that's funny - i've done extremely well as a major in the field. i've also broken a few practicing, employed, chair-holding philosophers of their ill-conceived beliefs in the area, too, causing them to re-evaluate their basic epistemological systems. i stand by my previous statement. you don't know what you're talking about. if you're a troll, you're an extremely annoying one. go read the troll how-to.
The power of corporations to control individuals, governments and society in general is vastly over-rated, distorted, and over-simplified by reactionaries and alarmists...
this may be true. on the other hand, society in general has a foolhardy disregard for that same power. i'm not speaking from the standpoint of a rabid activist. i am speaking from a background in critical social theory, psychology, and political science. hysteria is unnecessary and detrimental - awareness is sadly lacking.
not everyone is able or willing to actually contemplate the problem and formulate their own conclusions (or recognize a lack thereof). you are possibly not one of these people; there are many, many people unlike you in that regard.
[me:]accepting any message can have a detrimental effect on your health or well-being
[you:]Accepting or believing some message can't physically change anything... Choosing to perform an action based on this acceptance is what you are talking about.
logic, my friend. let me restate without reinterpretation:
it is possible for the acceptance of a message to have a detrimental effect on your health or well-being. this effect is achieved by active choices based on this acceptance - choices which may have been made otherwise without the influence of said message. thus, the freaking acceptance of a message can cause physical detriment to a person.
why are you arguing with this? i might believe you when you tell me i can fly, and decide to start big by jumping off a bridge, which i'm sure you'd appreciate. this would hurt me. no, the message itself didn't hurt me, but its presence in my life sure as hell did.
you just made up the word "historical analysis" in order to sound educated, and I understand that it backfired
1. "historical analysis" is a phrase, not a word.
2. it is a phrase that has meaning in this language - a meaning that is not particularly veiled by the context of academic or technical jargon.
go ask a historian what historical analysis is. unless they're very good or very bad, you'll get a long answer. i'd also appreciate it if you could explain to me how my use of this well-known and well-understood phrase has backfired.
The methods which churches have used to influence governments (usually granting or denying religious legitimacy to a ruler or policy, as I recall) are fundamentally different from the methods which private companies use (entirely economic in nature). And neither private corporations nor churches can rightly be said to "control" government, just influence it to a rather limited degree.
uh, yeah. religious institution : religious influence:: economic institution : economic influence. this is pretty basic stuff we're dealing with here, and i gather it's the point you've been missing. it's an analogy. do i need to give you the definition of "analogy?" maybe a definition of "parallel" as used in a literary sense would be more to your liking?
since you worked in a nice phrase there, i'll use it (you used it in relation to religious control of government): "usually granting or denying religious legitimacy to a ruler or policy." try this simple substitution, informed by the above paragraph: "usually granting or denying economic legitimacy to a ruler or policy."
i'll give you the point for my use of the word control (did i use it?), "influence" carrying the connotation closer to the intended meaning. control is, however, defined as a "directing influence" by some dictionaries. the point you make is sophist, in the purely derogatory sense of the term.
if you mean an economic repressive policy towards a geographic region, then it's pretty clear that the methodology by which a private corporation would accomplish such a thing is fundamentally different from the method which an organized religious entity would accomplish it.
i believe i've addressed a similar statement somewhere before. direct response: no fucking shit. you're brilliant. thanks for the clarification. oh, here you go:
From m-w.com (ick):
Main Entry: analogy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Date: 15th century
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike:SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS
your information on the Monsanto case (India, right?) from some biased and unreliable sources
mmm. i've gotten most of my information from a few sources: friends who spent a good while working in african bush areas, friends working in patent/IP law, and occasionally news media - real radical stuff like the BBC and AP. i appreciate your concern, and i'm not so naive to think that those sources are the Truth. remember, i studied epistemology and logic for a good while there. i did learn a few things, which i do take the time to apply to my life, every day.
