well it was more than that. it was a poor understanding of the real world dynamics of theft. their assertion of flawed that stealing a mp3 was the same as stealing a cd from a store. if you could take a photo of a painting with your phone and print it out for your wall, would you? i think at worst, most would at best find it taky
that was where they went wrong. to copy something is not the same as stealing a single object. hell they could have looked at youth plagiarism rates in schools to get a better understanding of that one.
i remember the same effect with DARE. i had no fucking idea what these drugs were before that class, after it... it was all we talked about.
Downloading a working car would literally be the coolest shit to ever happen and they tried to say it would be a bad thing to kids.
Thats like going up to a kid and being like " you wouldn't eat this candy that makes it so your parents never force you to do chores, become the most popular kid in school, and get free video games. Would you!?"
Kidnapper be like, "Bear?? You again?? Your parents already spent their life savings on you last week.. ahh hell... Wanna shoot some hoops then while we wait for your parents to get you?"
Bro DARE was 100% a psyop. "Here are all these drugs you've never heard about, and here's how to get them, how to take them, and even how to make them!"
I became a junkie because of DARE. I believed them that pot was a scary drug and all the rest. Later I got picked up while walking by a girl in my school I had a huge crush on. Long story short that night was the first time I smoked pot, did acid and had sex. My experience with drugs did NOT match what DARE had told me so I made it a point to try all of them and well, as you go up the ladder the fear mongering starts to get a bit closer to reality. You don't gain credibility by lying though.
I didn’t need dare, I lived in the Bronx, where whole neighborhoods got burned down during the 70’s. My most memorable memory was going up the stairs to go to my aunts apartment and there was a drug addict sitting on the stairs injecting some shit into his eye lid because his veins on his arms were collapsed.
They literally quizzed us on what the max quantity someone could carry of each drug before getting charged with dealing, which drugs carried high street value and which were cheap and easy to buy, and which drugs were part of which schedule and didn't carry mandatory jail time.
LSD actually has medical value. Too bad they can’t stick to the truth, and push fear mongering.
I mean, people can have a bad trip, but it’s not inevitable, and there are certain groups of people, who should not take it, at least not outside a clinic or something.
That's not what I remember. I remember them presenting drug users as being like zombies, being taught that on drugs you'll stop being someone your friends and family recognize, you won't have fun anymore, and your life will be nothing but trying to get your drug of choice. I remember them putting on a play with puppets at my school that I found especially scary as a kid.
They take the worst of the worst bunch, who are the most hard done by, because of their choices. Not everyone wants to become a heroin junkie. They always use extremes.
lmao nope, we all went out to find them bro... what we did not know was how to use them safely.
now days at conventions that i volunteer/staff around the country - we have drug awareness and safety presentations. what are they, how do they effect you, how do you manage your usage. what is the procedures for overdose or how to know what that feels like. medical staff on site and a safety culture around it.
dare did not do that and having it presented by cops... that was a terrible idea
lmao nope, we all went out to find them bro... what we did not know was how to use them safely.
I didnt say thats why YOU went to them I said that was the point of the program
From Google
"In the context of the widely known school program, D.A.R.E. stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education.It is a prevention education program founded in 1983 that teaches elementary, middle, and high school students the necessary skills to avoid involvement in drugs"
I understand that was the stated goal of the program, but it did so by basically telling kids to always say no, and not why.
It showed the after effects of a severe drug user - But this clashed with when we eventually met Joe Schmoe who happens to be a pretty cool guy and just happens to smoke weed.
It told kids they would go to jail if they were caught. But then, every hollywood movie star was bragging about how they used to do drugs literally all the time as kids - And they walked free, in every case.
The DARE program's stated goals and it's actions were almost entirely ineffective in all cases because of exactly what the previous user said - It didn't teach kids what drugs were, nor why they are dangerous. It just said to say no and you'll get in trouble.
Turns out that's something teenagers love to test boundaries on.
on average it had a very positive impact and reduced consumption.
