To the question: You should really read up (check distrowatch.com for links to various reviews of different distros) before installing (or trying to install) Slackware. My first experience with it wasn't until after 4 months of Mandrake 9, and I couldn't even get X working without IRC help. Trying to jump straight into it (without basic familiarity with the Linux kernel and environment) will be unnecessarily hard.
I suppose the best way to ultimately become familiar with Linux is to ween yourself from distros like Ubuntu and Fedora for a few months to see how things really work behind the UI curtain distros like that provide. I'm still a total *nix noob myself, and will stay that way as long as I'm too lazy to find time to play around with anything other than Ubuntu [after spending about 4 years without Linux installed (after about a year worth of Mandrake)]
So, yeah. CN: Stay away until you are at least somewhat familiar with Linux. At least that's my own view (although admittedly inexperienced as I am).
I'd definitely be in for one. There is a HUGE market for tablet PCs (think about college students lugging around a different notebook for each class AND a laptop) - all we need is a company who can not only create a good tablet PC but that can market it to the target audience (college kids). Apple seems like the perfect candidate.
About a year ago I finally got one of my family members off of AOL dial-up (at $26/month) and onto Verizon's $15/month 768/128 plan. A total of $16-17 a month and it's been completely reliable. I'd find it hard to believe the OTD price on this new service would really be considerably cheaper.
Thanks for your expert opinion on all those matters. Hilary Clinton is the embodiment of honesty, and your insight on the war in Iraq is truly enlightening. You should try to contact the Joint Chiefs to inform them of this necessary increase in troop levels - I'm sure they're anxiously awaiting your opinion.
I'd also love to hear who this "chairman of electrical engineering at MIT" is. As far as I knew, there is no "chairman of electrical engineering" (or electrical engineering and computer science) at MIT. Oh, right. You just thought of the stereotypical elite United States technological university, assumed there was a "chairman" in individual departments, and decided this nonexistent chairman of the department Microsoft operates in would surely be a better choice for a presidential advisor/cabinet member than Steve Ballmer, without knowing anything about this person (including the fact he/she (or it?) doesn't exist.
See my other post about the Linux comment (IE - you are right, I am not in a position to make that claim).
As for the PC - you were an early adopter. The rise of the PC (rise meaning the general population could access them) came with Windows 3.0. (see my other reply in this topic for this in more detail).
1.) The first successful personal computer was the Apple II, not anything from Microsoft.
The Apple II led to the IBM PC, which in turn led to Windows and eventually Windows 3.0, which is what made the PC accessible enough for Joe Schmoe to learn how to use one in his basement in his free time. So the Joe Schmoes of the world start doing all this stuff on their PCs, and now there's a huge stockpile of information but no very easy way to share all of this. Thus, the internet.
So, the Apple II led to the thing which led to the thing which led to the thing that led to the rise of the internet. Right. But, let's pretend now that Steve Jobs had found college interesting and exciting (let's say he developed a love for chinese art history his first semester). Then the Apple II wouldn't have every happened. But, let's go back a few more steps. If Steve Jobs had been adopted by the original set of college-educated parents he was supposed to be adopted by, it's likely that a different environment growing up would have led to a very different person. So, with your reasoning, Steve Job's original adoptive parents backing out of the deal is what led to the rise of the internet.
And what ARPA did was come up with the technology which ultimately made the internet possible. So did those guys at University of HI with ALOHA. And the socio-political climate at the time made all of that possible. The technology, that is. NOT the implementation of it. Without Microsoft and Windows in the early 90's, the internet would NOT have become what it is today. There was no market for it before the PC was considered a "normal" product for "normal" people to own (Windows 3.0). Windows didn't lead to the PC - you are correct in that assertion. But it led to the rise of the PC.