[me:]learn to think.
i do apologize - at that point in the discussion, i think that may have been a bit premature. and you're right - i shouldn't insult people who simply have different opinions. it's when people preemptively refuse to consider any viewpoint but their own that i get annoyed. if, in the future, you could present something like a reasoned argument rather than a pile of assertions greatly resembling a fossilized dung-heap, i would be inclined to be more civil.
nobody asked you to agree with anything - you were only asked to try to consider an opposing point of view. you didn't, you were rude, and i foolishly (and, i admit, rudely) attempted to bring you around to a dialogue. this was my mistake, and it is one for which i am truly sorry. i promise it won't happen again.
sir, i believe that you know (in the epistemological sense) very little about what you speak. have you ever really payed attention to advertising? it's a complex art. it's a sort of biological programming.;)
Corporations communicate with the average individual mainly through advertisement, which you the individual have the option of tuning out, disbelieving, or accepting with no detriment to your health or well-being.
uh, you're wrong. accepting any message can have a detrimental effect on your health or well-being: consider (historically - do you have a concept of what that means?) the advertising for tobacco, soft drinks, milk, alcoholic drinks, herbal remedies, antibiotics... these are a few in a long, long list of examples, and people believed and believe still the advertising for these products.
they [modern corporations] certainly possess almost zero of the features or powers of an organized religion, particularly the one that was extant in Europe in the Middle Ages
i'm not sure you understand the basics of historical analysis. the features and powers of modern international corporations are surprisingly similar to those of the church in europe a few hundred years ago.
1. the power to control governments: we'll start with something easy. consider the powers of the WTO. if you're not familiar with them, look 'em up. therein is power that can heavily influence diplomatic relations between countries.
2. single corporations can strangle whole regions: Monsanto. end of example.
3. corporation-government controls can be internal or external: "trade groups," lobbies, electorate manipulation, local dependency, and plain old politick dealing.
4. etc....are you blind?
and please remember this is an analogy, a historical parallel. what's missing? notably, being burned at the stake (or stoned, or whatever) for heresy (most of the time). these days (in most places) you can just be ostracized or discriminated against. sure, that's not a form of torture... and not a vastly more effective one, either. some governments can be convinced to send their armies to help clear the way for oil pipelines - and i'm not talking about some kind of purely environmental tragedy ensuing, either.
many, many people that attend some sort of secondary educational institution know these four commands. some of these people figure out that the system which is giving them the sort of opportunities they have might be useful for them personally, on their own box.
these people have gotten their grubby hands on a redhat cd - they're competent users of windows, however so much of an oxymoron you think that is - and they've installed it. then they've tried to use it... but the help and man pages suck if you don't have an understanding of the system as a whole when you start. i'm guessing here, but some people think that servers are necessarily more powerful machines, and may install with server options just because it's cool. dumb? absolutely. common? probably.
What I think you are saying is: people who don't know, should be protected from the danger they might get into."
hey - people who don't know what's out there should be protected from the danger they can put you into, smartypants. does that make more sense inside your little box?
The real point here is that "common knowledge" is a frightful way to decide what security defaults should be. A good configuration, as pointed out many times in this discussion, should be locked down from the start. If you want to turn something on, then you're going to have to:
Find out what it is that you want to turn on
Read about how to turn it on and how it works
Read about any security flaws it may have
Read about how these relate to the system
Think about it
You can't force the last point, but it would be relatively trivial to implement everything else. There's no reason that any distro of any OS should default to anything other than maximum security. If you want to repetively install something else, you should already have to have aquired the knowledge of what you're doing and the 'expertise' to automate that.
It doesn't actually matter - either way it needs to be calculated and compensated for. The relatively constant:) speed of light for transmission would just require a slightly simpler system.
3: So, in effect, you've got presynchronization for the musicians' benefit, then synchronization of those returning streams for the audience.
4: The real issue is being able to actively predict or control the amount of latency - compensation would have to be very, very fast and cleverly done with wildly variable latencies. Maybe parallel machines to handle route analysis would feed prediction information to the streaming sync machine? Does that make sense?
5: Something I don't know terribly much about, but it sounds like the bandwidth they're referring to is probably Internet2... and if it's being done well, maybe the latency is predictable. Dunno.
Interestingly, PCTools for Windows (Symantec) did this as a shell for Win3.1, along with nesting desktop folders, etc. Did a lot for other stuff too, most of which really should have been ripped off by MS for Win95... all those features are still not implemented.
I actually miss that environment... made it possible to use the Win desktop scheme in an efficient way.
title says it all - how exactly are they going to investigate fraud on this one, and just how easy will it be to fake a DoS... er, I guess it doesn't need to be faked.
