatening to do - the beneficiaries will not be the artists whose works are thus being allegedly "protected". And it will certainly not be the art lovers whose enjoyment of art will thus be restricted. No, it will simply b, once again... the industry conglomerates, who will have yet another generation of incompatible media and devices to sell to us under the guise of "technological improvement".
Conclusion
The technology and entertainment industries are simply to big for us to expect any overnight changes. The industry giants will continue to do their best to deflect people's attention away from their own wrongdoings and to blame falling profits and commercial failures on piracy at the same time that they are encouraging their customers to adopt the very technologies that make piracy possible. Artists will continue to be lured by unrealistic promises and contracts with big numbers and lots of small print.
How long, however, before a critical mass of established artists realize that it is in their best interests, both artistically and commercially, to leave the system for good? How long before a critical mass of young aspiring artists become aware of the enslaving aspects of the system and are careful not to get involved in it without a maximum of precautions? And how long before a critical mass of art lovers get together to provide these artists with a real, valuable, legitimate, truthfully enthusiastic alternative audience that completes the process of rendering the existing system artistically irrelevant?
It all depends on us - and it all depends on you.
--
Re:De-l33t-ified (long) (Score:2)
Re:De-l33t-ified (long) (Score:2)
D00D, WHY 4RE Y0U P05T1NG 0N 5145HD0T? I WITH MY '1337 5K1LLS U5ED 5ED...Y0U 4RE N0T W0RTHY.
Re: Vivendi (Score:2)
Are you drinking Vivendi water? Vivendi supplies water to Honolulu, Tampa Bay, Oklahoma City, and other cities around the world. It also supplies water to Samsung, General Motors, BP Amoco, Chevron, Ford, Nestle (the Swiss food giant that recently bought HotPockets manufacturer Chef America and is looking to buy out American icon Hershey) and others.
And it's growing, as cities faced with the expensive proposition of upgrading hundred-year-old water systems look for alternatives. The problem is that companies like Vivendi promise the world at a great price in exchange for a 20-year-contract, and then they fail to deliver... leaving residents and businesses without clean drinking water. Be afraid.
Lance Bass (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh sure, maybe at first he was serious about the $20 million. But I think he sobered up pretty quick and decided that there was no way he was paying that, but he was going to milk the experience for everything he could before they kicked him out.
In the meantime, he also got himself a TON of free publicity. How many members of NSync can you name? Well, there's some guy named Justin who used to date Britney Spears, and a bunch of other guys. Oh, and LANCE BASS.
Geez, he got $20 million worth of publicity without spending a dime.
This just in... (Score:2)
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Prince isn't imitating hacker speak. (Score:5, Informative)
Whatever you have to say about his method of communcating, there is no doubt that he is an extrememly intelligent man and a musical prodigy.
He has long been outspoken against the current state of the recording industry, and I am always glad to hear what he was to say about things.
That's gonna help a lot (Score:3, Funny)
Lance Bass' weight is currently estimated at just under 30 pounds, without hair gel and not including ego.
Re:That's gonna help a lot (Score:2)
Re:That's gonna help a lot (Score:2)
The Google Claim Has No Credibility (Score:2)
I'll have to remember this article the next time I need a good laugh. Maybe I'll anonymously submit a story that consists solely of the following: "Your reports of Microsoft's animosity toward Linux are overrated. I am presently working on a Microsoft distribution of Linux." No links, no evidence, just hot air.
Prince Commentary Has Some Good Points (Score:5, Insightful)
"If people do not feel enough guilt 2 prevent them from making digital copies of the latest episode of a popular TV show or hit pop song, it is precisely because the industry giants have succeeded in making these works purely commercial products, with little or no consideration 4 their actual artistic value. It is precisely because these companies have been consistently promoting commercial products at the xpense of artistic works. "
I think (while not elegant in form) this may be one of the most insightful remarks I've heard in a long time about the dangers of artistic commercialization. Teenagers aren't being tought the intrensic value of creativity. They are only being taught that the music they want to listen to and the movies they want to watch cost much more than they are willing or able to pay. Why wouldn't they copy them off P2P networks? Large media companies have turned music and movies into high profit commodities. People no longer feel that they are supporting the artists or actors... They are just filling the pockets of overpaid CEOs who are just going to turn around, steal their retirement and then lay them off!