And OK, you have me on the Linux thing. It would exist - or have existed, at some point. I am not very familiar with the whole history behind that, so I'll take your word for that and make sure to do my homework before making a claim like that next time (which was inappropriate). I did not mean to misconstrue your words, either (and I apologize if I did). But there is seriously some sort of information cascade here at/. regarding Microsoft (and the fact that your e-penis grows every time you make fun of them or Bill Gates). It's become unbearable (I used to just lurk and read the articles/comments) in that no one gives credit to Microsoft when credit is due. Microsoft (and Microsoft Research) is incredibly respected in the academic world - and given/.'s supposedly academic feel (at least ideally, it is used to promote reasonable and intelligent discussion of certain things), it doesn't make sense (to me, at least). Microsoft Research employees regularly contribute to scholarly journals and that sort of thing, and still attract the best minds from the best schools worldwide. You've heard of the cube-root idea behind innovation, I'll assume? That, for every 1000 new researchers/employees/whatever that you hire (as a company, as an academic institution [they could even be PhD grad students], whatever), only about 10 of them will ever have an idea (a product, concept, anything) that actually pans out. So of course you are going to find more failings in any company/institution in terms of product ideas/implementation than you will successes. This is an idea in the R&D stage, a LONG time and a LOT of money away from ever going anywhere. Still doesn't mean that it's not a good thing for companies to put the money into.
Yeah, that Bill Gates. Total moron. Only established the single most successful computer (hardware or software) company in the world. The company whose operating system led to the rise of the personal computer and, in turn, the internet. The company who, without, Linux (every/.er's favorite OS) would almost certainly not exist.
And he is 100% right. There is a huge market for well-implemented and well-marketed tablet PCs. Think about the millions of college students around the globe lugging 1000s upon 1000s of pages of textbooks and notebooks around with them. A single, well-implemented tablet PC could essentially replace all of that with a single device. And eventually, it will. Excuse Mr. Gates for being a little bit ahead of his time on that prediction. I'll bet that quote on xxxk of ram being the most anyone will ever need is a favorite of yours as well?
Since it's such an easy and obvious next step, if you could jsut point out the countless other companies that are currently working on this, it'd be much appreciated. Oh, wow, there aren't any other companies currently working on this? No matter, I'd rather just not have that option that to have it. Fuck Microsoft. In fact, fuck all the numerous academics who work with them too (from every top research university in the world). Those dumbasses don't have a clue what they are doing.
I anxiously await your brilliant counterattack. Oh, wait, you don't have one? That's right, those morons over at Microsoft Research (the same morons who regularly contribute to and work with the academic community) are up to their old tricks. Working on a product that is, for lack of a better term, one of a kind. Fucking idiots. I'd rather not have the option to connect my mobile phone to my TV at all than to have to deal with stupid Windows Media codecs!
Seriously, what would your next move be as Microsoft? Those fucking morons (who only established and are maintaining complete domination in the global operating system and office software environments) don't have a clue what they are doing - you could do so much better.
Then you are also pretty content ignoring what the future will almost certainly bring. Take my word (and the word of the top two CPU manufacturers in the world) - sooner than you think, EVERYTHING will have an x86 CPU in it. Whether you pretend you don't want that ("I'd rather have proprietary software in my phone!") or not, it's going to happen.
And considering that they are more or less the only company currently working on this, I'd still give them props for their efforts. My "troll" rating on that last reply pretty much says it all. I guess maybe the typical/.er would be happier without ANY options for hooking their mobile phone up to their PC. Personally, I'd much rather have that one Microsoft (oh, wow, a Microsoft product, let's boycott it) "Fone+" than no option at all for such a device. The Apple TV will only interface with Itunes and their very specific codec requirements. So what? One more product on the market = one more product for consumers to choose from.
Oh yeah, one of those Microsoft fanboys. As opposed to one of those typical Slashdotters "LOL WINDOWS VISTA SUX LINUX 4 LIFE" type of people. Everything Microsoft comes up with (like the single computer with 2 separate monitors and desktop environments), it's always "WTF WHO NEEDS THIS." Anything the Open Source community does, "Wow, what a fantastic idea." Give me a break. I find it hilarious how well-respected Microsoft Research is outside of Slashdot (in academia, for instance) but 90% of the comments on here act like everything they've ever done is just completely and utterly moronic. I even bought into it for Vista - the attitude on here for weeks was "Look, Microsoft is offering incentives, they must really be struggling!" 40 million licenses in 100 days. Really struggling.
