This book going to be on Kindle?
I don't do real.
58 posts • joined 7 Oct 2011
I don't do real.
Bronze Age Collapse explained.
The boffins are off on their age estimations by a few hundred million years, naturally.
Why, what else do people store anymore?
Trolls be fat. Likely disabled. Sometimes not-White.
Delivery Vehicle Driving Autonomously, of course.
Why, what else did you think DVDA could possibly stand for?
Was looking forward to those
Using the term "woman" loosely, of course! No woman of worth would be so indolent with her beauty regimen.
1500 DVD's?! Your wife must hate you.
Blackheads and the tiny hairs on ladies' chins and upper lips. What horrors await us with 4K I shudder to think.
Great programmer, horrible drama queen
Folks in the know are often heard saying that quantum computers are very good for certain tasks. What are these tasks, and how will they make my life and everyone else's life easier?
Seeing as the Singularity is only 30 years away, 40 years tops, I look forward to admiring the nubile bronzed bodies of the today's septuagenarians when I am one.
I'm imagining wearing a Rift, while riding a chariot and scything Roman soldiers in two. I'm also imagining looking down at my boobs as they bounce from the rough terrain.
After the battle, of course...
I think if Nintendo focussed a significant proportion of their energy and resources in getting their digital store laden with games of olde, which could be played on the Wii U gamepad, the Wii U could claw back a lot of what it's lost.
As a Wii owner, I would want my digital purchases on that platform to be freely available on the Wii U platform too, maybe even my 3DS ones too like I can crossplay some of my PS3 stuff on the Vita. After all, it is MY account, not my console's account.
We are the world/universe come alive and now we're taking selfies of the world/universe. Dudes, I just blew my mind!
Not like us sophisticated internet trolls who are slim and gorgeous!
I will absolutely 100% grant you that Sony's store is slow and ugly, but despite that it's still a cohesive whole. My PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, PSP, and Vita purchases are all in one place. It's one annoyingly long list that I can't sort to my personal liking, but they are all there for me to see despite the plethora of platforms. I know that that is a very subjective judgement and YMMV, but Nintendo's various digital stores feel very disjointed and separate.
Ok, I know it exists, but it's really poor compared to Sony's and Steam.
I've bought Virtual Console stuff using my original Wii, and I've bought download games for my 3DS, but I still can't figure out if that's one store or two stores. And if I bought a Wii U and bought digitally, would that be three separate stores? Their system is so confusing, and I like to see a huge digital games shelf in one place.
For the bedroom, and the PS3. So long as there are consoles there should always be a market for large panels. Can't see myself becoming a movie watcher on a tablet either, though TV episodes seem fine.
Mammoths are cool yo
You're right, let's go the whole hog and turn Reg into the Daily Mail.
But I'm having difficulty seeing what this has to do with IT, Reg!
Wait, wait, I meant I greatly admire all that she has achieved in life and it especially heartens me to see a woman at the top of such a male-dominated field!
I'm going to pirate some American stuff.
"You actually drove cars YOURSELF, Dad? Why would you ever do that?"
Then I shall take off my slipper...
And I will tell you the patently obvious also!
IF IF IF
I'm sorry, but consumers have determined that they prefer the business model that Google brings them - free stuff in exchange for their data - and this digital utopia you're dreaming of would already exist if it was viable.
I'm sorry your feelings were hurt, also.
It's a joke, dear. Calm down.
There are no historical sources showing Archimedes to be a c*nt
Technically, it's Kurzweil who'll be paying into his pension pot forever
Where if you sell the same thing at two different prices, the higher priced one will be perceived as being better, tasting better etc. I'd figure such an effect is at work here.
Hasham, you clearly don't care to understand what the Beastie Boy ethos evolved into. The fact you used a phrase like 'you created a few pop songs' shows not only your misguided ignorance, but also how much of a bellend you are.
Starting with Paul's Boutique, the Beasties created sublime music that influenced a generation, and more than just a few here I imagine. Your attempt to lessen this is comically inept.
Yauch then devoted his time promoting non aggression, and attempted to raise awareness of oppressed nations. All on his own dime. You think this guy wanted to shill crap to stupid fat Americans after his death? You can't see how this would be the antithesis to his character?
To borrow from Bill Hicks also. Stop trying to put a dollar sign on everything, you sucker of Satan's cock.
"Beastie Boys songs, they're so deep and pure, man, they make me cry. You just don't understand!"
"You can distribute my message (for profit), but you may not subvert my message" could be one interpretation of the logical disconnect between allowing publishers to profit, and not allowing advertisers to profit, from his works.
I guess what this comes down to is how important one takes that message to be. Yauch created his songs, so no doubt he puts a great deal of importance onto them and thinks they can be made 'impure' somehow. For myself it's just pop songs alongside thousands of others; they're nice and catchy but not to be taken too seriously.
There's a world of difference between having your music play ALONGSIDE an ad (which is The Cost of Doing Business on broadcast radio and MTV, and the artist has no control over this--most people recognize this distinction and shrug) and having your music play DURING an ad (the ad agency has to have permission to use the music at this point, which creates an involuntary statement about the artist's tastes and/or attitudes, which is more significant).
There's a difference certainly, but I wouldn't say there's a world of difference. He has the right to specify his desires relating to his creations, I do not for one second deny that, but that doesn't mean they're not silly.
