Slashdot Mirror

all that's needed to view this site without flash is ONE LINK to the HTML version. This is a reason to install flash, not a reason not to install flash.

NPGMusicClub clearly worked in HTML,

any person who wants to use his computer to go to thie site can do so, unless they are some zealot who insists on using an operating system that cannot support this. Ooooh "untrusted code"! Oh no!!@!@!@

And I still have yet to see a site where truly all the content lies within flash, only.

Feast your eyes upon this selection of webby award winning non-web-sites:

• http://www.totousa.com/
• http://www.observatoryfilms.com/
• http://www.yourpsp.com/
• http://plimptonproject.org/
• http://www.npgmusicclub.com/
• www.randomhouse.com
• http://www.madeinmtl.com/
• http://www.krupsusa.com/krups/
• http://www.freestylelivin.com/
• http://www.remembersegregation.org/
• http://www.bigfatinstitute.org/
• http://www.lorealusa.com/
• http://www.mercedes-amg.com/
• Boredom sets in...

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 13.3). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 13.3). 10th Annual Webby Awards Nominees & Winners: 10th Annual Webby Awards Nominees & Winners:

You mean like Prince?

Sony doesn't own the exclusive channel for prince Here's prince

Actually, he's won, I don't know what lead you to believe that he gave up, but Here's prince

He publishes direct download no middleman music.

The 43 million is secondary (or even tertiary) to the story. The real story is about the changing tactics of the industry and how it continues its attempts to force music-lovers to listen to music how the industry wants them to, instead of being responsive to customers as any good business should.

Now that a direct sales model is viable (iTunes, Prince and others) because the means of production and inexpensive distribution is widely available for a low cost, the industry has lost its main competitive advantage.

The oligopoly that the record companies have had is coming to an end and instead of embracing a new business model they keep trying to force everyone to adhere to the old broken model.

Also, please refer to the following articles from 2 days ago, paying special attention to the editorial:

Music Industry Changes its Tune on Sharing ... Sort Of

The NYT has a pair of stories about online music today. The first is a long article about how the music industry is trying to transform its image and its business by embracing online music and sharing ... within limits. But at the same time comments about filesharing like ''We're going to continue to address this with harsher and harsher means,'' by Universal's CEO aren't encouraging that the attitude has changed. The NYT Editorial page comes down firmly on the side of music-lovers with this gem: ''You don't have to be a 19-year-old college student to sense that there's something indecent in the concentration of the recording industry...''

* 2003-06-07 19:15:59 Music Industry Changes its Tune on Sharing ... Sor (articles,music) (rejected)

In one of the previous iterations of this discussion, someone mentioned a Prince-style fanclub as a viable method for at least the top-tier stars. You pay e.g. $49.95 for a year's membership, and with that, you get guaranteed one full Britley album, one Britley DVD, two 8'10" Britley glossies at her most glossy, demos and unreleasted tracks on secure downloadable format and a chance to receive one of a 100 personally autographed photos. Maybe even a chance to meet Britley personally on EMPTV.

It may be a few years since Prince was a megastar but he cut loose from his recordco some time back and distributes his own music over the web from npgmusicclub.com His 'Nation of Thieves?' article is spot on.

There are some people who value "DIY" over mass-market acceptance.

Prince. He released a single on Napster. He appears to take the U2 stance: He doesn't like bootleggers who rake in cash from his work. But he appears to appreciate anything that shakes up a broken system... as explained in: A Nation of Thieves (As seen in a previous Slashback)

R the wordz of Prince xcellently timed 4 the NPG 2B 2gether B4 the youth of 2day?

Language evolution is a far cry from language perversion. Granted new words can sometimes be created out of slang terms of the past, but this is rarely the case. To take the Modern Engligh vs. Olde English case -- the language has morphed, but it's not butchered. We no longer say "ye" and "thou", we spell "old" without the trailing "e". All of this is simply what you label as the evolution of language.