Yes, the phone will eventually use ultra-low power x86 processors (something both AMD and Intel are working on) and essentially be a PC. And, for those that didn't notice, HDTV is the future. If you don't have an HDTV or a HD-capable monitor of some sort, you likely aren't going to purchase any $500+ phone that could function as a basic PC. And with Apple releasing the Apple TV, Microsoft is clearly not alone. Who would rather have a standalone device that interfaces with Itunes over simply hooking up their mobile phone?
No, Linux offers savings of about $90 a machine. Less per user. I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, but an OEM copy of Windows XP Home runs $85-90 and can be easily purchased online. Oh, you added in obligatory copies of Microsoft Office, a paid AV subscription, Photoshop, and 3D Studio Max? I'm sorry, I run XP on my desktop (Ubuntu on my laptop) and use OpenOffice, GIMP, AVG Free, and don't need 3D Studio Max. Cost me $85.
I'd like to know where I could get a second machine for $85 (all that money I could have saved by running Linux on all my computers). Even the $100 laptop costs $175 now.
But right. If this was developed by any Open Source team [and simultaneous logins are NOT the equivalent to running with two keyboards, two mice (or is it mouses?), and two monitors in entirely different environments. I'm pretty sure using this recently developed MS product you won't be able to just ALT+Fx into the other person's environment] it would just be dandy because no one would care to market it. It would just be there for people to use. But when the evil empire does it, we'll just assume they are going to try to shove this COST-SAVING technology down everyone's throats.
I will bet you any amount of money - any amount - that Microsoft would be glad to let you run your computer using just one monitor, keyboard, mouse, and desktop environment if you wanted. That's one of the more ridiculous Microsoft-bashing comments I've ever read, that they will try and force some multi-user technology down your throat (since they can just force you to buy two monitors and run two separate environments at once).
...that if this was developed by x Linux team everyone here would be raving about its usefulness. Why is everyone always so bitter towards Microsoft and literally EVERYTHING they do?
The title made it sound like someone posted a fake Craigslist ad, pissed off the wrong person who proceeded to find out where the fake poster lived, and then robbed that person. Kinda disappointing it was just some numbnuts who keeps their door unlocked.
Apple did not "buy cool." Since Steve Jobs returned to the company, they have effectively been "cool." Jobs just understands how to effectively market a product to the mainstream "cool" public, something Microsoft has really never been able to do.
The two biggest examples would be the in the MP3 player and search engine markets. The iPod is, more or less, the stereotypical "cool" new piece (or relatively new) piece of technology that all the kids want for Christmas. Microsoft has poured loads and loads of money into developing an equally "cool" competitor, and, largely, has failed. Google, while now a huge corporation in terms of market cap (yet still no-so-huge in terms of revenue), certainly didn't buy its way into pop culture lingo (and the dictionary), but really would be considered "cool." Again, Microsoft has poured loads and loads of money into MSN search and now Live.com but still lags behind Google and Yahoo in terms of search-engine market share. While certainly a marketing monstrosity, Microsoft is in no way "cool" despite trying to "buy cool" for the longest time. Even Windows Vista could be used as an example, with Microsoft spiffing up (and slowing down) their flagship operating system to try to make in more "cool."
I'm not sure about anywhere else, but I know Baltimore, MD already has a system of "blue-light" cameras in place on some street corners (which would seem like a more relevant example than London, considering London isn't even in the United States).
edwardpickman,
"Bar bands?" As in, small bands? Every band starts out as a "bar band." So sure, it will be hard to make a living off of playing small venues your whole career, but just about every band that "made it" in the history of music started off as a "bar band." And there have been a hundred times more "bar bands" that were just as talented but just lacked the lucky break that those who make it get.
And, if you are referring to "bar bands" as any independent musician, you are completely wrong. Phish made it without ever signing with a major record label, starting out by playing at small venues and bars and whatnot, eventually ended up headlining New Years Eve at Madison Square Garden for a number of years and certainly made enough dough to live pretty comfortably.
You should really try listening to your local independent radio station. There are THOUSANDS of independent artists out there with songs that are easily musically "good enough." At least to me, those guys sound like the same tired can't-sing-worth-a-damn Bad Religion punk wannabes. I'll pass.
