Speaking of Douglas Adams, is there room to speculate about the movie project for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Rumors were flying up until his death about the books being transformed to film, and other movies (like Men In Black) did it first, only not nearly as well, causing Adams to say things like "I should have done it first", only when he said it, it was cleverer and funnier.
I had a few things to say about this on my website about six hours ago. I more or less highlighted the issue, linked to it, and stressed that all (well, most) tax proposals should be submitted to popular vote before taking effect.
In other words, we should be advocating hacking in order to better secure our systems, and we should be advocating terrorism in order to better secure our nations?
But there is a certainly quality of freedom and non-hassle that I'm going for in life... And, while effort to improve should never be spared, shrugging off efforts to destroy because it will only be better improved later is, well, counterproductive. We could just address known vulnerabilities before they're discovered by someone malicious.
Sure, you say that, but you're a slashdot geek like the rest of us, so that let's us know that you are at least more dependent on computers than, say, the average person. I just hope we don't have to worry about the end of the Internet any time soon.:-)
Most of that may be true to some degree, but at some point Bruce Wayne's dependence on all that hardware would have to come back to haunt him. I mean, I don't care how good he or his mechanics are, but there is no way that so many machines could be worked as hard as his are and still stay in tip-top shape. Batman would be lost in a tragic accident when a fuel tank ruptured or something...
Meanwhile, you'd think with Superman's ability to fly through space that he would have the impetus to search for some sort of kryptonite shield... But, alas, he feels too obligated...
I'm pretty sure Superman prevented the Statue of Liberty from falling into the middle of "Metropolis" in Superman IV when that, um, other superman was flying around destroying stuff. Don't know if I have the right sequel, though...:-P
Failure to complete regime change? Uhh... I don't know what Afghanistan you're talking about, but, um, the Taliban is history. That equals regime change.
At the same time, maybe this article was posted because it presented links to several perspectives on the topic.
At the same time, maybe this article should have been posted as a comment to the original story, or even tacked on as an update and "reposted" instead of being "repeated". (I was busy this weekend; I didn't see the first story until now. I'll try to pay closer attention next time, but when I miss a story, I don't look back...)
At the same time, maybe the/. editors just really like the whole super-worm discussion and really want us to go nuts with it.
I submitted my article at about that time, but I never noticed that article. This proves two things: I wasn't paying very good attention to the story I just posted, and someone wasn't paying very good attention to the story when they pushed it through the queue.
I suppose it's too late to append my article as a comment to the original...:-)
A lot of people died when the stock market "shut down" in 1929. Don't knock the significance of the Internet! Besides, in a world more dependent every day than yesterday on technology and connectivity, an Internet breakdown of even slight magnitude can be extremely detrimental... If it shut down completely all of a sudden, there would be chaos.
I know it's a horrible thing to think about, but maybe we should, come to think of it... Anyone think we should devise a contigency plan for when/if the Internet does hit a brick wall? Not because I'm paranoid, but because I would rather be overprotected than regretfully and idiotically vulnerable.
...I mean, most interesting aside from how the dust of this lawsuit will settle...
Under whose jurisdiction will this be decided? America's or Sweden's? Intentia filed charges with a Swedish criminal investigation bureau, but I doubt the "offense" by Reuters representatives took place under their jurisdiction, even it if did involve access to their servers.
There will be many precedents set in coming years regarding remote access potentially as though it were local, and it will be interesting how those chips stack up.
And the price per CD drops for the more you do, because the longer the machines are committed to an automated task, the fewer man hours are required to set it up for the next task. The more CDs you want, the cheaper each one costs. So popular acts (note I don't use the word "artists" here) like NSync or the Beatles can spend pocket change ($.25-.50 per CD?) making a million CDs and then spend a few million on advertising ($2-5 per CD?)... of course, they're not the ones spending the money anyway, because they aren't the business people, the record company people are, which is what their purpose is I guess... to do the work that the "artists" don't want to do.
Someone said something very interesting in one of these comments... Most artists aren't only in it for the money, or they'd be a lot more serious about it. Many of them probably just want to have fun and make a little money, and they think that the laid back lifestyle is worth the high price of submitting to the insane prices of the middlemen who do comparatively little and make more money. Hey, the guys in suits aren't touring year round, going deaf by age 35, and subjecting themselves to potential death at every turn with potentially dangerous sex or other situations...