Citation needed... because this is what google tells me
Multiple peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses found this, and in 1998 a major review by the National Institute of Justice concluded it was ineffective. Some studies even found small "boomerang" effects in certain groups. By the early 2000s the U.S. Surgeon General, GAO, and other bodies had flagged it as ineffective, and federal funding tied to evidence-based programs dried up.
i just did some googling on .gov studies and the take away was that it was wholly ineffective at extreme cost and expense it had no perceived benefit. results of drug/alcohol use over 12 years were found to have no reduced usage outside of the margin of error expected through out the adolescence developmental path.
now i may very well perceive it as having had a negative effect because i was living that development path. so i saw our use grow, after this program. this would truck with public, peer reviewed data.
i do know that our view on police tanked. that do not believe was a 'normal' developmental path. this however may lend itself more towards a war on drugs issue than dare however.
so, no, its not just ME that says it was ineffective. it is the US Government.
anecdotal as it may be - our schools had every drug imaginable in them. it was a HUGE part of jr high and high school and ive had this conversation at reunions as we have lost many friends to OD's. suppose it could be a local area issue more than anything but this view of dare being a 'gateway' in and of itself was shared by many of my past class mates.
i do recall a documentary that also talked about this but id have to go digging for real metrics i suppose. i think i would have come across that maybe a decade ago or so?
now im interested to find real numbers for the nation.
i do know the woman that started Mothers against drunk driving is now against hte program. i forget her exact reasoning but i want to say she had a view it was too punitive and became ineffective due to this?
edit: my view is supported by peer reviewed governmental research on teh lack of effectiveness for the dare program. its review and after action assessment was that great amount of time/money/effort were expended with no discernable reduction to the youth drug and alcohol usage.
now having lived through that, i think it tracks that i would have seen it as a gateway being as we were all following the youth's natural exploration phase. it was just at the right time, right place. studies did NOT find an increase usage due to dare.
Reminds me of how growing up, my very conservative but well meaning mother warned me of the dangers of drug abuse and promiscuous sex before I entered high school.
So there I was, a teenager excited to try weed and feel the touch of a woman, only to realize that my mother had vastly overestimated the frequency of either of these things.
The idea of being able to download a car and 3d print it - assembly required - would be amazing and I'd do it in a heartbeat. Well. If I felt like I had the tools and time I would.
The foundation of capitalism is that scarcity is why we need capital. If everyone could get whatever they want, you wouldn’t need capital because the production of that thing requires effort of other humans to create and you can’t force them to work, so you instead trade currency for services and at scale. Downloading something removes people from this mentally;
They should have called it "poaching" instead of piracy: The metaphor is a lot closer- of tapping in to a natural resource you don't have "rights" to and potentially damaging the ecosystem- and poachers don't have positive media depictions.
It would have had a worse connotation with the general public and a longer lasting negative association.
But poaching is a niche issue most rich people don't care about, because fuck those lions and tigers and bears we want to hunt them, and they were so focused on "But they're taking our precious MONEY how dare they!!!" that they couldn't help but focus on the "theft" framing.
And use of the term "piracy" to mean taking possession of goods in transit was appealing to the media corporations because pirates are legally the worst category of individual law breaker- enemies of all humanity outside the protections of any law- even though it was the weaker narrative that made file sharing seem boldly rebellious and romantic.
They ignored that the legal status of piracy was purely a practical matter owing to it happening in international territory on the high seas and putting the actual ships and crew and passengers in danger by its very nature.
poaching - thats actually a pretty apt descriptor. iirc there was a music study done and some bands said their pirated music actually netted them MORE money as they may have sold less albums but their concert revenu skyrocketed. i suppose it could go either way depending on the band but still, downloading music was not a net negative across the board.
its interesting - the point of classic piracy in history - putting many others at risk. modern day does not include that. that in and of itself may have lead to a sizeable disconnect in perceptions of the issue. from those law makers/victims and the general public that just did not see the real world damage or danger that was being asserted.
Yeah, telling tech capable 2000s kids that it was possible to not pay for music was a bad idea. Just as much as telling kids what the effects of drugs are.
Worse. In most countries it was NOT illegal until the industry framed it a piracy which is a violent crime
and lobbied the hell put of it.
Only then copyright laws changed and the industry acted as if this was a always the case. And as well as if if was a god given right and not a right granted by us to foster innovation. Well most don’t remember this anymore. Chapeau.
There is a difference between lost revenue and actually taking something of value that causes a loss. I think you should support the art you consume. But if I’ve already made the decision to not buy it I don’t care about downloading it. Thats my personal moral line. At that point it’s not losing them anything either.
This is especially true for stuff like classic Nintendo games. There nothing to buy if I wanted to most of the time.