For those truly interested in this travesty, please read the entire article with an open mind. Prince may not be an elegant writer, but his comments appear to be similar to many Slashdot readers ideas on this subject.
Re:Prince Commentary Has Some Good Points (Score:2)
I can't imagine why Prince publishes in shorthand, but it's well worth reading what he wrote .
Re:Prince Commentary Has Some Good Points (Score:2)
Look up some of his old albums (the physical medium I mean), you'll know why. For a quick look, lookup the song titles of "Graffiti Bridge" or "Cream".
Re:Prince Commentary Has Some Good Points (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, things go in waves. There'll be a weakening of some social conventions, and later they'll come back, because the forces that created them in the first place still exist. I'm sure for a while we'll be pirating songs and pillaging corporations and raping artists, but, for a while, it'll settle down again. Unless there's some serious social upheaval, of course, but then you just have to adjust your frame of reference from years and decades to centuries or so.
=Brian
In China, Google still down (Score:2)
Google is still blocked, but it is very spotty. If I try to go directly to www.google.com,I am blocked. If I ping google.com, the resolved IP (216.239.51.100) is functional. Also, Google Labs is still functional (labs.google.com [google.com]) as well as this site [soapclient.com]
Re:In China, Google still down (Score:2)
When Prince Cries (Score:4, Funny)
Dr3@m !f u c@n @ n3tw0rk
@ c0nn3ct10n 0f 'putt3r2 1n p33r
Mu21c tr@d3 4 fr33
T43y f33l t43 s0und
T43 s0und 0f MP3
40w c@n u l3@v3 m3 p1ngl322
@ g33k 1n @ w0rld t4@t bl0ws
M@yb3 1'm t00 us3d 2 p@nd3r1ng
M@yb3 1t'2 my p0t2 2 sl0w
M@yb3 H177@ry'2 l1k3 my g1rl
24e's n3v3r s@t12f13d
W4y d0 u 2cr3@m w43n u r3@d t412
T412 12 w4@t 1t 20und2 7143
W43n 3ng7124 t3@c43rs cry
Re:When Prince Cries (Score:2)
Dream if you can a network
A connection of 'puters in peer
Music trade for free
They feel the sound
The sound of MP3
How can you leave me pingless
A geek in a world that blows
Maybe I'm too used to pandering
Maybe It's just my pots modem too slow
Maybe Rosens just like my girl
She's never satisfied
Why do you scream when you read this
This is what is sounds like
When English teachers cry
Google (Score:2, Informative)
aCC
confirm... (Score:3, Informative)
here [sina.com.cn] is the news report on a major chinese news site [sina.com.cn], this site used to be neutrally, but it then has been controlled by China government, yes, i don't have the evidence to prove that it is "semiofficial", but it really is. i don't have much time, so i can only translate the main point of this report:
To purify the Internet, some search engine has been banned "without day"
obvioursly, the un-controlled "carpet searching" sometimes is really a "dust collector", it may leads the user to those illegal site and page, and since its server is oversea, so our country has no "supervision" with it. that's quite reasonable to ban those search engine.
yes, it doesn't mention google, but everybody know who it is.
and then, why there are some people think it's a rumor, think it's a "technical problem". the reason is google is still accessible thru some IP address. and many mirror [211.92.136.88] is not banned (in case you dunno the heading chinese on that mirror site, that's "I NEED Google"). so it's quite understandable as "DNS failure" or something like this. why mirror is not banned? one possible reason is the dictator himself has no knowledge about internet, the banning was executed by operator, the operator's responsibility is to show the dictator: "look, www.google.com is not accessible". yea, some operators are still human being, that's why we in China can still access google thru some mirror.
confirm over...