This is my new business plan. If anyone has VC and would like to invest in my company, I can guarantee a $50 million ROI.:)
...or why i always open links in a new window. want out? close the window, stop the code. almost as irritating as slideshow-style sites with identically named pages.
it takes a certain mindset to 'lock' in users to a site, not to mention two minutes that could be spent more productively. i've seen some bad design on the web, but this really is one of the worst examples. what's the point? is that supposed to make it easy to dynamically update the site if you're an idiot operator?
But we can remember that music once used to be different, and that an artist can survive on concerts alone. They used to do it, and if we turn the spirit of music back into sharing, they still can.
Keep in mind, please, that the 'concerts' you refer to - the ones that paid the bills - were typically not called concerts, they were called engagements (by marketing, other things by other people). That meant that the venue and the artist had a contract for a certain length of time, a certain number of concerts, and that the artist would be payed a flat sum per night or possibly a percentage of the house take. This could also amount to getting screwed pretty badly. If you (as an artist) were held over, it was because you were either good for the business or because the venue couldn't get anybody else.
Sort of like the house DJ.
Woody Allen's 'Sweet and Lowdown' is actually a pretty good representation of a few aspects of this lifestyle.
Blanket statements about the spirit of modern music are inherently flawed. Other posts have covered the chart issues. Jazz musicians tend to live a lifestyle that's a bit... umm... more 'earthy' than those that make it big in other fields - jazz musicians aren't generally expecting rock star returns, though some do get them.
They're users, and "casual" users at that who actually *care* what color their machine is.
Well, for any platform, some fraction of the users will be casual. Taking your 'this is not a flame' statement into account, I postulate that Mac users are generally made up of two, not one, contingents. Those who are playing at home (browsing, etc.), and those that need to get their work done (probably both at work and at home). Think about how much intensive work would not get done near as quickly or as well without the Mac platform... graphic design, sound design, video editing.... right or wrong, there are whole commercial sectors that would cease to exist as we know them if Macs suddenly disappeared. Think before you speak - Macs are fantastic for some tasks.
It is possible (and indeed likely) that for any given job,
Ease of use == getting the job done
Sometimes that means a shell script on a linux box, and sometimes it means AVID.
On the other hand, your point about OS coding is right on - and important.
The simplification of both national and local news (by local broadcasters), and global and national news (by national broadcasters) into a half hour's time - or even an hour - is completely ridiculous, especially considering that much of that time is taken by advertisements for luxury vehicles. But that's because rich people watch the news, and poor people watch Fox.
You might think that with the sophistication of the spin in many of the top newspapers - in the US and elsewhere - that television would do a better job with its bias / corruption of journalistic 'ethics'. Happily, they don't. Hopefully, a growing number of people realize on a daily basis the nature of the media beast simply because of the farcical evening news.
For years, I've found myself choosing not so much news sources that I think are unbiased, but an amalgamation of news sources whose bias I can trace and understand, and thus compensate for to some degree.
Actually, I'd guess that was phrased correctly the first time. I'm constantly going between Illustrator and Photoshop - the interoperability of vector and raster editing apps is extremely important.
Native file formats are horribly important too, but not as important as being able to do all your work in the first place... it's not as important for me to be able to translate correctly between Illustrator and Freehand. (Damn good thing too - thank you so much, Macromedia. OT- why is Illustrator more successful exporting SWF than Freehand?)
And, to top it all off, no one had asked before I did - my post was # 291 (sorry, you'll have to search).
I agree with you on the failures question... but depressingly enough, I think he's mostly right. Most people here (US) tend to have no sense of perspective/ humour.
Lars has admitted here (we all knew it) that their information is screened for them. Lars probably doesn't know how digital compression techniques work, or that the majority of mp3's are noticeably not CD quality, much less master quality.
To illustrate:
...we do not condone and want to be part of some kind of illegal trading of our masters through sources we have not authorized...
There is a difference, I think,... comparing that kind of home taping to basically going on the Internet and getting 1st generation, perfect digital copies of master recordings from all the world, is just not a fair comparison.