Check out this song by a tiny little Baltimore, MD-based band called The Bridge. Normally sell about 300-400 tickets at $10-15 a pop for their shows in Baltimore and are lucky to sell 50 for $5 a pop outside of Maryland/DC. And easily sound as good, if not better, than bands making millions of dollars a year and packing huge Madison Square Garden.
I'm amazed at some of the replies like "Wow! Independent music! Can I buy some to help stick it up the RIAA's ass!?!" Wake up. Independent musicians have been in the top 40 before (Grateful Dead, Phish, among others). And there are ton of them. Don't support a band you don't like just because they are trying to make money without signing on with one of the big four.
Wow, so an independent artist hit the UK Top 40. Good for them. Ever heard of the Grateful Dead? How about Phish? Both sold out huge venues across the nation (and world) without the help of any major label for a combined 30+ years before the internet even showed up for the vast majority of America, let alone the mp3 format and broadband and online music distribution.
And now? With the.mp3 format and the internet and the whole "information age," what big independent act is around to follow in those footsteps? Koopa? Sure, there are independent "jam" acts all over the place trying to fill that void (Umphrey's McGee, Gov't Mule, Tea Leaf Green, String Cheese Incident as well as smaller acts like Soldiers of Jah Army and The Bridge) but, even with the help of the information age and the internet, have yet to really take off.
"...do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't." No, you don't. The Dead proved that over 30 years ago. Also proved you don't need the internet or any fancy information age form of communication, either.
Don't get me wrong. The most powerful way (especially for independent musicians) to get your music out is word of mouth. And sure, cell phones and the internet and sites like the Internet Archive all help, but likely it will still take a friend to tell you they saw [insert band here] and really liked them for you to do anything about it or to take notice of said artist. Great, so bands have websites and people can go there and possibly download music, or buy their CDs, or read all about them. People still need to have some motivation to go to that website.
All this shows is that, right now, Google is rolling. They have the money to allow workers to work on their own projects, get massages and eat gourmet meals. As soon as the margins start slimming down (and they always do), guess what the first things to go will be? Everything that makes them the greatest place to work...
What's wrong with giving people choices? Everyone is always so anti-monopoly as long as Microsoft is the monopoly - why should users of OpenOffice not have the option to use Microsoft's format?
If you ask me, it's definitely just the pessimist in you.
Slashdot Mirror
To the question: You should really read up (check distrowatch.com for links to various reviews of different distros) before installing (or trying to install) Slackware. My first experience with it wasn't until after 4 months of Mandrake 9, and I couldn't even get X working without IRC help. Trying to jump straight into it (without basic familiarity with the Linux kernel and environment) will be unnecessarily hard.
I suppose the best way to ultimately become familiar with Linux is to ween yourself from distros like Ubuntu and Fedora for a few months to see how things really work behind the UI curtain distros like that provide. I'm still a total *nix noob myself, and will stay that way as long as I'm too lazy to find time to play around with anything other than Ubuntu [after spending about 4 years without Linux installed (after about a year worth of Mandrake)]
So, yeah. CN: Stay away until you are at least somewhat familiar with Linux. At least that's my own view (although admittedly inexperienced as I am).
I'd definitely be in for one. There is a HUGE market for tablet PCs (think about college students lugging around a different notebook for each class AND a laptop) - all we need is a company who can not only create a good tablet PC but that can market it to the target audience (college kids). Apple seems like the perfect candidate.
About a year ago I finally got one of my family members off of AOL dial-up (at $26/month) and onto Verizon's $15/month 768/128 plan. A total of $16-17 a month and it's been completely reliable. I'd find it hard to believe the OTD price on this new service would really be considerably cheaper.
Amen.
