Good point. But to be safe, I have a doze box and two linux boxes as well. I may find myself wondering if I want to continue supporting the Mac after my current (but aging) system dies.
According to the link in my sig, Intel has a knack for attempting product 'innovations' that aren't very consumer-friendly. My what short memories people have - this is what the Intel CPUID debacle was all about. Now they're going after it again, only under a more righteous-sounding moniker: "Palladium". It sounds like a place you'd go on Friday nights to have fun, but I suspect that fun is the last thing that will come of this mess.
I've always believed that if you go the route of congress, or that of most other publicly-elected offices, at some point, one way or another, you end up selling out. Once this happens, the focus is on the (campaign) money and pimping favors. At that point, one's integrity is pretty well shot, and that's really all there is left.
I watched this with an assoiate a few months ago, and I have to say that it really changed my impression of the.com gold rush. Mainly, it left me with a sense of hope that there were actually people out there with good ideas, reasonable business models, and the potential to make some honest money. What really impressed me is that the three guys who ran the startup to its final day didn't walk away with a pile of cash - they walked away with next to NOTHING. They didn't pay themselves exorbitant salaries to "play" CEO like those in most of these startups, they invested the money building the infrastructure that, if sustainable on its own merits, would provide the means for reward down the road - at which point they'd have actually earned it
"Then why bother?" you may ask. Well, there are a few concepts that don't seem to get much attention these days: integrity, humility, and reality. The guys that ran this company may not have walked away with money, but they despite their disagreements, they did their best. Above all, they earned my respect.
I'd encourage those who haven't seen this to do so.
It would be one thing if they'd walked away from these ventures actually having accomplished something, or having created something of lasting value. The most ironic part of all is that they even have this money in the first place - money they supposedly earned while participating in a failed venture. I hope I'm not the only one who can see that this is back-assward.
I've been asked about three times as I've exited the grocery store if I'm a registered voter. "Are you freaking kidding?" I'd ask myself. It's just one more piece of information in all the wrong hands.
If the tenuous nature of making a living off your music bothers you, maybe you should get a day job. I'm sorry, but at no point in human history did the majority of musicians make a good living at it.
And at no point in history have artists had endure so much self-serving THEFT of their work.
If you want me to pay $20 for your CD, make damned sure you sell it in a format that I can easilly back up on my HD, and take full advantage of Fair Use whenever I want. Otherwise you won't ever sell one to me, no matter what your SAT score was.
An artist will sell it in whatever format he/she sees fit. If it doesn't work for you, don't buy it. End of transaction.
You do not have a right to make money off your art. Most artists don't.
Turn this around...where does your right to acquire my art come from, and under what terms do these rights exist?
I guess that's true, but then it becomes a question of how many road blocks you're willing to stick in the way of people who are truly interested in contributing.
Second, "support" only for Red Hat is a problem? Do you think they support just any configuration of Windows that your mom can throw at it? Not only is it NT line only, but they've got a very strict selection of "supported" hardware.
This is true...most "support" these days comes in the form of "up and running" support, which means that as long as the system boots, it works, and then the requirement that you start shelling out hard cash if anything more than this is necessary. In fact, I had one company admit to me that they were about to charge me $25 for material copped directly from a company's web site.
The way I see it, there were plenty of people willing to pay for Blender (including myself), but many (including myself) who were a bit aprehensive about the lack of attention to certain aspects of its functionality (the modeling/rendering side). Now that it will be open source, this is no longer an issue.
It's awesome to see this. I may have a need for something like this at some point in the near future. BTW...for those interested, the Hammerfall card on the web site will set you back about $600, which isn't bad, considering the cost of a multichannel mixer/recording rig.
a. anyone who has taken time to learn it will say its awesome
This is a gross generalization, and quite inaccurate at that. I've used Blender for about three years, and just because I've learned to tolerate and navigate around its weaknesses, I'd hardly call it awesome. It has some good qualities, but it also suffers from some weaknesses that are sorely in need of improvement. I've gotten to the point where I'll shelf Blender for a while, start to wonder why I haven't been using it, jump back into it, and quickly be reminded of everything about it that makes modeling and rendering a much bigger pain in the ass than it needs to be.