Other slang isn't (and hasn't been) tolerated in formal writing, why should chat shorthand be any different? I don't refer to people as "homies", I don't substitue "hello" for "yo", why would I write "str8" instead of "straight"? Granted, when I chat with friends and family, I often use shorthand like that to avoid typing. Same with text messaging on cell phones, where messages have size limits. But lazy shorthand like this should be reserved for situations where it makes sense -- writing a paper for school is definitely not one of those places.

Education is all about preparing you for The Real World, and in The Real World, writing like that isn't tolerated. You don't see a news anchor on CNN asking the financial analyst "what's the dilly-o down on Da Street?", because it's vernacular that should be reserved for colloquial conversations. Just because words and spellings have uses in laidback situations doesn't mean that they should be allowed to permeate the education system. Teachers should prepare sutdents for life after graduation, and life after graduation usually involves writing skills that don't make you look like a child of The Artist Currently Known As Prince

Prince (the most talented musician on the planet) is doing this right now.

He continually lashes out at the music biz. If you haven't already read his take on the state of affairs in the music biz, I highly recommend you do so. (Just ignore the way he writes to(2), you (U), etc...)

Prince (the most talented musician on the planet) is doing this right now.

He continually lashes out at the music biz. If you haven't already read his take on the state of affairs in the music biz, I highly recommend you do so. (Just ignore the way he writes to(2), you (U), etc...)

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just the fact moronic Americans pronounce Bernstein, neither, Einstein and other 'ei'-words as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illiteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• to vs too : Your spelling is too pathetic for your post to matter to me. The same goes forour grammar too.
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

A bunch of computer nerds without a sense for spelling and grammar mocking japanese game translators for their lack of skills in english spelling and grammar.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just the fact moronic Americans pronounce Bernstein, neither, Einstein and other 'ei'-words as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illiteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• to vs too : Your spelling is too pathetic for your post to matter to me. The same goes for your grammar too.
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

A bunch of computer nerds without a sense for spelling and grammar mocking japanese game translators for their lack of skills in english spelling and grammar.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just the fact moronic Americans pronounce Bernstein, neither, Einstein and other 'ei'-words as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illiteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• to vs too : Your spelling is too pathetic for your post to matter to me. Your grammar too.
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

A bunch of computer nerds without a sense for spelling and grammar mocking japanese game translators for their lack of skills in english spelling and grammar.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just the fact moronic Americans pronounce Bernstein, neither, Einstein and other 'ei'-words as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illiteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• to vs too : Your spelling is too pathetic for your post to matter to me. Your grammar too.
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

A bunch of computer nerds without a sense for spelling and grammar mocking japanese game translators for their lack of skills in english spelling and grammar.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just the fact moronic Americans pronounce Bernstein, neither, Einstein and other 'ei'-words as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illiteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• to vs too : Your spelling is too pathetic for your post to matter to me. Your grammar too.
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

A bunch of computer nerds without a sense for spelling and grammar mocking japanese game translators for their lack of skills in english spelling and grammar.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just because moronic Americans pronounce Bernstein, neither, Einstein and other 'ei'-words as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illitteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just because moronic Americans pronounce Berstein, neither, Einstein and other 'ei'-words as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illitteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just because moronic Americans pronounce Berstein, neither, Einstein and other 'ei'-words as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illitteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just because moronic Americans pronounce Berstein, neither, Einstein and other as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illitteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.
• lose vs. loose : the first is the verb associated with a loss. The second is the contrary of "firm"
• I could (not) care less. Most people say "I could care less" when they don't give a flying fuck. If they really could care less, then their lack of interest isn't that big. What they mean is that they could not care less.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just because moronic Americans pronounce Berstein, neither, Einstein and other as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illitteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.

