ORIGINAL manuals only! I also collect the original ad material and brochures.
Stock Plymouth Valiant Brougham, 318 V8 (the small one), automatic. Even has the original AM-only radio, though the radio is for looks only as the sound system uses a new CD player. Last weekend I burned something out, and the electrical system is dead. Something else to work on now Because it's a V8 it's not my daily driver. And it has a rear seal leak so it goes through oil. Plan to fix that when we get the engine rebuilt (has 190K on it).
Both the Z and the Plymouth are "project" cars for me and my son. By the time we're done with them we will have spent far more money on them than they're worth.
I am so past the point where the FSM even makes sense. By the end of the summer, I may be able to remove the ECM all together.
I have rewired the transmission so I can lock up the torque converter at will, I have put an after market fuel injection system in it, and it doesn't look like the dashboard relies on the ECM all that much.
My dream is to remove *all* silly GM writing and replace it with a computer, a P.C. system, running Linux, of course.
I went and took a look out of curiosity - holy crap! That guy oughta be banned for the sheer volume if nothing else - people like him make some newsgroups worthless - or at least not worth the time it takes to scroll all the BS and/or write filters/rules to avoid them. I can understand 1 or 2 chapters to see what the book's like, but even that should be from the publisher / authors. I have a dead, powerless, no brains-on-board robot in the corner with more integrity ...
I spent more on my Newport than it was worth when I replaced the heater motor. I think somebody who took a more rational view than I do would argue I spend more on it than it's worth every time I fill the gas tank... but it's my baby, inherited from my mom. Soon as I get my wife's car (2000 Intrepid R/T) on the road, Baby goes in for some serious body work.
My sentiments exactly. I have been known to treat anything I find on the web as shareware. I'll download it, with whatever keys or cracks are offered with it, and try it out. If I find it useful, I'll go buy it. If I read through a downloaded book once and then never find use for it again, I delete and move on. In the case of programs, if I use it only a few times, the same deal applies. Delete or go buy.
If I had paid good money just to find out that it wasn't something I'd ever use again, that would have made me rather... perturbed!
What the publishing industry needs if it wants to survive is a machine that can print and bind a single copy of a book, and have it ready to ship to the customer's house next day.
They've had this for a long while, avtually. Way back in '97 Ingram (a major book distributor), IBM, and Barnes & Noble were in a co-venture to produce such "print on demand" books. The venture is still around, and is still churning out a million+ books per year:
formatting link
I was involved in a startup funded by B&N in 1999-2000 where I packaged several dozen books through this method.
With POD you have the benefit of zero inventory but at a *much* higher unit cost. POD has its place, but like everything else, it's not the one answer to what ails the publishing industry.
It is also encouraging that MP3 downloads tend to INCREASE CD sales. Every independent study has shown this, it is only studies done by RIAA the try to show differently -- but they focus on previous trends and expected sales, not current trends and economy.
I think it's more accurate to say MP3 downloads can increase *music* sales, as long as the full album is not widely and freely available elsewhere. The CD is just one delivery mechanism, and its sales are hardly booming these days -- entire CD retailers who have been selling music for decades are shutting down. The per-song download merely replaces the 45 single as a way to promote the full album, but it doesn't work if folks can go online and get a rip of the album for free.
I'm no fan of ther RIAA or its tactics, but I'm not aware they are still against MP3s and music downloads, just unauthorized music downloads.
This has gotten so far off robotics it isn't funny, but, I think I need to clarify my statements. "illegal" downloads tend to increase sales of music. Time and time again, all statistics indicate that this increases overall music sales. The problem is that some people do not buy the music and simply use the downloaded version, but the flip side of the argument is that other people who would not have otherwise heard the music will and a percentage of them buy.
I dealt with some music creeps a few years back, they wanted to hire me to write bots to populate kazaa and gnutella with bogus music tacks. They are so anal, they can't see the forrest through the trees.
The internet is revolutionary in that it makes old ways of doing business obsolete. Any business model that has to be protected by law and not by economics is eventually going to be a failure.
Doesn't this imply that legal downloads would enhance music sales just the same as illegal downloads, assuming a wide enough distribution of the files? I don't think there is anything about the illegal files that makes them a larger contributor to album sales, except that the illegal stuff tends to get traded in ways the prime demographic of music (14-24 year olds) will more likely see. Grandpa isn't typically trolling Gnutella looking for Montovani. The labels are slowly learning how to cope in the Internet age.
Publishers could probably take a cue from the music biz (pun intended) and make more content available, but a surprising amount already is for people who know where to find it. For example, many of the technical books on Amazon are fully indexed and searchable, so you can get a really good sense if it's going to help you.
Your analogy of the record industry is wll taken though, and not at all off-topic. I feel publishers are even more behind the curve than record labels in dealing with business in the Internet age. That's why I'm not writing traditional books at this time. Publishers, especially of non-fiction, are seriously in need of new ideas. However, they are major copycats. Once some folks demonstrate a better method, they will all flock to it.
Absolutely not. A lot of people would buy a product if they like it, but won't pay for it if they don't know. The music business does not like the idea that people may listen to music *before* the companies are compensated.
Downloading (illegally, well, actually "fair use") music is a great way to experience new music and a great way to enhance the tastes of listeners.
Trust me, the *LAST* thing civilization needs is the publication business learning from the music and movie industry.
If the publishing business took queues from RIAA and MPAA, looking over someone's shoulder to read a headline of a news paper would be a license violation and punishable by prison time.
The question and fear I have is that they *will* take queues from MPAA and RIAA, lobby for draconian laws and a further assault on the "fair use" doctrine.