Thanks for your expert opinion on all those matters. Hilary Clinton is the embodiment of honesty, and your insight on the war in Iraq is truly enlightening. You should try to contact the Joint Chiefs to inform them of this necessary increase in troop levels - I'm sure they're anxiously awaiting your opinion. I'd also love to hear who this "chairman of electrical engineering at MIT" is. As far as I knew, there is no "chairman of electrical engineering" (or electrical engineering and computer science) at MIT. Oh, right. You just thought of the stereotypical elite United States technological university, assumed there was a "chairman" in individual departments, and decided this nonexistent chairman of the department Microsoft operates in would surely be a better choice for a presidential advisor/cabinet member than Steve Ballmer, without knowing anything about this person (including the fact he/she (or it?) doesn't exist.
As for the PC - you were an early adopter. The rise of the PC (rise meaning the general population could access them) came with Windows 3.0. (see my other reply in this topic for this in more detail).
The Apple II led to the IBM PC, which in turn led to Windows and eventually Windows 3.0, which is what made the PC accessible enough for Joe Schmoe to learn how to use one in his basement in his free time. So the Joe Schmoes of the world start doing all this stuff on their PCs, and now there's a huge stockpile of information but no very easy way to share all of this. Thus, the internet.
So, the Apple II led to the thing which led to the thing which led to the thing that led to the rise of the internet. Right. But, let's pretend now that Steve Jobs had found college interesting and exciting (let's say he developed a love for chinese art history his first semester). Then the Apple II wouldn't have every happened. But, let's go back a few more steps. If Steve Jobs had been adopted by the original set of college-educated parents he was supposed to be adopted by, it's likely that a different environment growing up would have led to a very different person. So, with your reasoning, Steve Job's original adoptive parents backing out of the deal is what led to the rise of the internet.
And what ARPA did was come up with the technology which ultimately made the internet possible. So did those guys at University of HI with ALOHA. And the socio-political climate at the time made all of that possible. The technology, that is. NOT the implementation of it. Without Microsoft and Windows in the early 90's, the internet would NOT have become what it is today. There was no market for it before the PC was considered a "normal" product for "normal" people to own (Windows 3.0). Windows didn't lead to the PC - you are correct in that assertion. But it led to the rise of the PC.
And OK, you have me on the Linux thing. It would exist - or have existed, at some point. I am not very familiar with the whole history behind that, so I'll take your word for that and make sure to do my homework before making a claim like that next time (which was inappropriate). I did not mean to misconstrue your words, either (and I apologize if I did). But there is seriously some sort of information cascade here at /. regarding Microsoft (and the fact that your e-penis grows every time you make fun of them or Bill Gates). It's become unbearable (I used to just lurk and read the articles/comments) in that no one gives credit to Microsoft when credit is due. Microsoft (and Microsoft Research) is incredibly respected in the academic world - and given /.'s supposedly academic feel (at least ideally, it is used to promote reasonable and intelligent discussion of certain things), it doesn't make sense (to me, at least). Microsoft Research employees regularly contribute to scholarly journals and that sort of thing, and still attract the best minds from the best schools worldwide. You've heard of the cube-root idea behind innovation, I'll assume? That, for every 1000 new researchers/employees/whatever that you hire (as a company, as an academic institution [they could even be PhD grad students], whatever), only about 10 of them will ever have an idea (a product, concept, anything) that actually pans out. So of course you are going to find more failings in any company/institution in terms of product ideas/implementation than you will successes. This is an idea in the R&D stage, a LONG time and a LOT of money away from ever going anywhere. Still doesn't mean that it's not a good thing for companies to put the money into.
I wish I still had mod points because this is the first post in this thread that makes sense. 40 million licenses in 100 days. Pathetic.
Which is why they routinely work with various nonprofit (IE, academic) institutions...
And he is 100% right. There is a huge market for well-implemented and well-marketed tablet PCs. Think about the millions of college students around the globe lugging 1000s upon 1000s of pages of textbooks and notebooks around with them. A single, well-implemented tablet PC could essentially replace all of that with a single device. And eventually, it will. Excuse Mr. Gates for being a little bit ahead of his time on that prediction. I'll bet that quote on xxxk of ram being the most anyone will ever need is a favorite of yours as well?
Since it's such an easy and obvious next step, if you could jsut point out the countless other companies that are currently working on this, it'd be much appreciated. Oh, wow, there aren't any other companies currently working on this? No matter, I'd rather just not have that option that to have it. Fuck Microsoft. In fact, fuck all the numerous academics who work with them too (from every top research university in the world). Those dumbasses don't have a clue what they are doing.