• "Alot" vs. "A lot" : There is no such word as alot. In fact, when confronted with the word alot, ispell tells us the following : "how about : allot,aloe,aloft, alto, blot, clot, lot, plot, slot"
• Just because moronic Americans pronounce Berstein, neither, Einstein and other as "Burnstean", "neather", "Ainstean", etc... doesn't mean they have to write those words "Bernstien", "niether" or "Einstien". Special mention to "thier", "becuase" and "amatuer".
• "Than" vs. "Then" : Just the fact that in some inferior dialects of the English language, "than" and "then" are pronounced about the same way doesn't mean that the comparative "than" has any reason to be written as the conjunctive/logical "then".
• Your vs. You're : The former means "not my, not his, not our", in other words it is a possessive. The latter is a shortcut for "You are". Similar point for There vs Their vs They're.
• Hobbyist and lobbyist are not superlatives. Hence they musn't be written as hobbiest and lobbiest.
• Thi fuct thit ya ridnucks prunince any avelible vowal as "uh" doesn't forbid you to open a book from time to time to actually build up some vocabulary. It's "ludicrous" and "compatible", not "ludacris" and "compatable".
• Its vs It's. The former is the genitive form of "It" and will therefore make the following word an attribute of the word replaced by the pronoun. Example : illitteracy and its consequences. The latter is an shortcut for "It is". Example : Illiteracy. It's so annoying.

I'm not any kind of grammar nazi, but decent spelling and grammar are important to me. The occasional affect/effect problem doesn't bother me (it just lowers my opinion of the author), but when a piece is riddled with errors (there/they're/their, its/it's, then/than, etc..) it's hard for me to read. Partially, I think this is because I sight read and I don't subvocalize. In other words, when I see, "It's over their," in print the first thing I think is, "It's over their what? Is it hovering over their kitchen counter? Is it over their heads? What is this person trying to say?" Of course, I don't just sit there pondering those questions (it only takes a split second to see there was a grammar error in the sentence), but I can't read as quickly when every few lines my eyes flick back to an earlier word.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive. I don't know. If you don't know what I'm talking about though, check out this piece by Prince. It doesn't have very many grammar problems, but the "creative" spelling is really distracting.

Does anybody have a copy of prince2english.c? I seem 2 b having trouble reading Nation of Thieves...

Ever hear of Prince?

True, he began on a label, but after that, he left to distribute his stuff online. And a number of other groups are doing the same.

It seems unlikely a group will gain "super stardom" solely by online means. But if they make an impact, then go to online distribution, is that any less admirable? I don't think it is...

And don't buy Princes Black Album either. Although Prince (yes calling him that is allowed again) investigates new ways of distributing his music in a nice way, if you buy his Black Album, your money will just go to Warner Brothers.

It's better to join his on-line service.

Rather than whine and bitch about this stuff, I put my money where my mouth is. In February, Prince and the NPG launched http://www.npgmusicclub.com, a website that sells music and videos from Prince, the NPG, and other artists, for $7.77 a month or $100 a year (The $100 version also provides special concert seating, CDs, more music, and other stuff.). I can download and play it all with a proprietary player, or I can download it all from just about any web-browser (The site uses flash, but it can be navigated without flash.) and play the mp3 files on an OS of my choice. This month Prince will be posting his new album in entirety for memebers, before it ever hits stores.

Of course, Slashdot rejects all my submissions about this. The truth is, Slashdot does not want you to know about alternative music sources and support them, as that does not generate the massive amounts of postings and ad-viewings that people ranting about Microsoft, the government, and the RIAA do.

So when we listen to a Prince CD we have to wear womens clothing?

Prince is very much opposed to the money grubbing machinations of the music industry. Read some of his essays on http://www.npgmusicclub.com/.

"A preliminary survey of tech savvy online music enthusiasts recently conducted for the RIAA showed that nearly one out of two consumers surveyed downloaded in the past month and nearly 70 percent burned the music they downloaded"

I burn the mp3s that I download. I get them at www.npgmusicclub.com. These mp3s are sold by Prince and the NPG, and users are given the right to burn them to CD so that we can listen to them without using an mp3 player.