When Blender is released under the new license, version 3.25 will be made available for download, and if I'm not mistaken, it will be the "Publisher" version. I'm not sure they'll even continue to differentiate between "publisher" and "creator" since the reason for this distinction (paid licenses) will no longer be valid.
It's OK if you can get past a UI that sports some major weaknesses. If people are expecting a typical "desktop" app (a la Qt or GTK), they'll be sorely disappointed. I am hoping the open source community insists that Blender shed the constraints imposed by certain aspects its current UI in favor of something that is more functional. It's not all bad, but what isn't good really tends to impose some major problems.
Wings3D, on the other hand, has a much better grip on the usability issue, and I really hope development continues unabated by the recent Blender announcement. Ditch the text entry stuff though- especially for saving files and the like.
The DMCA protects copyright owners. If you own any copyrighted material, it protects you. On the other hand, if you're one of the "information wants to be free" crowd, it's obviously an imposition. However, is that because protecting copyrights is a bad idea, or is it because people just hate the idea of forcing themselves to respect a law that's so easy to break, and that carries an almost non-existant chance of suffering any consequences?
I tend to agree. I've never worked for the government, but I have worked for government contractors. In some cases, they're mirror images, only smaller.
Translation: If you can steal it without getting caught, why pay for it?
A slashdot poster recently (and rather artfully) pointed out what a farce this whole thing is by mentioning the options open to someone in the U.S. when they disagree with something (of course, this only applies to people with a shred of integrity):
- Withhold money: don't buy the product, and refuse to procure it in any way. - Do something constructive- write letters, promote boycotts, etc. - Civil disobedience (a key point of which involves getting caught and subsequently arrested).
This whole "steal it until they submit" mentality is for wusses. Save for the short-term high (much like a hit of crack), it does nothing to solve the problem. -
Just out of curiosity, what would one tell their next employer? Something like, "I worked for, and actively supported a company that specialized in the trafficking of intellectual property belonging primarily to (but certainly not limited to) the music and movie industries."
But in all fairness, who started all this mess, and who keeps raising the ante? Here's a clue: almost every story on Slashdot that has anything to do with the RIAA/MPAA and ways they might seek to protect their property, there's a flurry of responses that have this shortsighted "hah, we'll show them," attitude. This whole scenario is precisely the reason I've always advocated that the most effective solution is to CUT OFF THE MUSIC. Don't buy it. Stealing it does nothing to further the cause.
You make it sound like the RIAA/MPAA is conducting a criminal enterprise by negotiating contracts between artists and themselves, and then risking the capital required for the production, promotion, and distribution. Those THIEVES!
The $15-$20/CD argument is a smokescreen. Not only do most consumers have the option to get CDs at fairly reduced prices (through a mail-order club), if they object to the price, they are free to keep their money, and let the RIAA/MPAA keep its property.
This is faulty reasoning. Once 80% of the nodes are poisoned (and probably far fewer), it means that users looking for illegal mp3 files will stand only a 1 in 5 chance of getting something that isn't worthless. How many times do you think people are going to subject themselves to this before deciding that it's just to much trouble? It's a clever solution, because it's using the very trait that makes P2P so attractive (P2P caters to convenience, and by extension, laziness), to render it wholly ineffective for its intended purpose.
You're suggesting what I've been suggesting all along - that the artists are every bit as much a part of the problem as the RIAA itself. Do you really think these artists are not capable of devising their own contractual relationship with the companies that shoulder the risk on their behalf?
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. But to be safe, I have a doze box and two linux boxes as well. I may find myself wondering if I want to continue supporting the Mac after my current (but aging) system dies.