Some.lawyer. decided to tell the band that mp3's were "perfect digital copies" of their masters. Not that under usual use, mp3 is a lossy compression algorithm. Why, I ask, didn't they just request that Metallica mp3's encoded at a bitrate higher than 160 be banned? Because someone told them their masters were in circulation. It sounds like if Lars knew that mp3 had a little quality problem (again, in normal use) he, and presumeably Metallica, would also have a little less of a problem with Napster.
First, trot out the problem, a problem which most people who don't already understand it will think is nonsensical and obvious. Like this: You are allowed to choose between three doors. Behind one door is a prize - behind the other two, goats. After you choose a door, Monty Hall (the gameshow host) will reveal what's behind one of the other doors (a goat), and then ask you whether you'd like to stay with your original choice or choose the other door.
The problem: should you choose the other door?
Most people will say that it doesn't matter, as it's a "50/50 chance" that you'll win or lose. Most people will be wrong, since they haven't thought about the problem in a set-oriented way. (Excuse my forthcoming explanation, I'm into this by way of philosophy and formal logic.)
The problem seems simple on a small scale. Consider what happens when you have 100 doors, and the process keeps iterating until you're down to (again) two doors. At first, the likelyhood you'll choose the correct door is 1/100. If you hold on to that choice through all the subsequent rounds, including the last round, your likelyhood of correctness is still 1/100. On the other hand, if you choose a different door in the last round, you are effectively using Monty's knowledge against him - he will have eliminated many many bad choices, and the likelyhood that you initially picked the right door is much lower than the likelyhood that he had to consciously avoid a (1 of 99) different door. If you picture this with actual doors, it's a bit more intuitive (if that means anything to you).
For the mathematical basis and the actual relationships, which I'm not qualified to give, try this site, or search google. There's quite a large community trying to educate the world about this one.:)
By calling one practice better than another, leads to conflict, discourse, solutions.
Hence moderation and meta-moderation.
If I were to "moderate" an extensive menu such that all tomatoe-based recipies [sic] were low and eveything with, say, head cheese were high, would you still feel the same way?
I think I'd probably do the same thing I do now: I'd read the whole thing, simply because I'm curious. If there's something down there in the dregs that I think people should know about, I let them know. If there isn't, I'm not losing much time. I like tomato-based recipes that include head cheese. People like me tend to go out and spread our practices - we try to encourage free thought and information exchange.
You are working against this; yes, you are (possibly) encouraging some to think, but on the other hand you are starting an argument that simply diverts energy (mine) into debunking your silly statements. You have the power to make the decisions about much of what you read. A book review is a suggestion, and a faceless one at that. No one is forcing you to do anything, no one is asking you not to do anything. The only censorship here is your 'self-censorship,' and as implied by that phrase, you have control of it. If you don't have time to read everything - and no one does - you have to make decisions about what to read.
Luckily, we don't live in a utopia, or else you'd also have to decide where to go, what to do, who to talk to... wait...you do have to decide those things. I will leave it to you to draw the obvious conclusion.
I think it's about time you went to the trouble of doing that yourself.
Jesus supposedly took (I think these are the numbers) five loaves of bread and two fish - that's what he could get his smarmy little hands on - and passed them around. The miracle was that they kept getting passed around and somehow there was enough to feed everyone.
Little did they know Jesus used Napster. All he needed was Bread'n'Fishripper and a static FTP server (Food Transfer Protocol)... wait, he didn't even need that. He had waitapostles.
I mean, come on. If you're gonna throw the Big Book at us, at least know what you're talking about.
This thread is so offtopic... but the worst part is that it's also mostly inaccurate (if you can call the Bible accurate).
The problem with using 'individualism' as a rallying cry is that within that context, the term has no content.
When Jon Katz proposes individualism as a solution to the problem of corporatism, his logic is severely flawed. Why? -Individualism is inescapable. You are yourself - the point of the parent post, I believe, is that espousing individualism as a solution to any socio-political problem is foolish, since we are all individuals. We're all different. Many people will choose corporatism if offered a choice. It's not the best choice in my opinion, but that's the point: individualism doesn't somehow magically make everyone conform to my idea of what an "individual" would think.
Freedom is one thing - individualism is another. In the context of logic and politics, they do not imply one another.
on the other hand, a whole bunch of your co-workers tried to have the text/graphics centers open the attachment for them and convert it to a readable format.