(is this a confirmation to the fact, or a confirmation to the rumor? i bet those naive people who think CCP is not that bad will never give up this quesiton.
see my another post [slashdot.org] about this
Ah, Prince (Score:2)
1ce U get thru his unique lingo... (Score:2)
Click on some of the links beside the article cited in this Slashback. There's some good stuff. Prince knows more than most just how screwed the record industry is. Not just from his own experience, but black musicians have been getting it up the rectum without vaseline for almost a century now from the recording industry.
His closing remarks are most cogent. I will reprint them translated from his odd way of writing.
More power 2 U, Prince. U rock.
Greek law, most frightening clause (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Operation and installation of any game of type (b), (c) and (d) of Article 1, including computer games,
placed in public places such as hotels, cafeterias, organization halls and in any other public or private
place, is prohibited.
Public or *private*!!!! As worded, this law applies to games played at home. Any Greek/English bilingual folks who care to comment on the accuracy of this translation?
2. Operation of games of type (e) is allowed in devices of type (a). Regarding these games, it is prohibited to place bets.
Such bets will attract penalties described in Articles 4 and 5.
So Monopoly on a board is legal, but on PC is not? Despite the fact that the game is fundamentally the same, only a difference in medium?
At last.. (Score:2)
At last a government that has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Devil Incarnate in the form of International Capitalism, and look after the good of the people.
Greece - Opening one MASSIVE can of worms... (Score:3, Funny)
Email filter text misleading (Score:3, Informative)
I found several things I wasn't expecting when I looked into this.
First off, the link provided is not to its (PopFile's) homepage, or a page that indirectly refers to PopFile's homepate, or even to the latest version of the software! I had to do a google search to find the real homepage [extravalent.com]
Secondly, the program is not Free Software, or even OpenSource. No source distribution is available, and the readme on it clearly states his intention to charge for access to executables once it makes it out of beta. The charge is quite nominal, but there are oodles of other proprietary email filters out there, so I don't see why this one is special enough to rate a Slashdot plug.
Thirdly, there's no evidence I can find that this uses Perl, as stated. There's no
Fourthly, there's similarly no proof I can find that Popfile uses any kind of advanced statistical modelling. That would be a strong suspicion, considering its user interface. But the sources aren't available, and the author makes absolutely no mention of his methods. I'm guessing this was purposely done to lessen the odds of someone making a free (or non-free) workalike. This would be OK if he at least had some kind of statisical study of its effectiveness, but there is none of that either. If you want to have any clue as to how well it will work, your only recourse is to download it and try it out for a while.
Personally, I think folks should be very leery about downloading and installing a closed-source program written by some random guy they don't know. There's no reason to believe that this guy isn't acutally collecting email addresses himself using the software. It unlikely, but possible.
Re:Symbols galore! (Score:2, Funny)
Honestly, which fool did he hire as his PR manager?
Re:Symbols galore! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Symbols galore! (Score:2, Informative)
Come to think of it, a Princelizer would be a fun Perl hack. Kind of like the Sweedish Chef apps, but converts text into Prince's goofball way of using single-character phonetic replacements of sylables until u want 2 beat him 2 death with his own 4skin, and then party like it's 1999.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:2, Insightful)
If Lance Bass had gotten to go up millions of screaming fangirls would start thinking of space travel as being kind of interesting, as opposed to thinking of it as a nerdy waste of time. This may not seem important now, but screaming fangirls do grow up, become voters, and (hopefully) pay for space exploration/exploitation.
As long as space travel remains exclusively the domain of highly intelligent uber-jocks only a very few people will see its benefits. Space travel must become more accessable or it will die off.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:2)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:2)
Re:your irony is that you're ironic (Score:2)
Amusing you bring that up, I had a guy compliment me once because I do use those terms correctly. He couldn't believe I used all three words in one setence properly.
Heh.
Nice assumption, though. Too bad you didn't look up a few of my posts to confirm it.