According to the link in my sig, Intel has a knack for attempting product 'innovations' that aren't very consumer-friendly. My what short memories people have - this is what the Intel CPUID debacle was all about. Now they're going after it again, only under a more righteous-sounding moniker: "Palladium". It sounds like a place you'd go on Friday nights to have fun, but I suspect that fun is the last thing that will come of this mess.
We're happy to see Apple take this next step to drive adoption of Mac OS X,
And here I'd always that "adoption" was a matter of choice. Of course, if it's being driven, one can only guess.
I've always believed that if you go the route of congress, or that of most other publicly-elected offices, at some point, one way or another, you end up selling out. Once this happens, the focus is on the (campaign) money and pimping favors. At that point, one's integrity is pretty well shot, and that's really all there is left.
I watched this with an assoiate a few months ago, and I have to say that it really changed my impression of the .com gold rush. Mainly, it left me with a sense of hope that there were actually people out there with good ideas, reasonable business models, and the potential to make some honest money. What really impressed me is that the three guys who ran the startup to its final day didn't walk away with a pile of cash - they walked away with next to NOTHING. They didn't pay themselves exorbitant salaries to "play" CEO like those in most of these startups, they invested the money building the infrastructure that, if sustainable on its own merits, would provide the means for reward down the road - at which point they'd have actually earned it
"Then why bother?" you may ask. Well, there are a few concepts that don't seem to get much attention these days: integrity, humility, and reality. The guys that ran this company may not have walked away with money, but they despite their disagreements, they did their best. Above all, they earned my respect.
I'd encourage those who haven't seen this to do so.
It would be one thing if they'd walked away from these ventures actually having accomplished something, or having created something of lasting value. The most ironic part of all is that they even have this money in the first place - money they supposedly earned while participating in a failed venture. I hope I'm not the only one who can see that this is back-assward.
I've been asked about three times as I've exited the grocery store if I'm a registered voter. "Are you freaking kidding?" I'd ask myself. It's just one more piece of information in all the wrong hands.
If the tenuous nature of making a living off your music bothers you, maybe you should get a day job. I'm sorry, but at no point in human history did the majority of musicians make a good living at it.
And at no point in history have artists had endure so much self-serving THEFT of their work.
If you want me to pay $20 for your CD, make damned sure you sell it in a format that I can easilly back up on my HD, and take full advantage of Fair Use whenever I want. Otherwise you won't ever sell one to me, no matter what your SAT score was.
An artist will sell it in whatever format he/she sees fit. If it doesn't work for you, don't buy it. End of transaction.
You do not have a right to make money off your art. Most artists don't.
Turn this around...where does your right to acquire my art come from, and under what terms do these rights exist?
I guess that's true, but then it becomes a question of how many road blocks you're willing to stick in the way of people who are truly interested in contributing.
Second, "support" only for Red Hat is a problem? Do you think they support just any configuration of Windows that your mom can throw at it? Not only is it NT line only, but they've got a very strict selection of "supported" hardware.
This is true...most "support" these days comes in the form of "up and running" support, which means that as long as the system boots, it works, and then the requirement that you start shelling out hard cash if anything more than this is necessary. In fact, I had one company admit to me that they were about to charge me $25 for material copped directly from a company's web site.
After trying to use Blender for some work in my Multimedia class this summer, I must say it's UI needs either (a) ALOT of work,
The workflow is good, but with respect to certain aspects of the UI, I agree. Yep. Totally.
The way I see it, there were plenty of people willing to pay for Blender (including myself), but many (including myself) who were a bit aprehensive about the lack of attention to certain aspects of its functionality (the modeling/rendering side). Now that it will be open source, this is no longer an issue.
It's awesome to see this. I may have a need for something like this at some point in the near future. BTW...for those interested, the Hammerfall card on the web site will set you back about $600, which isn't bad, considering the cost of a multichannel mixer/recording rig.
a. anyone who has taken time to learn it will say its awesome
This is a gross generalization, and quite inaccurate at that. I've used Blender for about three years, and just because I've learned to tolerate and navigate around its weaknesses, I'd hardly call it awesome. It has some good qualities, but it also suffers from some weaknesses that are sorely in need of improvement. I've gotten to the point where I'll shelf Blender for a while, start to wonder why I haven't been using it, jump back into it, and quickly be reminded of everything about it that makes modeling and rendering a much bigger pain in the ass than it needs to be.