Right - luckily enough, I work for the company with the largest Notes userbase anywhere (clue?). I just received this message from one of our other offices:
Within the last one and one half hours, we have recd. multiple requests to print and/or translate the below referenced file into something legible.
Now, first of all, this is wonderful - these people can't actually open the 'LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs' attachment, because they're all using Notes. On the other hand, many many people wanted to!!
I have now lost my faith in humanity's ability to survive - I hold on because I still think chaos theory is viable.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah... it's sort of like the priceline group purchasing model applied in reverse.
"Well, this is how much it costs. Are you willing to pay?"
If yes, set sucker=True
If sucker==True, set cost_multiplier=1.25
Do not rinse. Repeat as necessary.
passable monitors are still upwards of $200 US.
that's funny - i've done extremely well as a major in the field. i've also broken a few practicing, employed, chair-holding philosophers of their ill-conceived beliefs in the area, too, causing them to re-evaluate their basic epistemological systems. i stand by my previous statement. you don't know what you're talking about. if you're a troll, you're an extremely annoying one. go read the troll how-to.
The power of corporations to control individuals, governments and society in general is vastly over-rated, distorted, and over-simplified by reactionaries and alarmists...
this may be true. on the other hand, society in general has a foolhardy disregard for that same power. i'm not speaking from the standpoint of a rabid activist. i am speaking from a background in critical social theory, psychology, and political science. hysteria is unnecessary and detrimental - awareness is sadly lacking.
not everyone is able or willing to actually contemplate the problem and formulate their own conclusions (or recognize a lack thereof). you are possibly not one of these people; there are many, many people unlike you in that regard.
[me:]accepting any message can have a detrimental effect on your health or well-being
[you:]Accepting or believing some message can't physically change anything ... Choosing to perform an action based on this acceptance is what you are talking about.
logic, my friend. let me restate without reinterpretation:
why are you arguing with this? i might believe you when you tell me i can fly, and decide to start big by jumping off a bridge, which i'm sure you'd appreciate. this would hurt me. no, the message itself didn't hurt me, but its presence in my life sure as hell did.
you just made up the word "historical analysis" in order to sound educated, and I understand that it backfired
1. "historical analysis" is a phrase, not a word.
2. it is a phrase that has meaning in this language - a meaning that is not particularly veiled by the context of academic or technical jargon.
go ask a historian what historical analysis is. unless they're very good or very bad, you'll get a long answer. i'd also appreciate it if you could explain to me how my use of this well-known and well-understood phrase has backfired.
The methods which churches have used to influence governments (usually granting or denying religious legitimacy to a ruler or policy, as I recall) are fundamentally different from the methods which private companies use (entirely economic in nature). And neither private corporations nor churches can rightly be said to "control" government, just influence it to a rather limited degree.
uh, yeah. religious institution : religious influence :: economic institution : economic influence. this is pretty basic stuff we're dealing with here, and i gather it's the point you've been missing. it's an analogy. do i need to give you the definition of "analogy?" maybe a definition of "parallel" as used in a literary sense would be more to your liking?
since you worked in a nice phrase there, i'll use it (you used it in relation to religious control of government): "usually granting or denying religious legitimacy to a ruler or policy." try this simple substitution, informed by the above paragraph: "usually granting or denying economic legitimacy to a ruler or policy."
i'll give you the point for my use of the word control (did i use it?), "influence" carrying the connotation closer to the intended meaning. control is, however, defined as a "directing influence" by some dictionaries. the point you make is sophist, in the purely derogatory sense of the term.
if you mean an economic repressive policy towards a geographic region, then it's pretty clear that the methodology by which a private corporation would accomplish such a thing is fundamentally different from the method which an organized religious entity would accomplish it.
i believe i've addressed a similar statement somewhere before. direct response: no fucking shit. you're brilliant. thanks for the clarification. oh, here you go:
Main Entry: analogy :SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Date: 15th century
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS
your information on the Monsanto case (India, right?) from some biased and unreliable sources
mmm. i've gotten most of my information from a few sources: friends who spent a good while working in african bush areas, friends working in patent/IP law, and occasionally news media - real radical stuff like the BBC and AP. i appreciate your concern, and i'm not so naive to think that those sources are the Truth. remember, i studied epistemology and logic for a good while there. i did learn a few things, which i do take the time to apply to my life, every day.
