It's easy to be smug when you work in the health industry because it is the single largest, most profitable industry in the United States by far. People spend more on health care than anything else because THEIR HEALTH IS AT STAKE. Unlike music, which is a luxury, your health is not optional.
It's hardly a fair comparison. You are totally oblivious to the hardships of a musician's life. The average annual salary of a lowly General Practitioner is about $150,000 in the US. Imagine trying to record an album, buy a van, book a tour, and start driving on that amount - while sharing the remainder with 3 other guys to try and buy food and find somewhere to sleep.
Generally speaking, record labels never get a cent of concert revenues and bands rarely make money from record sales.
The concert revenues go almost entirely to the band and their team (manager, lawyer, roadies, etc.). They also typically keep money made from non-musical merchandise like t-shirts, hats, posters, stickers, etc. The band can profit greatly from wide exposure (like you might get from being popular on P2P).
The record label, on the other hand, usually doesn't get any merchandise revenue or revenue from touring at all. They have to make all of their money from sales of recordings. What happens in practice is that the label will give the band an "advance" so the band can make a recording. This advance might be $200,000 for an entry-level band and the band must use the money to create a suitable recording and buy food, clothing and shelter until it's time to make the next album--and the contract dictates a minimum time frame for this, typically 6 months or a year. The record label is usually entitled to 85% or more of revenues from the sale of record and under no obligation to release the album or spend any money promoting it. Before the band makes another dime off record sales, this entire amount (and any additional expenses the label might incur in getting the record to market) must be recouped from record sales. It almost never is because the label will bill things like air conditioning, coffee, dinners with friends, parties, etc. and because the record label has to pay to have the album pressed and distributed which can be quite expensive. My old record label was making something like $2 off every $10 record sold in a store because the store wanted a cut, the distributor (V2 records) took a huge cut and had to pay their sales team to place it in stores, etc. I think we were entitled to something like 25 cents per $10 record sold according to the terms of our contract. Try paying off $200,000 at that rate.
Given that most bands don't ever see a dime from sales of music recordings, I would imagine that P2P seems like a great option for them. Conversely, record labels are going to hate it because it means giving their product away for free or for optional compensation. It is possible to build a business on optional compensation but I wouldn't want to do it.
I see this helping bands in the long term because it means free distribution of records. I also see it hurting bands because record labels are whithering away - where is that $200,000 advance going to come from? You might see a lot of cheap-to-produce music (like house, rap, or punk) coming out of this situation, but you won't see records like Dark Side of the Moon (which took like 2 years to make) or Pet Sounds coming out of this situation. What you will see is an increasingly splintered industry with gazillions of bands and incredible variety. You'll also see the prefabricated, talentless stars like Miley Cyrus making boatloads in this scheme.
The situation is not totally gloomy because you don't need anywhere near $200,000 to record a good record today. You can get protools or logic for cheap. You can also whore yourself out to some rich patron for the big bucks to do a truly awesome recording if you don't mind a lifetime of indentured servitude which is basically the old way of doing things.
I know it's probably a big fat security risk, but I've always thought it would be great if a router could be auto-configured to open the ports necessary to run an MMOG or other application rather than having to visit a site like port-forward.com.
I would agree that the scientific method is not dead, but I like this rebuttal. The scientific method as I understand it is
1) Observe
2) Form a hypothesis or create a model to explain some phenomenon
3) Experiment and gather empirical data to support or refute the hypothesis/model
We still do all that but the emphasis does seem to be shifting away from traditional models that are sweeping generalizations (e.g., "An atom has a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by moving electrons") to more nuanced, numerous, highly specific, and esoteric observations which are cobbled together into a patchwork of quasi-models that collectively define a distributed understanding of the real underlying concept. No single person understands the big picture in its entirety and no single model dominates scientific disciplines. Nay! Controversy is rampant.
These quasi-models manifest themselves as scientific papers, correspondence between academics, and flame wars on web vBulletin or phpBB sites and in practice, people subscribe to them a la carte like they were ordering at McDonald's or something.They stitch together their own stylized scientific philosophy from a vast menu of options.
In my opinion, all these claims that "we scientists are still doing science and we do understand the universe" are actually kind of pathetic. To call your data on the propagation of a particular gene variant in D. melanogaster a 'model' is hubris. You are a technician, not a scientist. You are a cog in the machine. We are all just neurons in the collective brain.
