 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Aw, Larry, you had me right along with you up till this bit. Well, I'm still mostly with you, but a considerable problem with art today--and this isn't just confined to our fine nation--is the predominant aesthetic trend as much as any dubious (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) You have a point, however, I think we are on the verge (if not already over the cliff) of having a market which will again support good art. This is due to the internet. With the minimal cost of distribution, who cares what the mass market (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) That makes a lot of sense. My concern, at present--and forgive me for lapsing into my own pet crusade for a moment--is that the scourge of Postmodernism, among others, has yielded an unprecedented load of manure, and many (not here, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) People who write worthwhile material will be supported irrespective of ability to copy protect their work. In fact, ultimately, the consumers will protect the works (why should I let you read my copy of XYZ, when you can download it yourself, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Where and when is this magical land? And how does one get there, because clearly this philosophy has little to do with the state of the market today, or of any time in the past four centuries, since the concept of authorship came to the fore. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Ooops! No, it doesn't, but I sure thought it did. Did it previously? Dave! (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> <FnxMM8.6Av@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) My assertion is that the mass market stores are going to be pushing such drek, that (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I understand your assertion, and I still assert that it has little reference to reality. Your analogy with Lugnet is likewise still flawed. (...) Okay, then, how much money has Todd made on Lugnet? Enough to support himself with no other (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It's interesting though. A lot of us here certainly would have the technical ability to copy and redistribute lugnet -- it's not that much harder than copying an electronic novel would be. But, there are other things that might be better (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Another reason no one's done it is that there's no point--Lugnet's value isn't as static repository of ideas but as a living forum for exchange of those ideas. A novel is different, since it's written once and then it's done--downloading the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It varies. Probably the most interesting open source/free software license is the GPL (GNU General Public License), which states (in as watertight manner as a bunch of lawyers could make it) that the software is free to use and modify as long (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) B&N is a better online bookseller than amazon, IMHO. Especially their OOP/secondhand books. As far as online publishing by the author is concerned, I refer you to the messages posted to rec.arts.sf.composition by Gene Steinberg. Jasper (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I didn't think there was a non-profit status, as such? More a sort of "not profitable right now" status, the last time this came up. Jasper (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) No, we wouldn't, and yes, it would be. Only a snapshot is easy to make. Copying the entire underlying structure of dynamical pages would not be trivial, but not hard either (since Todd speaks of it fairly freely, and much material is (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I disagree technically. It's almost impossible to make something available to the general public yet block copying it. But I conceed that there _is_ an essential difference between LUGnet and a book -- the dynamic interaction you mention, plus (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Yes. But doing so without Todd's knowledge, _while keeping it up tom date_, is next to impossible. I suspect somebody who downloaded the entire site would show up a significant blip in traffic, also. Then there is the fact that by far not (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Wouldn't be without his knowledge. He'd just be powerless to stop it without blocking large numbers of legitimate users. Not that I'm advocating such a thing in any way. (...) Yes that's again true. (...) This is a different topic entirely of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Not so at all. I'd just use a dialup account (plenty of bandwidth to deal with the discussion traffic) at one or several major ISPs. I don't think Todd wants to break Earthlink or AOL access for all of Boston. (...) Spoofing IPs probably (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) IPblocking such a thing would not block very many legitimate users. Unless you start doing things like spoofing IPs (which can be detected at a firewall level), morphing ISP accounts, etc.etc. Come to think of it, IPblocking of spoofed packets (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) If one must. I also think you'd have the lawyers sicced on you. Things like this are blatantly illegal. As added protection, Todd could make the NNTP connections password-protected (fairly easily, even, technically). In which case you'd need (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Oh, definitely. That wasn't the point at all. If I still remember the original point of this. :) (...) For the record, I totally agree and sympathize with Todd's decision to run things the way he currently is. There are clear and definite (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I don't think our current usage is enough to support a dedicated backup server, yet. I mean, we have, what, 1000 messages/day and 30k users? Still peanuts ;) By the time it gets up to 10-25k msgs/day, I'd be looking for a physical backup, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Just an aside: The computer "revolution" and the much-touted paperless office in fact led to the paper (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I believe barnesandnoble.com is doing that now. (Or is it just that they've got it in development for deployment soon.) Either way. (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) But that doesn't exactly reduce paper consumption. :) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) However, the machines that can print and bind a one-off book from typeset files and do it quickly are getting there. In a few decades at most, physical distribution of books will be gone, except fro the mass-market things. Those can probably (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Uh, no. The paperless office is a big myth. The ease with which paper is created id one of the biggest problems of our times, IMHO. Let printer ink and toner be taxed at an additional $2.50 per page, I say. _THEN_ we'll see a paperless office. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Ah yes... slap a tax on it instead of trying to set things up to get at the root costs, eh? Typical tax and spend thinking. Why not go after lumber companies for causing erosion when they clear cut, and charge the proper amount to dispose of (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Uh, Larry? I _was_ kidding. (...) So how do you figure the costs of erosion? TIhe lumber companies own their land, usually, after all. Or they have permission from the owners. And if the use that land to deposit the waste on, why shouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) How did you arrive at that number? That's my point. (24 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
