The result of this kind of concept art isn't a piece of work that's enjoyable in a traditional way. Instead, it stimulates interest--positive or negative--and discussion about what art is. For instance, fractal geometers have often been slandered as not producing "art" because their pictures are created by mathematical formulae. (However, these pictures are usually enjoyable in the standard sense.) Now, on the other hand, we have a biological entity "creating" music, and it sounds shitty, but will those anti-math critics consider it "art"? Perhaps it's not too deep, but there is certainly some art to the idea, process, and presentation, if not the result.
That said, IMO this work is totally overblown. There is nothing special about the way bacteria damage a disc. For instance, I can say for sure that his damaged jpegs have exactly the same qualities as my totally random corrupt program.
Movement and aiming on the same hand is great, because you can take your other hand off the keyboard (to scratch, drink, or hit distant keys) and still keep moving!
The Boomslang is amazing. Forget optical mice, forget your fancy see-through one-button mac mice. It has amazing DPI, a really low form factor, and a great scroll wheel. It also costs a hundred bucks, but it was worth it.
True. To do a good test, one of the computers would have to be cross-compiling to the other architecture, so that they'd both be running the same code!
It's true that there is a lot more functional programming going on in Europe. But there is also plenty in the US. If you have an interest in a particular subject, find faculty who have published good, readable papers in the area, and then apply to the schools where those faculty work. I can tell you that CMU and Cornell have great typed functional programming groups (very European style, in fact), although CMU at least does not have a general CS masters program; you'd have to do a PhD. Several other schools like UPenn, Berkeley, and Harvey-Mudd are building strong programs in the same vein as well.
> If I came across as "excited" about it in more than a "don't screw with me or mine" way, then I spoke (wrote) poorly.
OK, in that case, it was probably my own prejudice, since I have heard very similar comments from gun aficionados who were genuinely excited.
> more meaning to convey the idea that I would not take lightly to anyone else without any particularly special legal status > "searching" my house, so why would I let the RIAA do so?
Well, few people took you up on that because I think we all agree that we don't want the RIAA searching our house, and wouldn't treat it any differently than a burglar!
Well, my comment was directed more to the sentiment in general, than to your particular situation.
But my point is equally applicable to people who look forward to using their swords, knives, chemical spray, karate skills, or whatever.
Yes, indeed, I am twitchy about the idea that someone would be excited use deadly force, because that is precisely the "I'll show them!" attitude that causes so many accidents. Why do you find that scary?
This is the really scary thing about many gun rights folks--they really look forward to the *opportunity* to shoot somebody.
I'm not saying that searching your house is legal, or that you shouldn't use deadly force if someone actually threatens you, but there are lot of fairly innocent things that can be mistaken for a search, that definitely do not justify killing someone.
Actually, aside from the twisted quotes this may be the most reasonable thing to come out of Darl's mouth since the fiasco started. It is true that if the open source movement wants to create "enterprise" software that "meets the needs of today's demanding e-business customers" or some shit, that they should really work on the way they spin their work. I don't actually care about enterprise software, myself, but some people do and they should pay attention that part. (This is why I align myself with the Free Software movement rather than the Open Source movement--I never have to use the word "enterprise" in seriousness.)
But the really sad thing about this letter is that it acts as if Darl is just waiting at the negotiation table to resolve this. Yet, despite totally reasonable requests (and IP-protecting methodologies) from the "open source community" to discover the purportedly infringing code so that it can be dealt with, SCO has *not* been willing to do that. All these IP issues could be resolved in weeks if not days with the cooperation of SCO.
Sweet. I've always wanted window panes that I can "turn off", and this is getting pretty close. Liquid crystals aren't so good because you need to keep the voltage applied in order to keep the crystals aligned.
Well, frob, I agree with you that frivolous lawsuits are a problem. But I think this would be a straightforward argument, and it hasn't been rejected in any of those court cases. The closest thing you cite above is actually my own run-in with the DMCA, (embedding fonts). I think you are totally wrong in claiming that there was a "big cost" in me keeping that software up. All I did was present essentially that legal argument (it cannot be a circumvention device because I use it on works for which I own the copyright), they harassed me a bit, and then they gave up.
Safe or not, it's an important thing to do, and therefore it should be done.