Good code avoids putting variables or functions unnecessarily in the global namespace. This means that the likelihood of name collisions is less likely so your code project is more likely to play nice with other code projects.
It's also good practice to try and make all of your code non-reentrant and threadsafe. As processors sprout an increasing number of cores, it is important to make sure your code can take advantage of the extra power.
It's also a good idea to COMMENT your code and DOCUMENT your processes. There's nothing worse than stumbling across something you wrote 10 years ago and having no idea how it works.
I sat in an Aeron chair for about 3 years and it was a nice chair but it pinched my hamstrings just above the kneecaps because the mesh was so soft that the frame was cutting into the back of my leg. This is back when I weighed 140 lbs.
I have a think chair from steelcase. It's da bomb. I'm not sure how much they are retail but I got mine for about $400. It's very comfortable and multi adjustable. They are also fairly green materials-wise. I'd highly recommend it.
The leap chair is a nicer one they have (i think it's nicer anyway). They have some cool chairs.
The last thing we need is overpaid assholes like professional athletes or the faux royalty of hollywood ruining the game business.
Note to rockstar: I would have done that voice-over work for half what he got. You can always call me;)
You have only succeeded in making yourself more irritating. By 'expressiveness,' I mean the ability to express my end result in code with the least amount of effort (i.e., the least amount of lines, files, and code).
For C or C++ or any other stricly typed language, you are tasked with type conversion and casting. This adds lines.
For Javascript, Actionscript, VBScript, or any other sandboxed, client-side scripting language you can't manipulate the file system or talk to a database without any intermediary. These language require more effort to write the intermediary.
And LISP can be extended? Great! enjoy that will ya? LISP is easily the most unreadable langugage that I have ever seen beyond binary and assembler. Also, the need to extend the language itself requires more effort.
Don't trouble yourself writing another retort. I can tell this isn't going to lead to anything productive.
In addition to PHP, I have programmed in assembler, Basic, C, C++, VB, VBScript, WordBasic, Java, Javascript (and Jscript), Actionscript (1, 2, and 3), Lisp, and Pascal. I disagree that any of these are more expressive than PHP. Also, to assume it's all I know is *really* irritating.
I've noticed that every single article here mentioning PHP is immediately tagged 'phpsucks'. I find PHP incredibly expressive and am always surprised by the incredible variety of libraries/modules/plugins to manipulate graphics, flash, pdfs, to support protocols like SOAP, JSON, etc.
Babbage's difference, engine. Granted, it never ran when Babbage was alive, but he designed it in 1822 or something and Nathan Myhrvold (sp?) had one built recently.
The bickering is an age-old story. It's the reason bands break up and countries go to war and people get divorced. People disagree and they need to feel that what they are working toward is worthwhile. Too-many-cooks syndrome has *got* to be a common problem on open source projects.
The auto-resizing window to me does sound a bit ridiculous. Or at least insisting it is the only option is ridiculous. Of course, not being a developer, I don't have any idea why they would do such a silly thing. There's probably some good reason rooted in lethargy that prevents them from providing options.
I would wager my life savings (not a lot of money sadly) that this guy's report is based on the simple assumption that if people weren't using FOSS software, they'd be buying some proprietary solution. I believe that assumption is absolutely true. However, to say it is 'decimating the traditional software market' requires that you define the 'traditional software market.' I'd guess that means Oracle, Novell, Microsoft, etc. and to that I say "SO WHAT??". If that's the case, the traditional software market can go fuck itself. They never offered me a job.
I'd wager the software development industry has grown dramatically because of the availability of FOSS. The idea of handing $60B to those old dinosaurs and watching them spend it on garbage like Vista makes me sick. If I had to purchase Windows Server 2003/2008/whatever to start programming it never would have happened.
Slashdot Mirror
The botnets are too busy attacking Georgia to keep sending you spam too.
Totally! Personally, I've always wondered why he shaves some of his chins and not the others.
George Lucas is a man with his head up his ass.
It's easy to be smug when you work in the health industry because it is the single largest, most profitable industry in the United States by far. People spend more on health care than anything else because THEIR HEALTH IS AT STAKE. Unlike music, which is a luxury, your health is not optional.