[me:]learn to think.
i do apologize - at that point in the discussion, i think that may have been a bit premature. and you're right - i shouldn't insult people who simply have different opinions. it's when people preemptively refuse to consider any viewpoint but their own that i get annoyed. if, in the future, you could present something like a reasoned argument rather than a pile of assertions greatly resembling a fossilized dung-heap, i would be inclined to be more civil.
nobody asked you to agree with anything - you were only asked to try to consider an opposing point of view. you didn't, you were rude, and i foolishly (and, i admit, rudely) attempted to bring you around to a dialogue. this was my mistake, and it is one for which i am truly sorry. i promise it won't happen again.
sir, i believe that you know (in the epistemological sense) very little about what you speak. have you ever really payed attention to advertising? it's a complex art. it's a sort of biological programming.
Corporations communicate with the average individual mainly through advertisement, which you the individual have the option of tuning out, disbelieving, or accepting with no detriment to your health or well-being.
uh, you're wrong. accepting any message can have a detrimental effect on your health or well-being: consider (historically - do you have a concept of what that means?) the advertising for tobacco, soft drinks, milk, alcoholic drinks, herbal remedies, antibiotics... these are a few in a long, long list of examples, and people believed and believe still the advertising for these products.
they [modern corporations] certainly possess almost zero of the features or powers of an organized religion, particularly the one that was extant in Europe in the Middle Ages
i'm not sure you understand the basics of historical analysis. the features and powers of modern international corporations are surprisingly similar to those of the church in europe a few hundred years ago.
2. single corporations can strangle whole regions: Monsanto. end of example.
3. corporation-government controls can be internal or external: "trade groups," lobbies, electorate manipulation, local dependency, and plain old politick dealing.
4. etc.
and please remember this is an analogy, a historical parallel. what's missing? notably, being burned at the stake (or stoned, or whatever) for heresy (most of the time). these days (in most places) you can just be ostracized or discriminated against. sure, that's not a form of torture... and not a vastly more effective one, either. some governments can be convinced to send their armies to help clear the way for oil pipelines - and i'm not talking about some kind of purely environmental tragedy ensuing, either.
learn to think.
thank you very much.
these people have gotten their grubby hands on a redhat cd - they're competent users of windows, however so much of an oxymoron you think that is - and they've installed it. then they've tried to use it... but the help and man pages suck if you don't have an understanding of the system as a whole when you start. i'm guessing here, but some people think that servers are necessarily more powerful machines, and may install with server options just because it's cool. dumb? absolutely. common? probably.
What I think you are saying is: people who don't know, should be protected from the danger they might get into."
hey - people who don't know what's out there should be protected from the danger they can put you into, smartypants. does that make more sense inside your little box?
The real point here is that "common knowledge" is a frightful way to decide what security defaults should be. A good configuration, as pointed out many times in this discussion, should be locked down from the start. If you want to turn something on, then you're going to have to:
Read about how to turn it on and how it works
Read about any security flaws it may have
Read about how these relate to the system
Think about it
You can't force the last point, but it would be relatively trivial to implement everything else. There's no reason that any distro of any OS should default to anything other than maximum security. If you want to repetively install something else, you should already have to have aquired the knowledge of what you're doing and the 'expertise' to automate that.
People like you make software suck.
I think that says it all.
It doesn't actually matter - either way it needs to be calculated and compensated for. The relatively constant :) speed of light for transmission would just require a slightly simpler system.
2: See the post 17 above
3: So, in effect, you've got presynchronization for the musicians' benefit, then synchronization of those returning streams for the audience.
4: The real issue is being able to actively predict or control the amount of latency - compensation would have to be very, very fast and cleverly done with wildly variable latencies. Maybe parallel machines to handle route analysis would feed prediction information to the streaming sync machine? Does that make sense?
5: Something I don't know terribly much about, but it sounds like the bandwidth they're referring to is probably Internet2... and if it's being done well, maybe the latency is predictable. Dunno.
Interestingly, PCTools for Windows (Symantec) did this as a shell for Win3.1, along with nesting desktop folders, etc. Did a lot for other stuff too, most of which really should have been ripped off by MS for Win95... all those features are still not implemented.
I actually miss that environment... made it possible to use the Win desktop scheme in an efficient way.