Of course, I can certainly see why this would have Ms. Rosen concerned. That fat bitch knows that the big record companies are going to watch their profits melt away as other companies like Tekadence and mp3.com help artists sell their music directly to fans at reasonable prices.

I think I need to write some letters to politicians now...

Prince has declared war against the major labels, particularly Warner Brothers (which issues 1999). If you have money to spend go to npgmusicclub.com where Prince is trying hard to create an alternative.

Reason not to replace Metallica:

They suck.

I want to get drunk with Hoagy Carmichael and

With court battles being waged over supposed pirating I only see it as a plus for artists trying to reap the rewards of their music without being systematically raped by the RIAA and their labels.

"It's the perfect model: the users pay you *and* for the bandwidth to share the songs they already bought"

Maybe if the users stopped "sharing" the files with people who did NOT buy them, this wouldn't have been such a big deal to begin with.

"Course I still don't see the benefit for us."

Taco, you must be blind. How is being able to get music digitally, and legitimatly, without actually buying a cd is not a benefit? Not to mention that Individual artists could work with Napster to sell their own music online in such a manner, giving them an easy way to distribute their work via an incredibly popular online service for little cost, without ever getting involved with record companies to begin with?

"No doubt we'll see more of these deals as napster becomes less relevant and decentralized networks grow in popularity."

Not too likely. Given that peer-to-peer networks like GNUtella scale poorly (See the Slashdot story about that here.), Napster is likely to experience a nice rebirth of sorts. Once users realize that they can just buy a few songs they want from record company whores like Britney Spears and J-Lo, instead of getting the less catching songs used as album filler between hits, money-conscious pop fans will jump right back to Napster.

This is just another crappy Slashdot post about the big evil record companies versus Napster, hero of the people and savior of artists. The Slashdot crew posts these because even though they hate the record companies (Rightly so, the record companies and their affects on music are disgusting.), they are too lazy to make a concerted effort to help artists survive independantly. Anyone with a brain knows that Napster is just as sleazy as Sony or BMG, and cares even less about the artists. At least the record companies front musicians money to work with. Napster just wants to leech off of the artists and record companies, growing fat on the blood of artists, as well as the pus and bile that fills the veins of record execs.

If Slashdot really wants to fight the record companies, perhaps they should bring up Prince's successful online music club, or review the work of independent artist Ani DiFranco, both working outside the world of record companies.

Stories like this are the product of laziness. If anything is to become less relevant on the net, it will be Slashdot, as a result of this crap, not Napster.

This item really cements that whole "news for nerds" thing. This is why I am getting sick of Slashdot: more and more articles are pointless. It isn't enough that they waste all the space on the Jon Katz stories that so many of us have stopped reading, but crap like this takes the cake.

I know plenty of people submit better stuff than this. Hell, I can think to two stories I have submitted about online music (One about Prince moving his music sales online, and one about a group of artists striking out against record companies.) and neither were posted, although they were certainly of more interest than yet another case modded for lan parties.

Is it just me, or does it seem that /. is just getting too geeky?

"obviously they didn't listen to one million mp3 files to make sure they were actually such-and-such a song"

And why should they? Is there any evidence that Napster users commonly give files that are meant to be freely redistributed on the net new names?

Napster users sharing copyrighted music not meant for free online redistribution are violating the Napster terms of service. I guarantee you that if Microsoft was accused of violating the GPL, the Slashdot crew would certainly be throwing fits about that!

If the Slashdot editors do not like the way that the record companies are handling online music, they should be working to promote change. They could, for instance post about Prince's online music distribution, the NPG Music Club, or point out Amazon's new mp3 distribution site.

Instead they just bitch and groan about the big evil record companies trying to shut down Napster, and people trying to ban the Napster users who are stealing from musicians.
No wonder the record companies are the ones winning this war.