It's hardly a fair comparison. You are totally oblivious to the hardships of a musician's life. The average annual salary of a lowly General Practitioner is about $150,000 in the US. Imagine trying to record an album, buy a van, book a tour, and start driving on that amount - while sharing the remainder with 3 other guys to try and buy food and find somewhere to sleep.
Generally speaking, record labels never get a cent of concert revenues and bands rarely make money from record sales.
The concert revenues go almost entirely to the band and their team (manager, lawyer, roadies, etc.). They also typically keep money made from non-musical merchandise like t-shirts, hats, posters, stickers, etc. The band can profit greatly from wide exposure (like you might get from being popular on P2P).
The record label, on the other hand, usually doesn't get any merchandise revenue or revenue from touring at all. They have to make all of their money from sales of recordings. What happens in practice is that the label will give the band an "advance" so the band can make a recording. This advance might be $200,000 for an entry-level band and the band must use the money to create a suitable recording and buy food, clothing and shelter until it's time to make the next album--and the contract dictates a minimum time frame for this, typically 6 months or a year. The record label is usually entitled to 85% or more of revenues from the sale of record and under no obligation to release the album or spend any money promoting it. Before the band makes another dime off record sales, this entire amount (and any additional expenses the label might incur in getting the record to market) must be recouped from record sales. It almost never is because the label will bill things like air conditioning, coffee, dinners with friends, parties, etc. and because the record label has to pay to have the album pressed and distributed which can be quite expensive. My old record label was making something like $2 off every $10 record sold in a store because the store wanted a cut, the distributor (V2 records) took a huge cut and had to pay their sales team to place it in stores, etc. I think we were entitled to something like 25 cents per $10 record sold according to the terms of our contract. Try paying off $200,000 at that rate.
Given that most bands don't ever see a dime from sales of music recordings, I would imagine that P2P seems like a great option for them. Conversely, record labels are going to hate it because it means giving their product away for free or for optional compensation. It is possible to build a business on optional compensation but I wouldn't want to do it.
I see this helping bands in the long term because it means free distribution of records. I also see it hurting bands because record labels are whithering away - where is that $200,000 advance going to come from? You might see a lot of cheap-to-produce music (like house, rap, or punk) coming out of this situation, but you won't see records like Dark Side of the Moon (which took like 2 years to make) or Pet Sounds coming out of this situation. What you will see is an increasingly splintered industry with gazillions of bands and incredible variety. You'll also see the prefabricated, talentless stars like Miley Cyrus making boatloads in this scheme.
The situation is not totally gloomy because you don't need anywhere near $200,000 to record a good record today. You can get protools or logic for cheap. You can also whore yourself out to some rich patron for the big bucks to do a truly awesome recording if you don't mind a lifetime of indentured servitude which is basically the old way of doing things.
How about McDonald's, you lazy bastard.
I know it's probably a big fat security risk, but I've always thought it would be great if a router could be auto-configured to open the ports necessary to run an MMOG or other application rather than having to visit a site like port-forward.com.
I would agree that the scientific method is not dead, but I like this rebuttal. The scientific method as I understand it is
1) Observe
2) Form a hypothesis or create a model to explain some phenomenon
3) Experiment and gather empirical data to support or refute the hypothesis/model
We still do all that but the emphasis does seem to be shifting away from traditional models that are sweeping generalizations (e.g., "An atom has a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by moving electrons") to more nuanced, numerous, highly specific, and esoteric observations which are cobbled together into a patchwork of quasi-models that collectively define a distributed understanding of the real underlying concept. No single person understands the big picture in its entirety and no single model dominates scientific disciplines. Nay! Controversy is rampant.
These quasi-models manifest themselves as scientific papers, correspondence between academics, and flame wars on web vBulletin or phpBB sites and in practice, people subscribe to them a la carte like they were ordering at McDonald's or something.They stitch together their own stylized scientific philosophy from a vast menu of options.
In my opinion, all these claims that "we scientists are still doing science and we do understand the universe" are actually kind of pathetic. To call your data on the propagation of a particular gene variant in D. melanogaster a 'model' is hubris. You are a technician, not a scientist. You are a cog in the machine. We are all just neurons in the collective brain.