The difference is pork. The other green meat.
title says it all - how exactly are they going to investigate fraud on this one, and just how easy will it be to fake a DoS... er, I guess it doesn't need to be faked.
This is my new business plan. If anyone has VC and would like to invest in my company, I can guarantee a $50 million ROI. :)
it takes a certain mindset to 'lock' in users to a site, not to mention two minutes that could be spent more productively. i've seen some bad design on the web, but this really is one of the worst examples. what's the point? is that supposed to make it easy to dynamically update the site if you're an idiot operator?
Keep in mind, please, that the 'concerts' you refer to - the ones that paid the bills - were typically not called concerts, they were called engagements (by marketing, other things by other people). That meant that the venue and the artist had a contract for a certain length of time, a certain number of concerts, and that the artist would be payed a flat sum per night or possibly a percentage of the house take. This could also amount to getting screwed pretty badly. If you (as an artist) were held over, it was because you were either good for the business or because the venue couldn't get anybody else.
Sort of like the house DJ.
Woody Allen's 'Sweet and Lowdown' is actually a pretty good representation of a few aspects of this lifestyle.
Blanket statements about the spirit of modern music are inherently flawed. Other posts have covered the chart issues. Jazz musicians tend to live a lifestyle that's a bit... umm... more 'earthy' than those that make it big in other fields - jazz musicians aren't generally expecting rock star returns, though some do get them.
Well, for any platform, some fraction of the users will be casual. Taking your 'this is not a flame' statement into account, I postulate that Mac users are generally made up of two, not one, contingents. Those who are playing at home (browsing, etc.), and those that need to get their work done (probably both at work and at home). Think about how much intensive work would not get done near as quickly or as well without the Mac platform... graphic design, sound design, video editing.... right or wrong, there are whole commercial sectors that would cease to exist as we know them if Macs suddenly disappeared. Think before you speak - Macs are fantastic for some tasks.
It is possible (and indeed likely) that for any given job,
Sometimes that means a shell script on a linux box, and sometimes it means AVID.
On the other hand, your point about OS coding is right on - and important.
The simplification of both national and local news (by local broadcasters), and global and national news (by national broadcasters) into a half hour's time - or even an hour - is completely ridiculous, especially considering that much of that time is taken by advertisements for luxury vehicles.
But that's because rich people watch the news, and poor people watch Fox.
You might think that with the sophistication of the spin in many of the top newspapers - in the US and elsewhere - that television would do a better job with its bias / corruption of journalistic 'ethics'. Happily, they don't. Hopefully, a growing number of people realize on a daily basis the nature of the media beast simply because of the farcical evening news.
For years, I've found myself choosing not so much news sources that I think are unbiased, but an amalgamation of news sources whose bias I can trace and understand, and thus compensate for to some degree.
Actually, I'd guess that was phrased correctly the first time. I'm constantly going between Illustrator and Photoshop - the interoperability of vector and raster editing apps is extremely important.
Native file formats are horribly important too, but not as important as being able to do all your work in the first place... it's not as important for me to be able to translate correctly between Illustrator and Freehand. (Damn good thing too - thank you so much, Macromedia. OT- why is Illustrator more successful exporting SWF than Freehand?)
Now if only we hadn't gotten so many "pan-galactic gargle-blaster" questions modded up to +5 we could have had a good interview going here.
Oh, come on now. So many? I normally wouldn't bother to defend myself here, but geez. It was the only one in the interview, and it was last.
Some kind soul actually told me where i could get one after I asked that question.
And, to top it all off, no one had asked before I did - my post was # 291 (sorry, you'll have to search).
I agree with you on the failures question... but depressingly enough, I think he's mostly right. Most people here (US) tend to have no sense of perspective/ humour.
Lars has admitted here (we all knew it) that their information is screened for them. Lars probably doesn't know how digital compression techniques work, or that the majority of mp3's are noticeably not CD quality, much less master quality.
To illustrate:
There is a difference, I think, ... comparing that kind of home taping to basically going on the Internet and getting 1st generation, perfect digital copies of master recordings from all the world, is just not a fair comparison.