This is interesting. The first time I saw that feature on Amazon and subsequently on google, I said: Gee, I'll never buy a book again. I can't speak for everybody neither offer any kind of statistics, but in my case, the opposite happened. I started to buy more books. When I need some information from a book and I check it online and it does solve my problem and I can see it is good quality, I'll buy it right away, even after my problem was already solved. Now, the other side of the coin is that if I see the book is crap, I won't fall into the trap of buying it and then getting frustrated latter.
I think the same is happening with music. I don't need to buy a 16 music CD to get one or two tracks that are really worthwhile. And I think that someday (soon) the artists will realize that and they won't spend time recording crappy musics they know won't sell. So I believe less music will be produced, but with more quality. Also, there is the thing that sometimes you don't buy a CD album because of the music it contains, but because you are a fan. No matter how good or bad it is, I'll buy the latest Pearl Jam album simply because I am their fan, and I can't put an MP3 on my stand.
Piracy will never end. The industry just need to come up with something to avoid mass scale piracy. Who never recorded cassete tapes from radio music before? How's that different from downloading a music from kazaa or similar?
This paragraph makes me shudder, it documents the eventual failure of music as an "art" form. Like most things of cultural import, not all things are snappy and "pop."
Reducing "Abbey Road" to its most popular tracks -- at the time -- eliminates, IMHO, it's worth as art. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" or "Dark Side of the Moon" are works that stand as a whole.
In the old days, the 45 single, was the snappy "pop" song to sell an album. Sure, some people bought just the 45, but a lot of people would buy the album and get more from the artist and the art.
IMHO, what's missing today in the music industry, is the view that it is art. It has been reduced to mere marketable product, leaving uncomfortable things like ideas, messages, and thinking by the wayside.
"Piracy" is a nonsense term created applied to a bogus concept, that people should not share. The history of civilization is that ideas and works need to be shared and economics be damned. Perhaps starving artists, unfortunately, are a real and necessary part of the mix. A person with little to lose is freer to express controversial ideas and concepts than one afraid of losing his [b][m]illion dollar music deal.
There is a HUGE problem right now in this country with the notion of "copyright," and "intellectual property." The original copyright statute was intended to be a limited protection for the author, but balanced for the better good of society. Read Benjamin Franklin's writings on the subject. Today, copyright is being assaulted by Disney and RIAA trying to make it into a form of wealth.
I don't think you got the essence of what I'm trying to convey.
That's why I have them in vinyl and CD. These are definitely worthy, but I won't buy the latest modest mouse album because of 1 music only. If an artist want me to buy the whole album, then he better create something that's worthy.
That's why I don't buy albums anymore. Eventually there's one or two bands that will produce an album that's really art, others will produce one song that is art, the rest is filling. I don't buy filling.
Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and sometimes I produce software that is for share and some other times that is not for share. The latest is the one that pays my bills, and I'm not willing to share it. If someones insists in "sharing" a software that I'm not willing to share, than it is stealing.
If we lived in a communist (in the "community" sense) where the government would provide me everything I need to live with confort, than I would share anything I'd produce. Blame the system, not me. IMHO, if you are in a capitalist regime, be a capitalist. If you are in a socialist regime, be a socialist.
I agree that copyrighting an idea is complicated, but a song or an executable are not ideas, they are concrete objects made of 1's and 0's. I don't see them different from an MP3 player or a bottle of water.
: year olds) will more likely see. Grandpa isn't typically trolling : Gnutella looking for Montovani. The labels are slowly learning how to : cope in the Internet age.
You might be surprised. I haven't looked for Montovani, but I have found a large number of old time radio shows (Jack Benny, Burns & Allen, etc) on the OpenNap remanent of the old Napster network, there is even a particular server dedicated to them (OldShows.no-ip.info)
(When Napster shut down, there were already freely available clones of their servers, so people just kept running them. Lots of out of the US ones with illegal stuff. I suspect that no one renewed the copyrights on the Jack Benny radio show however. :-)
: Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and sometimes
Piracy is not the same as stealing, in a very important sense: When I steal something from you, you don't have it any more. When I make an illegal copy, you still have your original.
This is not to say it is right -- any more than stealing is OK because it's not murder. :-)
Rethink this. Hard or soft goods, you're not stealing a *thing*, you're taking away from a person the *value* of the thing. When software is pirated you are depriving the creator -- more often than not an individual or a small company -- from the livlihood they would have made with the sale. It's no different than stealing money out of their wallet. You receive the value of the creation, but they get bupkis.
Some argue that they wouldn't have paid for the software (or whatever) in the first place. In which case they don't need it enough to either buy it or steal it. Leave it alone, and let the people who want it buy it. Or let it languish unbought, if it's trash. These days with so much available legally for free on the Internet any excuses for piracy is just so much drivel.
WTFF do I care if I still have my original? -- in my case, a manuscript. I'm in the specific business of selling the copies! To an author or artist this argument makes zero sense.
The problem with your last statement is that you would get the "worthy" albums but only pick the popular tracks from the rest.
How would you know which albums are "worthy" without hearing the entire album?
Also I've had albums grow on me. After a few listenings I find I like some of the songs I previously thought were crap.
No. Piracy is a word meaning a specific type of stealing: robbing a ship at sea.
What we're talking about is copyright violation.
While violating your copyright may cost you some sales, it doesn't actually take anything from you. And sometimes illegal copies may increase sales.
I'm an unrepentent capitalist. However, capitalist values in no way prohibit copyright violation or stealing in any form.
This I agree with. Yes, people *should* pay for things if there is a charge and they feel it is worth it. If it isn't worth the charge then they shouldn't use the product.
However, often times copyright violation (or fair use depending on the ruling) increases sales. My wife and her friends make "mix tapes" (CDs now) to give to each other. My wife and her friends have bought albums by the groups they liked.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.