But that's beside the point. The point is that making the CD has never been a problem, and I don't see why "airplay" is so important. I don't ever listen to the radio for music. Still, I hear about bands because people I know think I would like them, or because once in a while I just look for music. I know my taste, and I ask random people (such as in forums) of bands like that. You'd be surprised how many people, especially college age and older, know someone in a band or liked some other local band that made it just big enough to have a really good album or two, but never make it mainstream. (The world's greatest musicians probably never make it to the mainstream, just like the world's greatest persons will probably never be world leaders.)
I just thing she's a little bit early in declaring the end of labels' useful lives.
I'm not sure if she has suggested this, but the words and idea that "record companies' utility has expired" were mine, not hers. But given her point of view, I wouldn't be surprised if she thought the same thing.
With all the streaming media formats out there, why not develop a way to stream MP3s? Put them on a media server in 64k, 128k, 256k, and let them stream! Bandwidth is reduced and the mp3s files are secure......
......or are they? I have limited knowledge of streaming media, so I may be showing my ignorance here. If that be the case, then I need to be corrected, because I'd like to know.:-) But my understanding is that streaming media is somewhat similar to the concept of server-side scripting for web sites. No matter how much you want to get at the actual files as they exist on the server, the server won't let you because it interprets and runs the server-side code to produce a client-side HTML file.
If streaming media does not work this way, then perhaps the algorithms to make it possible should be developed and/or employed. It seems to me that it would be the best way to secure mp3s file yet still be able to share them from a web site. Let the server send out only 256 bits per second and never get at the original code/file.
Of course, I'm a novice when it comes to that, so I don't know if that's how it already works or if it is even currently feasible. Perhaps this should be a discussion in itself...
It's a good idea if slashdot likes it, especially given that a few people have heard of slashdot.
I'm not sure what you meant by #3, so this may be repetitive, but maybe slashdot users could be limited to [KARMA]/10 mp3s per day so as not to abuse slashdot's bandwidth. As if slashdot has any problems with bandwidth...
I didn't mean to contradict myself... I meant to point out a paradox, if it can be called that. Record companies are subjectively selective -- they decide what gets noticed through them, regardless of what we may actually think about it when we hear it. The Internet is objectively selective (for the most part) in that the search engines and various channels for exposing talent, not just musical talent, are open to anyone. Of course, as people like this and that, they link to it more than the stuff that no one likes...
My point is that the Internet makes it easier for the consumers to choose what they like. The record companies make it easier, in some cases, for good musicians whose style isn't popular to make more money than they would if the popular stuff weren't held back. (Underneath the surface, that's socialism.)
Er, nice. Cal Ripken played in 2632 consecutive games from 1982 to, er, 1999? 2000? Sixteen consecutive years of showing up to work every day. Physical labor (though fun) with occasional broken bones, random illnesses, etc. But... how irrelevant!
I too had perfect attendance through most of my school days. Not until I turned 16 did I learn the value of occasionally skipping... when it was necessary... like on a Wednesday in the middle of a long stretch, like seven weeks or so, without holidays.
...is that it is extremely rare for any mind on its own to contain all the answers. I'm not God. Are you? (-:
That is why we share little bits of arguments in this way. I share one view, you share another, the rest of the world (potentially) shares billions of others, and somewhere down the line the best solution is realized, pursued, and achieved.
The political philosopher John Stuart Mill said it best in his essay On Libety in 1859:
Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
That's just idiotic...because every idiot who owns a guitar can put up a web site, the good bands are drowned by even more noise that we've seen in the past.
That's not idiotic, that's a necessary part of life, especially in a capitalist world (which this ultimately is). Preferences are just that, preferences, and for every "trash" band or song out there, there is someone who likes it or it wouldn't be there.
Darwin's idea of evolution suggests that "only the strong survive". In today's world, there are a lot of survivors, but only the strongest break through to mainstream or otherwise profitable success.
You're ultimately right. Good musicians aern't that rare, and as the Internet speeds up and offers more, it won't be difficult to find something that's worth listening to (or reading, or seeing, etc.). Sure, some artists are better than others and still won't receive the credit they deserve because the Internet is so massive that equal opportunity exposure is impossible (emphasizes because I think it's a good quote, heh), but that doesn't make what I said previously "idiotic". The record companies' utility has expired, or it is at least winding down.
Obviously I had no room to elaborate in an introductory blurb... If it were a feature article, I would have covered it better.:-)
If you scroll down past the (ugly) header, the meat of Tony Fletcher's iJamming article/feature is entertaining and insightful. It was published in March 2002 in response to Michael Greene's speech at the Grammy's.
He slams Greene, record labels, and the industry in general and promotes the best interests of artists and consumers. His points are laid out cleanly in numbered paragraphs with bold "headline" statements, which makes it easy to skip the ideas with which you may disagree or of which you've heard too much of, and simply get to the stuff you want to read.