I anxiously await your brilliant counterattack. Oh, wait, you don't have one? That's right, those morons over at Microsoft Research (the same morons who regularly contribute to and work with the academic community) are up to their old tricks. Working on a product that is, for lack of a better term, one of a kind. Fucking idiots. I'd rather not have the option to connect my mobile phone to my TV at all than to have to deal with stupid Windows Media codecs! Seriously, what would your next move be as Microsoft? Those fucking morons (who only established and are maintaining complete domination in the global operating system and office software environments) don't have a clue what they are doing - you could do so much better.
Then you are also pretty content ignoring what the future will almost certainly bring. Take my word (and the word of the top two CPU manufacturers in the world) - sooner than you think, EVERYTHING will have an x86 CPU in it. Whether you pretend you don't want that ("I'd rather have proprietary software in my phone!") or not, it's going to happen.
And considering that they are more or less the only company currently working on this, I'd still give them props for their efforts. My "troll" rating on that last reply pretty much says it all. I guess maybe the typical /.er would be happier without ANY options for hooking their mobile phone up to their PC. Personally, I'd much rather have that one Microsoft (oh, wow, a Microsoft product, let's boycott it) "Fone+" than no option at all for such a device. The Apple TV will only interface with Itunes and their very specific codec requirements. So what? One more product on the market = one more product for consumers to choose from.
Oh yeah, one of those Microsoft fanboys. As opposed to one of those typical Slashdotters "LOL WINDOWS VISTA SUX LINUX 4 LIFE" type of people. Everything Microsoft comes up with (like the single computer with 2 separate monitors and desktop environments), it's always "WTF WHO NEEDS THIS." Anything the Open Source community does, "Wow, what a fantastic idea." Give me a break. I find it hilarious how well-respected Microsoft Research is outside of Slashdot (in academia, for instance) but 90% of the comments on here act like everything they've ever done is just completely and utterly moronic. I even bought into it for Vista - the attitude on here for weeks was "Look, Microsoft is offering incentives, they must really be struggling!" 40 million licenses in 100 days. Really struggling. Yes, the phone will eventually use ultra-low power x86 processors (something both AMD and Intel are working on) and essentially be a PC. And, for those that didn't notice, HDTV is the future. If you don't have an HDTV or a HD-capable monitor of some sort, you likely aren't going to purchase any $500+ phone that could function as a basic PC. And with Apple releasing the Apple TV, Microsoft is clearly not alone. Who would rather have a standalone device that interfaces with Itunes over simply hooking up their mobile phone?
No, Linux offers savings of about $90 a machine. Less per user. I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, but an OEM copy of Windows XP Home runs $85-90 and can be easily purchased online. Oh, you added in obligatory copies of Microsoft Office, a paid AV subscription, Photoshop, and 3D Studio Max? I'm sorry, I run XP on my desktop (Ubuntu on my laptop) and use OpenOffice, GIMP, AVG Free, and don't need 3D Studio Max. Cost me $85. I'd like to know where I could get a second machine for $85 (all that money I could have saved by running Linux on all my computers). Even the $100 laptop costs $175 now. But right. If this was developed by any Open Source team [and simultaneous logins are NOT the equivalent to running with two keyboards, two mice (or is it mouses?), and two monitors in entirely different environments. I'm pretty sure using this recently developed MS product you won't be able to just ALT+Fx into the other person's environment] it would just be dandy because no one would care to market it. It would just be there for people to use. But when the evil empire does it, we'll just assume they are going to try to shove this COST-SAVING technology down everyone's throats. I will bet you any amount of money - any amount - that Microsoft would be glad to let you run your computer using just one monitor, keyboard, mouse, and desktop environment if you wanted. That's one of the more ridiculous Microsoft-bashing comments I've ever read, that they will try and force some multi-user technology down your throat (since they can just force you to buy two monitors and run two separate environments at once).