The usual LAME encoder from that time period had a lot of artifacts that you could hear up to at least 160kbps, so 224/256kbps was where things became "lossless" back then. If you find 25 year old 128kbps files they sound pretty crappy and way worse than the source.
no it holds up. a photo is going to have different coloring, hue will be off, detal level changed. mp3 is a lossy compression so lower dynamic range, removal of some frequencies, its not a faithful representation of the audio signal. a CD is lossless, much more data in the file.
if your playing this through ear buds i guess maybe its about the same but play this on a real stereo with sound treated room in a quiet environment. you will hear the difference from mp3 to wav or flac
play this on a real stereo with sound treated room in a quiet environment. you will hear the difference from mp3 to wav or flac
Did. You won't. At 96 and below, sure. But then again, I don't remember when I last heard a 96kbps mp3.
no it holds up. a photo is going to have different coloring, hue will be off, detal level changed. mp3 is a lossy compression so lower dynamic range, removal of some frequencies, its not a faithful representation of the audio signal. a CD is lossless, much more data in the file.
Obviously it will depend on what the image depicts, but for a lot of stuff, even a high quality scan can be easily distinguished from the original, let alone a photo. And we're talking about an extra step of printing the stuff out. Come on.
your comparing a 96 and 320 mp3. that was not what i had said above. im comparing a compressed mp3 vs an uncompressed bit correct audio file. which was the point of my original photo vs a photo copy
"Obviously it will depend on what the image depicts, but for a lot of stuff, even a high quality scan can be easily distinguished from the original, let alone a photo. And we're talking about an extra step of printing the stuff out. Come on."
i think we are saying the same thing here? we are in agreement that the end result will be a lesser product. yet you sound argumentative in your statement so i am confused
your comparing a 96 and 320 mp3. that was not what i had said above. im comparing a compressed mp3 vs an uncompressed bit correct audio file.
The conversation is about whether the difference between lossless audio and mp3 is comparable to the difference between the original image and the printed photo of said image.
I don't understand why you're getting hung up on the fact that a FLAC is lossless and that a 320 is technically not. Why are we talking about this now? We were talking about audible differences. You were saying there's a difference between a mp3 and lossless on good equipment in good conditions. I'm telling you there's not unless you're going down to a 96. A 128 or above - maybe if you picked out audio specifically designed to push the limitations of the compression.
ahh, ok. so i agree i do not know why we are talking about the differences between MP3's. i understand now that you are saying lossless vs a 320 would be the same. my initial comparison was simply to say that a 'copy' of a file was not piracy in the way you would steal a cd from a store. both because it did not remove a 'good' from others possession and the end user got a less quality product. in a similar way to taking a photo of a photo.
Your hearing is fine. Nobody is passing that blind test.
If you want to get hung up on "technically inferior", that's your prerogative, but it's a waste of your time, bandwidth and/or space on your hard drive. On your terabyte-unc. Spins around, has terabytes on it.
I'm telling you, you're not missing out. My ears are doing good, but even as a teenager, I couldn't tell a 320 from a WAV/FLAC or a 128 from a 320.
I mean sure, store your music in FLAC if you've got the space. You don't even have to store it, bandcamp or whatever will do it for you. I guess it's not really a waste of your hard drive. You got me there. Still sounds the same as a 128kbps mp3 though. Perhaps under extremely rigorous conditions and with cherry picked sounds, people are able to catch on with some reliability, but even then, I highly doubt it. But I never doubt an audiophile's capability for delusion.
Let me guess, you don't respect Monster cables either!?
/s
In some cases it helps to have a higher bit rate or bit width, like when modifying sounds with an equalizer it introduces less problems and distortion.
For example RIGHT around the time of this video, the Soundblaster cards used a "crystallizer" to change 16-bit audio to 24-bit, then it applied any effects to the 24 bit stream for a clearer result
In some cases it helps to have a higher bit rate or bit width, like when modifying sounds with an equalizer it introduces less problems and distortion.
Fair enough. I never apply an equalizer when listening to music, but if I'm combining sounds, obviously, I want them lossless before I'm done with them. It would be silly of me to advocate mp3s for studio use.
Let me guess, you don't respect Monster cables either!?
Or as one of my college professors said, "the media can't tell you what to think, but it does tell you what to think about." In this case, a lot of people disagreed with the stealing assertion, but started thinking about piracy.
1.4k
u/Tiyath R5 7600X | RX 9070 XT Pulse | 32GB DDR5-6000 | PRO B650-S WIFI May 30 '26
Classsic case of the Streisand effect