It's a very good article, but Fletcher misses the point a little when he says:
Selling albums is no longer the only way for artists to make money. They have other options - publishing, touring, merchandising, soundtrack commissions, TV commercials, Djing or other public appearances, sponsorship
Correction: Selling albums was never the only way for artists to make money.
One story in particular that I read about four years, which was similar to this but good enough to earmark, went thus:
...the vast majority of music revenues are built around the "pay before you can listen" model in which customers have to buy a CD or cassette before they can hear a song. The Internet makes possible a wealth of new revenue models in which free music can play a significant role...
This article essentially represents how I feel about the industry today. Sure, it isn't entirely accurate and the theories aren't laws unless they work in the real world... But in theory, it looks good.
I definitely agree with the points you've made here. But without writing a story of feature length, which would have required too much effort for the potential of rejection, I just wanted to be as general as I could. Excellent points!
(1) we chose a state with no income taxes and a means for the people to get things done (i.e., laws supporting initiatives, referenda, and recalls);
(2) we arrange some sort of communal living structure, similar to college dorms, except we have multiple individuals or groups living together to split the living expenses -- safety and power in numbers;
(3) we all read Atlas Shrugged at least once to develop the mindset that being selfish is good, and staying behind for others (like family) to feed off us is bad.
But, really, how likely is that? Do you really want to live with me?
ITWorld articles from last Thursday and Friday briefly spell out what happened. From what I understand, someone screwed up some routing tables and brought down part of the 'net.
Slashdot Mirror
Just curious about HHGG.
I had a few things to say about this on my website about six hours ago. I more or less highlighted the issue, linked to it, and stressed that all (well, most) tax proposals should be submitted to popular vote before taking effect.
But there is a certainly quality of freedom and non-hassle that I'm going for in life... And, while effort to improve should never be spared, shrugging off efforts to destroy because it will only be better improved later is, well, counterproductive. We could just address known vulnerabilities before they're discovered by someone malicious.
Sure, you say that, but you're a slashdot geek like the rest of us, so that let's us know that you are at least more dependent on computers than, say, the average person. I just hope we don't have to worry about the end of the Internet any time soon. :-)
Meanwhile, you'd think with Superman's ability to fly through space that he would have the impetus to search for some sort of kryptonite shield... But, alas, he feels too obligated...
I'm pretty sure Superman prevented the Statue of Liberty from falling into the middle of "Metropolis" in Superman IV when that, um, other superman was flying around destroying stuff. Don't know if I have the right sequel, though... :-P
Failure to complete regime change? Uhh... I don't know what Afghanistan you're talking about, but, um, the Taliban is history. That equals regime change.
At the same time, maybe this article should have been posted as a comment to the original story, or even tacked on as an update and "reposted" instead of being "repeated". (I was busy this weekend; I didn't see the first story until now. I'll try to pay closer attention next time, but when I miss a story, I don't look back...)
At the same time, maybe the /. editors just really like the whole super-worm discussion and really want us to go nuts with it.
I suppose it's too late to append my article as a comment to the original... :-)
I know it's a horrible thing to think about, but maybe we should, come to think of it... Anyone think we should devise a contigency plan for when/if the Internet does hit a brick wall? Not because I'm paranoid, but because I would rather be overprotected than regretfully and idiotically vulnerable.
Under whose jurisdiction will this be decided? America's or Sweden's? Intentia filed charges with a Swedish criminal investigation bureau, but I doubt the "offense" by Reuters representatives took place under their jurisdiction, even it if did involve access to their servers.
There will be many precedents set in coming years regarding remote access potentially as though it were local, and it will be interesting how those chips stack up.
Production: $
Advertising: $$$$$$$$$$
And the price per CD drops for the more you do, because the longer the machines are committed to an automated task, the fewer man hours are required to set it up for the next task. The more CDs you want, the cheaper each one costs. So popular acts (note I don't use the word "artists" here) like NSync or the Beatles can spend pocket change ($.25-.50 per CD?) making a million CDs and then spend a few million on advertising ($2-5 per CD?)... of course, they're not the ones spending the money anyway, because they aren't the business people, the record company people are, which is what their purpose is I guess... to do the work that the "artists" don't want to do.
Someone said something very interesting in one of these comments... Most artists aren't only in it for the money, or they'd be a lot more serious about it. Many of them probably just want to have fun and make a little money, and they think that the laid back lifestyle is worth the high price of submitting to the insane prices of the middlemen who do comparatively little and make more money. Hey, the guys in suits aren't touring year round, going deaf by age 35, and subjecting themselves to potential death at every turn with potentially dangerous sex or other situations...
