|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 16, 2014 4:30:20 GMT -5
MUSTARD ON THA BEAT HOE!  |
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,050
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Dec 16, 2014 6:06:22 GMT -5
Dropping the beat, not the bass.
|
|
ZERO
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,933
|
Post by ZERO on Dec 16, 2014 8:05:05 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me what their gripe with the phrase "bae" is? , like cray-cray, which apparently is now just cray. Also, apparently, and this is the internet talking not me, it's Danish for shit, or whatever your favorite synonym for shit is. Irritating shorthand that does NOTHING to shorten the ONE SYLLABLE WORD it is supposed to shorten. I've heard the "It's danish for poop" thing as well. |
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Dec 16, 2014 8:43:49 GMT -5
It's irritating shorthand, like cray-cray, which apparently is now just cray. Also, apparently, and this is the internet talking not me, it's Danish for shit, or whatever your favorite synonym for shit is. Irritating shorthand that does NOTHING to shorten the ONE SYLLABLE WORD it is supposed to shorten. I've heard the "It's danish for poop" thing as well. SO it is actually short for "baby, you're the shit"! |
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Dec 16, 2014 9:40:00 GMT -5
Becoming ever more whiney as a nation.
Hypocrites that decry stereotypes, labels, and name-calling of their side as so unfair/inaccurate that think their stereotypes, labels, and name-calling of the other side is fair and dead-on.
Not being tolerant of the opinion of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Dec 16, 2014 9:41:01 GMT -5
Crap, double-post.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 16, 2014 10:03:44 GMT -5
Let's try and add in some things that haven't already been said.
1. The death of physical media generally, and the long, slow, life support death of the album as an art form. Yes both still exist to some extent but they are nothing on what they once were, and as a music fan this breaks my heart in two. The individually crafted, perfect pop song is an art form in itself, but I don't want it to be the only one. As for physical media generally, I like purchasing an actual THING. It's not just about legality, I don't want Spotify either. I like having a CD and holding it in my hands, reading the liner notes, seeing who played what instruments and wrote what songs, or on a reissue reading the album backstory. I like having that first listen totally cold except maybe a single or two. An album is an experience.
2. Motion capture technology in games. I just straight up don't want it. If I wanted to move around in my leisure time I would be actually playing sport. I play computer games for escapism, so I can steal cars and shoot aliens in the face and do things that I can't do in real life either at all or without major consequence. That's the fun of gaming. I won't want to motion capture everything, I just want a controller. I don't want a little fake steering wheel for Mario Kart. Mario Kart is nothing like driving. Mario Kart has as much in common with driving as I have with Brad Pitt. In fact I probably have more in common with Brad Pitt.
3. The loss of privacy, both voluntary and involuntary. By the time I realised how many fingers Facebook had slipped up my arsehole simply by my registering with them it as already too late. Google is in some ways worse, reading your emails and then advertising things to you based on what's in the email you're reading. It's terrifying, offensive and I hate it, and it's also part of the reason why you have things like doxxing going on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 10:07:41 GMT -5
Complaining about trends in this generation. Seriously, stop being such grumpy old men and women, my generation. I'm going to sue you for harassment and emotional distress and hurt feelings and for just being a meanie. #NoFairsies ;P |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Black on Dec 16, 2014 10:09:24 GMT -5
Vanity
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Dec 16, 2014 10:13:18 GMT -5
The way music production has changed. This Volume Wars stuff is awful.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,936
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Dec 16, 2014 10:17:16 GMT -5
3. The loss of privacy, both voluntary and involuntary. By the time I realised how many fingers Facebook had slipped up my arsehole simply by my registering with them it as already too late. Google is in some ways worse, reading your emails and then advertising things to you based on what's in the email you're reading. It's terrifying, offensive and I hate it, and it's also part of the reason why you have things like doxxing going on.  Funny and good point |
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,936
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Dec 16, 2014 10:17:34 GMT -5
3. The loss of privacy, both voluntary and involuntary. By the time I realised how many fingers Facebook had slipped up my arsehole simply by my registering with them it as already too late. Google is in some ways worse, reading your emails and then advertising things to you based on what's in the email you're reading. It's terrifying, offensive and I hate it, and it's also part of the reason why you have things like doxxing going on. Funny and good point |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 16, 2014 10:27:08 GMT -5