When Blender is released under the new license, version 3.25 will be made available for download, and if I'm not mistaken, it will be the "Publisher" version. I'm not sure they'll even continue to differentiate between "publisher" and "creator" since the reason for this distinction (paid licenses) will no longer be valid.
It's OK if you can get past a UI that sports some major weaknesses. If people are expecting a typical "desktop" app (a la Qt or GTK), they'll be sorely disappointed. I am hoping the open source community insists that Blender shed the constraints imposed by certain aspects its current UI in favor of something that is more functional. It's not all bad, but what isn't good really tends to impose some major problems.
Wings3D, on the other hand, has a much better grip on the usability issue, and I really hope development continues unabated by the recent Blender announcement. Ditch the text entry stuff though- especially for saving files and the like.
I was wondering what this means:
"...it seems near-impossible to get past the 'gate-keepers' of the music industry."
How does one know when they've gotten past the 'gate-keepers'?
The DMCA protects copyright owners. If you own any copyrighted material, it protects you. On the other hand, if you're one of the "information wants to be free" crowd, it's obviously an imposition. However, is that because protecting copyrights is a bad idea, or is it because people just hate the idea of forcing themselves to respect a law that's so easy to break, and that carries an almost non-existant chance of suffering any consequences?
I tend to agree. I've never worked for the government, but I have worked for government contractors. In some cases, they're mirror images, only smaller.
"If you can get it for free, why pay for it?"
Translation: If you can steal it without getting caught, why pay for it?
A slashdot poster recently (and rather artfully) pointed out what a farce this whole thing is by mentioning the options open to someone in the U.S. when they disagree with something (of course, this only applies to people with a shred of integrity):
- Withhold money: don't buy the product, and refuse to procure it in any way.
- Do something constructive- write letters, promote boycotts, etc.
- Civil disobedience (a key point of which involves getting caught and subsequently arrested).
This whole "steal it until they submit" mentality is for wusses. Save for the short-term high (much like a hit of crack), it does nothing to solve the problem.
-
Looks like the party is over.
Just out of curiosity, what would one tell their next employer? Something like, "I worked for, and actively supported a company that specialized in the trafficking of intellectual property belonging primarily to (but certainly not limited to) the music and movie industries."
That should make someone a real hot prospect.
Next....
But in all fairness, who started all this mess, and who keeps raising the ante? Here's a clue: almost every story on Slashdot that has anything to do with the RIAA/MPAA and ways they might seek to protect their property, there's a flurry of responses that have this shortsighted "hah, we'll show them," attitude. This whole scenario is precisely the reason I've always advocated that the most effective solution is to CUT OFF THE MUSIC. Don't buy it. Stealing it does nothing to further the cause.
You make it sound like the RIAA/MPAA is conducting a criminal enterprise by negotiating contracts between artists and themselves, and then risking the capital required for the production, promotion, and distribution. Those THIEVES!
The $15-$20/CD argument is a smokescreen. Not only do most consumers have the option to get CDs at fairly reduced prices (through a mail-order club), if they object to the price, they are free to keep their money, and let the RIAA/MPAA keep its property.
This is faulty reasoning. Once 80% of the nodes are poisoned (and probably far fewer), it means that users looking for illegal mp3 files will stand only a 1 in 5 chance of getting something that isn't worthless. How many times do you think people are going to subject themselves to this before deciding that it's just to much trouble? It's a clever solution, because it's using the very trait that makes P2P so attractive (P2P caters to convenience, and by extension, laziness), to render it wholly ineffective for its intended purpose.
You're suggesting what I've been suggesting all along - that the artists are every bit as much a part of the problem as the RIAA itself. Do you really think these artists are not capable of devising their own contractual relationship with the companies that shoulder the risk on their behalf?