Even if the developers of a competing office suite could figure out how to get their software to open an Office 2003 document, doing so would be a DMCA violation, since they'd be bypassing an anti-circumvention device.
No, wrong. Circumvention only happens if it is done without the authority of the copyright holder. Since an office file opener could be used to open your own documents, or documents that others want you to open, there exists a substantial non-infringing use, so the software would not be a circumvention device.
In the spirit of those people promoting their own stupid comic strips, I'll mention my established Album-a-day project, wherein participants are challenged to create an entire album in one 24-hour period. There's like 60 albums there.
My only advice is: don't be afraid to turn a customer that you feel will be problematic down. If you can avoid that small percentage of people who will cause a large percentage of your trouble, great!
Also, try to get a Reseller tax ID and accounts with some of the online distributors (techdata, ingram micro), etc. They can't always beat the online shops like newegg, but sometimes the deals are really sweet and they do actually have service.
Absolutely true. There is a certain change that often happens when a band breaks. I've heard it many times! Perhaps it is because they were more innovative when they didn't have to worry about The Band being their job. Perhaps there are too many influential--and contradictory--voices when making a product. Perhaps the creativity of unsigned bands dies equally, but we are too quick to blame the Man because it is so convenient.
There is of course a stigma attached to popular things among the "cool" kids, though, and that is also a real effect. (I am guilty: I wouldn't listen to Radiohead for years because of "Creep" and because they are so popular.) It doesn't just happen with music, either; how many people do you know who now use BSD instead of Linux because (insert whatever fake reason) but really it's because Linux is now too mainstream?
Slashdot Mirror
> There's no art to it...
The result of this kind of concept art isn't a piece of work that's enjoyable in a traditional way. Instead, it stimulates interest--positive or negative--and discussion about what art is. For instance, fractal geometers have often been slandered as not producing "art" because their pictures are created by mathematical formulae. (However, these pictures are usually enjoyable in the standard sense.) Now, on the other hand, we have a biological entity "creating" music, and it sounds shitty, but will those anti-math critics consider it "art"? Perhaps it's not too deep, but there is certainly some art to the idea, process, and presentation, if not the result.
That said, IMO this work is totally overblown. There is nothing special about the way bacteria damage a disc. For instance, I can say for sure that his damaged jpegs have exactly the same qualities as my totally random corrupt program.
Movement and aiming on the same hand is great, because you can take your other hand off the keyboard (to scratch, drink, or hit distant keys) and still keep moving!
Indeed, I do have fond memories of that thing, which still works after all these years. What a machine!
The Boomslang is amazing. Forget optical mice, forget your fancy see-through one-button mac mice. It has amazing DPI, a really low form factor, and a great scroll wheel. It also costs a hundred bucks, but it was worth it.
True. To do a good test, one of the computers would have to be cross-compiling to the other architecture, so that they'd both be running the same code!
It's true that there is a lot more functional programming going on in Europe. But there is also plenty in the US. If you have an interest in a particular subject, find faculty who have published good, readable papers in the area, and then apply to the schools where those faculty work. I can tell you that CMU and Cornell have great typed functional programming groups (very European style, in fact), although CMU at least does not have a general CS masters program; you'd have to do a PhD. Several other schools like UPenn, Berkeley, and Harvey-Mudd are building strong programs in the same vein as well.
> If I came across as "excited" about it in more than a "don't screw with me or mine" way, then I spoke (wrote) poorly.
OK, in that case, it was probably my own prejudice, since I have heard very similar comments from gun aficionados who were genuinely excited.
> more meaning to convey the idea that I would not take lightly to anyone else without any particularly special legal status
> "searching" my house, so why would I let the RIAA do so?
Well, few people took you up on that because I think we all agree that we don't want the RIAA searching our house, and wouldn't treat it any differently than a burglar!
And cut admissibility theorems for constructive logics that can be used to show the existence of normal proofs for any provable proposition or ...
oops, don't tell the DOD!
Well, my comment was directed more to the sentiment in general, than to your particular situation.
But my point is equally applicable to people who look forward to using their swords, knives, chemical spray, karate skills, or whatever.
Yes, indeed, I am twitchy about the idea that someone would be excited use deadly force, because that is precisely the "I'll show them!" attitude that causes so many accidents. Why do you find that scary?