But that's beside the point. The point is that making the CD has never been a problem, and I don't see why "airplay" is so important. I don't ever listen to the radio for music. Still, I hear about bands because people I know think I would like them, or because once in a while I just look for music. I know my taste, and I ask random people (such as in forums) of bands like that. You'd be surprised how many people, especially college age and older, know someone in a band or liked some other local band that made it just big enough to have a really good album or two, but never make it mainstream. (The world's greatest musicians probably never make it to the mainstream, just like the world's greatest persons will probably never be world leaders.)
......or are they? I have limited knowledge of streaming media, so I may be showing my ignorance here. If that be the case, then I need to be corrected, because I'd like to know. :-) But my understanding is that streaming media is somewhat similar to the concept of server-side scripting for web sites. No matter how much you want to get at the actual files as they exist on the server, the server won't let you because it interprets and runs the server-side code to produce a client-side HTML file.
If streaming media does not work this way, then perhaps the algorithms to make it possible should be developed and/or employed. It seems to me that it would be the best way to secure mp3s file yet still be able to share them from a web site. Let the server send out only 256 bits per second and never get at the original code/file.
Of course, I'm a novice when it comes to that, so I don't know if that's how it already works or if it is even currently feasible. Perhaps this should be a discussion in itself...
I'm not sure what you meant by #3, so this may be repetitive, but maybe slashdot users could be limited to [KARMA]/10 mp3s per day so as not to abuse slashdot's bandwidth. As if slashdot has any problems with bandwidth...
My point is that the Internet makes it easier for the consumers to choose what they like. The record companies make it easier, in some cases, for good musicians whose style isn't popular to make more money than they would if the popular stuff weren't held back. (Underneath the surface, that's socialism.)
I too had perfect attendance through most of my school days. Not until I turned 16 did I learn the value of occasionally skipping... when it was necessary... like on a Wednesday in the middle of a long stretch, like seven weeks or so, without holidays.
That is why we share little bits of arguments in this way. I share one view, you share another, the rest of the world (potentially) shares billions of others, and somewhere down the line the best solution is realized, pursued, and achieved.
The political philosopher John Stuart Mill said it best in his essay On Libety in 1859:
That's not idiotic, that's a necessary part of life, especially in a capitalist world (which this ultimately is). Preferences are just that, preferences, and for every "trash" band or song out there, there is someone who likes it or it wouldn't be there.
Darwin's idea of evolution suggests that "only the strong survive". In today's world, there are a lot of survivors, but only the strongest break through to mainstream or otherwise profitable success.
You're ultimately right. Good musicians aern't that rare, and as the Internet speeds up and offers more, it won't be difficult to find something that's worth listening to (or reading, or seeing, etc.). Sure, some artists are better than others and still won't receive the credit they deserve because the Internet is so massive that equal opportunity exposure is impossible (emphasizes because I think it's a good quote, heh), but that doesn't make what I said previously "idiotic". The record companies' utility has expired, or it is at least winding down.
Obviously I had no room to elaborate in an introductory blurb... If it were a feature article, I would have covered it better. :-)
He slams Greene, record labels, and the industry in general and promotes the best interests of artists and consumers. His points are laid out cleanly in numbered paragraphs with bold "headline" statements, which makes it easy to skip the ideas with which you may disagree or of which you've heard too much of, and simply get to the stuff you want to read.
It's a very good article, but Fletcher misses the point a little when he says:
Correction: Selling albums was never the only way for artists to make money.
Oops. I meant "four years ago". (-:
This article essentially represents how I feel about the industry today. Sure, it isn't entirely accurate and the theories aren't laws unless they work in the real world... But in theory, it looks good.
I definitely agree with the points you've made here. But without writing a story of feature length, which would have required too much effort for the potential of rejection, I just wanted to be as general as I could. Excellent points!
(1) we chose a state with no income taxes and a means for the people to get things done (i.e., laws supporting initiatives, referenda, and recalls);
(2) we arrange some sort of communal living structure, similar to college dorms, except we have multiple individuals or groups living together to split the living expenses -- safety and power in numbers;
(3) we all read Atlas Shrugged at least once to develop the mindset that being selfish is good, and staying behind for others (like family) to feed off us is bad.
But, really, how likely is that? Do you really want to live with me?
ITWorld articles from last Thursday and Friday briefly spell out what happened. From what I understand, someone screwed up some routing tables and brought down part of the 'net.