Some .lawyer. decided to tell the band that mp3's were "perfect digital copies" of their masters. Not that under usual use, mp3 is a lossy compression algorithm. Why, I ask, didn't they just request that Metallica mp3's encoded at a bitrate higher than 160 be banned? Because someone told them their masters were in circulation. It sounds like if Lars knew that mp3 had a little quality problem (again, in normal use) he, and presumeably Metallica, would also have a little less of a problem with Napster.
Well, I'll show you.
First, trot out the problem, a problem which most people who don't already understand it will think is nonsensical and obvious. Like this:
You are allowed to choose between three doors. Behind one door is a prize - behind the other two, goats. After you choose a door, Monty Hall (the gameshow host) will reveal what's behind one of the other doors (a goat), and then ask you whether you'd like to stay with your original choice or choose the other door.
The problem: should you choose the other door?
Most people will say that it doesn't matter, as it's a "50/50 chance" that you'll win or lose. Most people will be wrong, since they haven't thought about the problem in a set-oriented way. (Excuse my forthcoming explanation, I'm into this by way of philosophy and formal logic.)
The problem seems simple on a small scale. Consider what happens when you have 100 doors, and the process keeps iterating until you're down to (again) two doors. At first, the likelyhood you'll choose the correct door is 1/100. If you hold on to that choice through all the subsequent rounds, including the last round, your likelyhood of correctness is still 1/100. On the other hand, if you choose a different door in the last round, you are effectively using Monty's knowledge against him - he will have eliminated many many bad choices, and the likelyhood that you initially picked the right door is much lower than the likelyhood that he had to consciously avoid a (1 of 99) different door. If you picture this with actual doors, it's a bit more intuitive (if that means anything to you).
For the mathematical basis and the actual relationships, which I'm not qualified to give, try this site, or search google. There's quite a large community trying to educate the world about this one. :)
Hence moderation and meta-moderation.
If I were to "moderate" an extensive menu such that all tomatoe-based recipies [sic] were low and eveything with, say, head cheese were high, would you still feel the same way?
I think I'd probably do the same thing I do now: I'd read the whole thing, simply because I'm curious. If there's something down there in the dregs that I think people should know about, I let them know. If there isn't, I'm not losing much time. I like tomato-based recipes that include head cheese. People like me tend to go out and spread our practices - we try to encourage free thought and information exchange.
You are working against this; yes, you are (possibly) encouraging some to think, but on the other hand you are starting an argument that simply diverts energy (mine) into debunking your silly statements. You have the power to make the decisions about much of what you read. A book review is a suggestion, and a faceless one at that. No one is forcing you to do anything, no one is asking you not to do anything. The only censorship here is your 'self-censorship,' and as implied by that phrase, you have control of it. If you don't have time to read everything - and no one does - you have to make decisions about what to read.
Luckily, we don't live in a utopia, or else you'd also have to decide where to go, what to do, who to talk to... wait ...you do have to decide those things. I will leave it to you to draw the obvious conclusion.
I think it's about time you went to the trouble of doing that yourself.
Little did they know Jesus used Napster. All he needed was Bread'n'Fishripper and a static FTP server (Food Transfer Protocol)... wait, he didn't even need that. He had waitapostles.
I mean, come on. If you're gonna throw the Big Book at us, at least know what you're talking about.
This thread is so offtopic... but the worst part is that it's also mostly inaccurate (if you can call the Bible accurate).
When Jon Katz proposes individualism as a solution to the problem of corporatism, his logic is severely flawed. Why? -Individualism is inescapable. You are yourself - the point of the parent post, I believe, is that espousing individualism as a solution to any socio-political problem is foolish, since we are all individuals. We're all different. Many people will choose corporatism if offered a choice. It's not the best choice in my opinion, but that's the point: individualism doesn't somehow magically make everyone conform to my idea of what an "individual" would think.
Freedom is one thing - individualism is another. In the context of logic and politics, they do not imply one another.
no. read the article.
just because you work at a tech company...
ugh.
Right - luckily enough, I work for the company with the largest Notes userbase anywhere (clue?). I just received this message from one of our other offices:
Within the last one and one half hours, we have recd. multiple requests to print and/or translate the below referenced file into something legible.
Now, first of all, this is wonderful - these people can't actually open the 'LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs' attachment, because they're all using Notes. On the other hand, many many people wanted to!!
I have now lost my faith in humanity's ability to survive - I hold on because I still think chaos theory is viable.
ert.