The way music production has changed. This Volume Wars stuff is awful. It's getting to the point that when an old record gets re-released and isn't overcompressed to shit, it's miraculous. |
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Dec 16, 2014 11:57:39 GMT -5
The way music production has changed. This Volume Wars stuff is awful. It's getting to the point that when an old record gets re-released and isn't overcompressed to shit, it's miraculous. I heard a new version of something I forget what, and it went from this awesome song with warmth and depth and dynamics, to blaring noise, all in the effort to make it heard better in bars so people will download it without thinking. It is awful. I just picked up a ska cd from a band from Belgium. It is like it is from another planet. It is warm, has distinction between instruments and sounds, and feels like a living organism. meanwhile "Shake It Off" feels lifeless and like a robot made it. The sad part is I like the song, just not the recording. So I go to covers by artists with less budget and more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 16, 2014 12:11:50 GMT -5
It's getting to the point that when an old record gets re-released and isn't overcompressed to shit, it's miraculous. I heard a new version of something I forget what, and it went from this awesome song with warmth and depth and dynamics, to blaring noise, all in the effort to make it heard better in bars so people will download it without thinking. It is awful. I just picked up a ska cd from a band from Belgium. It is like it is from another planet. It is warm, has distinction between instruments and sounds, and feels like a living organism. meanwhile "Shake It Off" feels lifeless and like a robot made it. The sad part is I like the song, just not the recording. So I go to covers by artists with less budget and more sense. One of the few decent remasters I heard where the Beatles ones because they didn't get too loud. They did f*** up the earlier records because they put live recordings in stereo so they sound like dick. |
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Dec 16, 2014 12:15:25 GMT -5
I heard a new version of something I forget what, and it went from this awesome song with warmth and depth and dynamics, to blaring noise, all in the effort to make it heard better in bars so people will download it without thinking. It is awful. I just picked up a ska cd from a band from Belgium. It is like it is from another planet. It is warm, has distinction between instruments and sounds, and feels like a living organism. meanwhile "Shake It Off" feels lifeless and like a robot made it. The sad part is I like the song, just not the recording. So I go to covers by artists with less budget and more sense. One of the few decent remasters I heard where the Beatles ones because they didn't get too loud. They did f*** up the earlier records because they put live recordings in stereo so they sound like dick. Most mono to stereo sounds awful. A few of the Johnny Cash ones worked out pretty well though if I recall. The Elvis ones got weird. Not bad, they just felt off. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:47:03 GMT -5
3. The loss of privacy, both voluntary and involuntary. By the time I realised how many fingers Facebook had slipped up my arsehole simply by my registering with them it as already too late. Google is in some ways worse, reading your emails and then advertising things to you based on what's in the email you're reading. It's terrifying, offensive and I hate it, and it's also part of the reason why you have things like doxxing going on. Well, this isn't really a "generational" thing, but the most interesting part about all that is that most of it is largely voluntary. Nothing's free in WaterWorld and the cost of using FB, Gmail, etc is giving away that kind of information for them to sell to marketing companies so they can keep the servers running, pay employees etc. Its never explicitly stated, quid pro quo, but if anyone can get through the ToS, I'm sure its in there. I think the disconnect comes when people just assumed that stuff like social media, email, etc should be 100% free. We all pay for kisses, Stan. Either with money or with information, which is more valuable than money to people trying to market stuff at you. Facebook, Google, they all sell metrics about what you click, like, etc to marketing companies. Its a more intricate and insidious version of coupons. You get a deal on something and they get to know that their advertising works. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 16, 2014 16:00:02 GMT -5