"I'm happy for my song to play immediately before or after a chicken drumsticks ad, but not during dammit!"
Please Mr Yauch, you created pop songs with the shelf-life of a few decades, not some great philosophical work that will inspire nations to action for centuries to come. Don't fret it, the possibility of their 'corruption' is a total non-issue
The law permits a creator of intellectual property to leave it/them to a literary executor, who/which may be bound by the creator's wishes provided those wishes are legal. I don't know if it's ever been tested in a court, but I don't see anything obviously contrary to public policy in refusing permission for use of music in advertising until the copyright expires (assuming he owns the copyright at death). He's allowed to make that distinction and refusal in life, so why not make his intellectual property subject to that same condition after death?
I'm not saying he doesn't have the right. He may indeed have, or the courts may rule his works as collaborative efforts and the wishes of two live people outweigh the wishes of one deceased person. I'm just saying that his wish is an artistic pretention given that he commercialised his music, companies turned a profit on it directly, and it has already been indirectly used to sell other products. You tune into MTV for his music, and then an advert plays for chicken drumsticks. He didn't know that's why MTV was playing his music, to sell advertising slots?
Your assertion as to life's purpose is astonishingly blinkered, it is very sad that you feel that way and that your brain is only capable of comprehending the world in such a basic manner.
Would you therefore have committed suicide if you had found out you were unable to have children? Do you therefore advocate that millions of humans that find they suffer from such an affliction should be euthanised?
Based on your comments I would speculate that the world would in fact be a nicer and better place if you had been sterilised at birth.
What a lovely little field of strawmen you have there, Mr Anonymous Coward! The only thing missing is a mention of a certain German political party of the early 20th Century. In your next post perhaps...
"This particular artist appears to consider his product to be music, and that is what he is choosing to sell."
'He' would still be selling music (or licensing its use, I suppose). MTV bought his songs to attract viewers, with the aim of getting companies to advertised goods and services to those viewers. That's his music being used indirectly as a hook to sell other things, but ultimately it's still to sell other things.
"If you have a soul that responds to music, it most certainly is not.
For example, the second movement of Dvorak's "New World" symphony is one of the most sublime musical creations of all time. Unfortunately some soul-dead advertising agency used it to advertise Hovis bread, and now I can no longer listen to it without momentarily wincing at the association. Which incidentally, has negative value for Hovis, because I always buy some other make of bread whenever I have a choice!"
Were it not for that Hovis ad, many millions would never know "New World". So yes, a company used it to sell a product, but as a direct result of that people who would never have known it now know and enjoy it.
However, Dvorak's situation is not Yauch's. Yauch was perfectly fine with iTunes and HMV. There is no reason other than his artistic pretention for this loathing of advertising.
"Really? that's the whole point of your existence? what a sad, sad life you must have."
I'm sorry that the evidence of a couple of billion years troubles you. By all means keep believing you are some beautiful and unique snowflake if it keeps you going.
"He considers using his music in advertising to be compromising the principles or integrity of the music and the image he presented.
Money can still be made in royalties from album sales, digital downloads, or radio/TV plays, but if, for instance, a large restaurant chain that sells chicken wanted to use "Finger Lickin' Good" in an advertising campaign they would be out of luck.
Has the world changed so much that this really needs to be explained?"
But this is my point - it's pure artistic pretentiousness on his part. If he was selling music direct to consumer via his own website then I could understand. But he was perfectly happy for Apple, HMV etc to make profit on something they didn't create. His specific anti advertising hissy fit is a logical disconnect.
"Nobody is complaining about him having or leaving money. The fact is he's left $6m and there will be more coming in from royalties. Why should more be made from advertising by people that didn't create the art if he didn't want it? He has left a good legacy - both musical (to all of us that want to appreciate it) and financial (to his family)."
But his music is already making Apple 30% on iTunes, and for innumerable other companies besides, who didn't create the art. It's an irrational position to specifically rail against advertising when you've not got an issue with Apple et al's 30%
"If anything, I would have expected people to be more incensed that his bandmates Mike Diamond and Adam Horovitz are also being prevented from selling ad rights to work that Mr. Yausch was involved in creating. It's interesting that your first instinct seems to be "think of the children!", rather than realising that this clause is going to limit the other co-creators of the works in question should they decide to sell out at some point in the future."
I see your point also on the co-creators, but band mates are band mates, not blood. Reproducing and maximising the resources available to your progeny is, after all, the only proven purpose to life.
"He left over 6 million.
If that's not enough to 'never have to worry about money' again then tough shit."
I'm sorry it burns you so much that there are people with lots of money out there. God forbid they should make any more...
And what is the obvious exactly, Mr Anonymous Coward?
I did read that bit, but there's only a superficial difference between selling a song to an individual and selling it to a company. In the end, you're still selling songs.
His wishes are his wishes I guess, but if his artistic works are the fruits of his labour why not let his daughter profit from such? It will mean she will never have to worry about money. In a way this clause is like disinheriting her.
So what if Samsung filed the evidence two minutes too late, or even two days or two weeks late? Facts are facts, and my understanding of the law is that new evidence is always admissible in the courts, so long as the other party gets to study it too.
If patent Nazi Apple gets their way in this, it would be a pretty big injustice.