This is the really scary thing about many gun rights folks--they really look forward to the *opportunity* to shoot somebody.
I'm not saying that searching your house is legal, or that you shouldn't use deadly force if someone actually threatens you, but there are lot of fairly innocent things that can be mistaken for a search, that definitely do not justify killing someone.
Actually, aside from the twisted quotes this may be the most reasonable thing to come out of Darl's mouth since the fiasco started. It is true that if the open source movement wants to create "enterprise" software that "meets the needs of today's demanding e-business customers" or some shit, that they should really work on the way they spin their work. I don't actually care about enterprise software, myself, but some people do and they should pay attention that part. (This is why I align myself with the Free Software movement rather than the Open Source movement--I never have to use the word "enterprise" in seriousness.)
But the really sad thing about this letter is that it acts as if Darl is just waiting at the negotiation table to resolve this. Yet, despite totally reasonable requests (and IP-protecting methodologies) from the "open source community" to discover the purportedly infringing code so that it can be dealt with, SCO has *not* been willing to do that. All these IP issues could be resolved in weeks if not days with the cooperation of SCO.
Not "Solaris" (1972)?
I actually didn't think Barry Lyndon was that boring.
> ... you get generation loss every time you dupe the concert.
You mean, the first time you transfer it to CD.
Sure, a laptop with a 24-bit, 96-khz sound card.
If you're doing field recordings, though, I somehow doubt that you need such fidelity. Then, portable MD recorders are pretty attractive...
Sweet. I've always wanted window panes that I can "turn off", and this is getting pretty close. Liquid crystals aren't so good because you need to keep the voltage applied in order to keep the crystals aligned.
Start with a split keyboard, like Microsoft's Natural Keyboard. It'll at least make sure you use the correct hands to hit keys.
Damn, dude, I have been buying CDs for $10-$13 for years. Are prices really that bad now at the chain record stores?
Well, frob, I agree with you that frivolous lawsuits are a problem. But I think this would be a straightforward argument, and it hasn't been rejected in any of those court cases. The closest thing you cite above is actually my own run-in with the DMCA, (embedding fonts). I think you are totally wrong in claiming that there was a "big cost" in me keeping that software up. All I did was present essentially that legal argument (it cannot be a circumvention device because I use it on works for which I own the copyright), they harassed me a bit, and then they gave up.
Safe or not, it's an important thing to do, and therefore it should be done.
Even if the developers of a competing office suite could figure out how to get their software to open an Office 2003 document, doing so would be a DMCA violation, since they'd be bypassing an anti-circumvention device.
No, wrong. Circumvention only happens if it is done without the authority of the copyright holder. Since an office file opener could be used to open your own documents, or documents that others want you to open, there exists a substantial non-infringing use, so the software would not be a circumvention device.
In the spirit of those people promoting their own stupid comic strips, I'll mention my established Album-a-day project , wherein participants are challenged to create an entire album in one 24-hour period. There's like 60 albums there.
My only advice is: don't be afraid to turn a customer that you feel will be problematic down. If you can avoid that small percentage of people who will cause a large percentage of your trouble, great!
Also, try to get a Reseller tax ID and accounts with some of the online distributors (techdata, ingram micro), etc. They can't always beat the online shops like newegg, but sometimes the deals are really sweet and they do actually have service.
Hmmm, if it's intended to protect consumers... I wonder if they'll let me register a legit copy from two different home computers?
(I'm guessing NO!)
And the posts whining about whining?
Also cited on slashdot two weeks ago.
Absolutely true. There is a certain change that often happens when a band breaks. I've heard it many times! Perhaps it is because they were more innovative when they didn't have to worry about The Band being their job. Perhaps there are too many influential--and contradictory--voices when making a product. Perhaps the creativity of unsigned bands dies equally, but we are too quick to blame the Man because it is so convenient.
There is of course a stigma attached to popular things among the "cool" kids, though, and that is also a real effect. (I am guilty: I wouldn't listen to Radiohead for years because of "Creep" and because they are so popular.) It doesn't just happen with music, either; how many people do you know who now use BSD instead of Linux because (insert whatever fake reason) but really it's because Linux is now too mainstream?