3. The loss of privacy, both voluntary and involuntary. By the time I realised how many fingers Facebook had slipped up my arsehole simply by my registering with them it as already too late. Google is in some ways worse, reading your emails and then advertising things to you based on what's in the email you're reading. It's terrifying, offensive and I hate it, and it's also part of the reason why you have things like doxxing going on. Well, this isn't really a "generational" thing, but the most interesting part about all that is that most of it is largely voluntary. Nothing's free in WaterWorld and the cost of using FB, Gmail, etc is giving away that kind of information for them to sell to marketing companies so they can keep the servers running, pay employees etc. Its never explicitly stated, quid pro quo, but if anyone can get through the ToS, I'm sure its in there. I think the disconnect comes when people just assumed that stuff like social media, email, etc should be 100% free. We all pay for kisses, Stan. Either with money or with information, which is more valuable than money to people trying to market stuff at you. Facebook, Google, they all sell metrics about what you click, like, etc to marketing companies. Its a more intricate and insidious version of coupons. You get a deal on something and they get to know that their advertising works. In theory yes, but in Facebook's case in particular you can sign up to that when you're 13. You're legally not old enough to be in sound mind to have sex, drink, smoke, drive, but you can legally basically sell all the information (and a lot of photos of yourself, that if say, your friend's dad had of you, would probably get him jailed or at least investigated) that has ever existed about you to a shady software company. It basically is entirely voluntary, but you can bet for damn sure that it'd be totally involuntary if either Facebook or Google had the choice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 16:07:33 GMT -5
Well, this isn't really a "generational" thing, but the most interesting part about all that is that most of it is largely voluntary. Nothing's free in WaterWorld and the cost of using FB, Gmail, etc is giving away that kind of information for them to sell to marketing companies so they can keep the servers running, pay employees etc. Its never explicitly stated, quid pro quo, but if anyone can get through the ToS, I'm sure its in there. I think the disconnect comes when people just assumed that stuff like social media, email, etc should be 100% free. We all pay for kisses, Stan. Either with money or with information, which is more valuable than money to people trying to market stuff at you. Facebook, Google, they all sell metrics about what you click, like, etc to marketing companies. Its a more intricate and insidious version of coupons. You get a deal on something and they get to know that their advertising works. In theory yes, but in Facebook's case in particular you can sign up to that when you're 13. You're legally not old enough to be in sound mind to have sex, drink, smoke, drive, but you can legally basically sell all the information (and a lot of photos of yourself, that if say, your friend's dad had of you, would probably get him jailed or at least investigated) that has ever existed about you to a shady software company. It basically is entirely voluntary, but you can bet for damn sure that it'd be totally involuntary if either Facebook or Google had the choice. I thought FB didn't allow nudity? I'm not sure what kind of photos a 13 year old could put up there that would get a guy thrown in jail, but nevertheless I know what you mean about the age limit of the ToS. The whole thing stinks of "hey we give you a service for totally FREE*" In which the * leads to about 19 pages of stuff you're giving up in lieu of paying money. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 16, 2014 16:11:08 GMT -5
In theory yes, but in Facebook's case in particular you can sign up to that when you're 13. You're legally not old enough to be in sound mind to have sex, drink, smoke, drive, but you can legally basically sell all the information (and a lot of photos of yourself, that if say, your friend's dad had of you, would probably get him jailed or at least investigated) that has ever existed about you to a shady software company. It basically is entirely voluntary, but you can bet for damn sure that it'd be totally involuntary if either Facebook or Google had the choice. I thought FB didn't allow nudity? I'm not sure what kind of photos a 13 year old could put up there that would get a guy thrown in jail, but nevertheless I know what you mean about the age limit of the ToS. The whole thing stinks of "hey we give you a service for totally FREE*" In which the * leads to about 19 pages of stuff you're giving up in lieu of paying money. Well, first of all, Facebook does now allow nudity to a certain extent. For some reason. Although obviously I'm sure they'd delete a naked preteen immediately (once they, you know, responded to the report, which takes them f***ing forever in every case I've ever seen). Secondly, a 13 year old can quite happily take a selfie of themselves on a family holiday in a bikini and put it on Facebook. Kids don't have to be completely ass naked for someone to get their kicks from it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these paedophile witch hunters who wants no photos of children ever taken ever again, I just mean when you consider the difference between Mark Zuckerberg having a shitload of potentially titillating photos of your teenaged daughter and Ron, the 43-year-old neckbeard from work having them, there isn't a great deal of difference. |
|