...that if this was developed by x Linux team everyone here would be raving about its usefulness. Why is everyone always so bitter towards Microsoft and literally EVERYTHING they do?
The title made it sound like someone posted a fake Craigslist ad, pissed off the wrong person who proceeded to find out where the fake poster lived, and then robbed that person. Kinda disappointing it was just some numbnuts who keeps their door unlocked.
Apple did not "buy cool." Since Steve Jobs returned to the company, they have effectively been "cool." Jobs just understands how to effectively market a product to the mainstream "cool" public, something Microsoft has really never been able to do. The two biggest examples would be the in the MP3 player and search engine markets. The iPod is, more or less, the stereotypical "cool" new piece (or relatively new) piece of technology that all the kids want for Christmas. Microsoft has poured loads and loads of money into developing an equally "cool" competitor, and, largely, has failed. Google, while now a huge corporation in terms of market cap (yet still no-so-huge in terms of revenue), certainly didn't buy its way into pop culture lingo (and the dictionary), but really would be considered "cool." Again, Microsoft has poured loads and loads of money into MSN search and now Live.com but still lags behind Google and Yahoo in terms of search-engine market share. While certainly a marketing monstrosity, Microsoft is in no way "cool" despite trying to "buy cool" for the longest time. Even Windows Vista could be used as an example, with Microsoft spiffing up (and slowing down) their flagship operating system to try to make in more "cool."
I'm not sure about anywhere else, but I know Baltimore, MD already has a system of "blue-light" cameras in place on some street corners (which would seem like a more relevant example than London, considering London isn't even in the United States).
edwardpickman, "Bar bands?" As in, small bands? Every band starts out as a "bar band." So sure, it will be hard to make a living off of playing small venues your whole career, but just about every band that "made it" in the history of music started off as a "bar band." And there have been a hundred times more "bar bands" that were just as talented but just lacked the lucky break that those who make it get. And, if you are referring to "bar bands" as any independent musician, you are completely wrong. Phish made it without ever signing with a major record label, starting out by playing at small venues and bars and whatnot, eventually ended up headlining New Years Eve at Madison Square Garden for a number of years and certainly made enough dough to live pretty comfortably.
Check out this song by a tiny little Baltimore, MD-based band called The Bridge. Normally sell about 300-400 tickets at $10-15 a pop for their shows in Baltimore and are lucky to sell 50 for $5 a pop outside of Maryland/DC. And easily sound as good, if not better, than bands making millions of dollars a year and packing huge Madison Square Garden.
I'm amazed at some of the replies like "Wow! Independent music! Can I buy some to help stick it up the RIAA's ass!?!" Wake up. Independent musicians have been in the top 40 before (Grateful Dead, Phish, among others). And there are ton of them. Don't support a band you don't like just because they are trying to make money without signing on with one of the big four.
And now? With the .mp3 format and the internet and the whole "information age," what big independent act is around to follow in those footsteps? Koopa? Sure, there are independent "jam" acts all over the place trying to fill that void (Umphrey's McGee, Gov't Mule, Tea Leaf Green, String Cheese Incident as well as smaller acts like Soldiers of Jah Army and The Bridge) but, even with the help of the information age and the internet, have yet to really take off.
"...do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't." No, you don't. The Dead proved that over 30 years ago. Also proved you don't need the internet or any fancy information age form of communication, either.
Don't get me wrong. The most powerful way (especially for independent musicians) to get your music out is word of mouth. And sure, cell phones and the internet and sites like the Internet Archive all help, but likely it will still take a friend to tell you they saw [insert band here] and really liked them for you to do anything about it or to take notice of said artist. Great, so bands have websites and people can go there and possibly download music, or buy their CDs, or read all about them. People still need to have some motivation to go to that website.
All this shows is that, right now, Google is rolling. They have the money to allow workers to work on their own projects, get massages and eat gourmet meals. As soon as the margins start slimming down (and they always do), guess what the first things to go will be? Everything that makes them the greatest place to work...
What's wrong with giving people choices? Everyone is always so anti-monopoly as long as Microsoft is the monopoly - why should users of OpenOffice not have the option to use Microsoft's format? If you ask me, it's definitely just the pessimist in you.