I bet master chief's got one of those.
yes you are right i think. i'm down with the concept, just not the jargon. or something.
oops...my bad. still a bit new to thread safety jargon.
Good code avoids putting variables or functions unnecessarily in the global namespace. This means that the likelihood of name collisions is less likely so your code project is more likely to play nice with other code projects.
It's also good practice to try and make all of your code non-reentrant and threadsafe. As processors sprout an increasing number of cores, it is important to make sure your code can take advantage of the extra power.
It's also a good idea to COMMENT your code and DOCUMENT your processes. There's nothing worse than stumbling across something you wrote 10 years ago and having no idea how it works.
I sat in an Aeron chair for about 3 years and it was a nice chair but it pinched my hamstrings just above the kneecaps because the mesh was so soft that the frame was cutting into the back of my leg. This is back when I weighed 140 lbs.
I have a think chair from steelcase. It's da bomb. I'm not sure how much they are retail but I got mine for about $400. It's very comfortable and multi adjustable. They are also fairly green materials-wise. I'd highly recommend it.
The leap chair is a nicer one they have (i think it's nicer anyway). They have some cool chairs.
So somebody forgot that some of us are *music nerds*. That video gets a D-.
The last thing we need is overpaid assholes like professional athletes or the faux royalty of hollywood ruining the game business. Note to rockstar: I would have done that voice-over work for half what he got. You can always call me ;)
Awesome 8===D.~
I find American English expressive. We save bytes by typing 'watercolors' instead of 'watercolours'.
You have only succeeded in making yourself more irritating. By 'expressiveness,' I mean the ability to express my end result in code with the least amount of effort (i.e., the least amount of lines, files, and code).
For C or C++ or any other stricly typed language, you are tasked with type conversion and casting. This adds lines.
For Javascript, Actionscript, VBScript, or any other sandboxed, client-side scripting language you can't manipulate the file system or talk to a database without any intermediary. These language require more effort to write the intermediary.
And LISP can be extended? Great! enjoy that will ya? LISP is easily the most unreadable langugage that I have ever seen beyond binary and assembler. Also, the need to extend the language itself requires more effort.
Don't trouble yourself writing another retort. I can tell this isn't going to lead to anything productive.
In addition to PHP, I have programmed in assembler, Basic, C, C++, VB, VBScript, WordBasic, Java, Javascript (and Jscript), Actionscript (1, 2, and 3), Lisp, and Pascal. I disagree that any of these are more expressive than PHP. Also, to assume it's all I know is *really* irritating.
I've noticed that every single article here mentioning PHP is immediately tagged 'phpsucks'. I find PHP incredibly expressive and am always surprised by the incredible variety of libraries/modules/plugins to manipulate graphics, flash, pdfs, to support protocols like SOAP, JSON, etc.
Perhaps we need an article on 'why php sucks' ?
Babbage's difference, engine. Granted, it never ran when Babbage was alive, but he designed it in 1822 or something and Nathan Myhrvold (sp?) had one built recently.
The bickering is an age-old story. It's the reason bands break up and countries go to war and people get divorced. People disagree and they need to feel that what they are working toward is worthwhile. Too-many-cooks syndrome has *got* to be a common problem on open source projects.
The auto-resizing window to me does sound a bit ridiculous. Or at least insisting it is the only option is ridiculous. Of course, not being a developer, I don't have any idea why they would do such a silly thing. There's probably some good reason rooted in lethargy that prevents them from providing options.
I would wager my life savings (not a lot of money sadly) that this guy's report is based on the simple assumption that if people weren't using FOSS software, they'd be buying some proprietary solution. I believe that assumption is absolutely true. However, to say it is 'decimating the traditional software market' requires that you define the 'traditional software market.' I'd guess that means Oracle, Novell, Microsoft, etc. and to that I say "SO WHAT??". If that's the case, the traditional software market can go fuck itself. They never offered me a job.
I'd wager the software development industry has grown dramatically because of the availability of FOSS. The idea of handing $60B to those old dinosaurs and watching them spend it on garbage like Vista makes me sick. If I had to purchase Windows Server 2003/2008/whatever to start programming it never would have happened.
That might be worth $3 million.
Save the planet, kill yourself.