I heard that carbon nanotubes, when mixed with plastic, shield against electro magnetic pulse.
So once that technology gets off the ground, once they figure out how to mass-manufacture those things, they could easily make electronic cases shielded in this manner.
I saw it estimated that the Federal Government has about $30 Trillion in assets. $5 Trillion in debt, vs. $30 Trillion in assets. This is a ratio almost ANY business would KILL for. And it's certainly a lot better than most individuals' personal debt-to-asset ratio.
People in business understand that some debt must occur for smooth operation. In fact, it often makes more sense to keep the debt, say your interest rate is 15%, but you could invest your money in materials to produce products that will yeild 40%. It makes a lot more sense in a lot of cases to keep the debt.
Also keep in mind that with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, you should see even MORE spending cuts than we saw in the past 8 years with Mr. Veto. Such spending cuts will create even more surplus (even, *gasp* REAL surplus).
I just got done reading/skimming ~150 replies, and counted only 1 that was vaguely pro-bush, and only three that were independantly defending him over the pandering to slashdot issue, and two which commented that his CIO idea was "interesting".
I'm used to feeling different, but I didn't expect it so much from the/. crowd. Surely there is some other/.er who likes Bush besides me.
In fact, accroding to the/. poll, 18% of Slashdotters are planning to vote for Bush, 6764 of you. Where only 1% more plan to vote for Gore. (The largest percentage of you don't live in the US.) Why don't we see that represented in the posts? Why are the numbers of pro-Bush posts so contrary to the numbers of Slashdotters who plan to vote for Bush?
I see the same thing in the media. The voices that are the loudest seem to always be attacking the Republicans. Take this DUI issue that came up today. Is Bush attacking Gore's *very* shady past? There are plenty of terrible things Gore has done too, but Bush is trying his hardest to play fair, talk about the issues, talk more about why he'd make a good prez than about why his opponant is terrible because of his past.
As for the CIO idea, I think it's more than just "interesting" -- it's FANTASTIC. I've said all along that the problem with the government in passing all these stupid technology laws *isn't* because they're trying to destroy life as we know it, but instead because they don't *understand* the technology issues. Because they're career politicians, and the only voices they hear are the voices on the other side. When they *do* hear our voice, it just sounds like a bunch of technobabble, and they don't get it.
The best thing *anyone* could do would be to appoint a CIO. That's the first step. You get someone close to you who can interpert this stuff, someone who can give you a clearer picture, and help you lead with knowledge. This is the best idea concerning technology I've heard come out of *any* politician's mouth EVER.
And I think that's Bush's strength. He's not the smartest man in the world. He knows he doesn't know everything. No one knows everything. And rather than being in denial that he's ignorant about some things, he comes to realize it, and then appoints the appropriate people around him who can successfully fill the positions. (Remember, the job of the President is in the Executive Branch, not the Legislative, and yet people seem to look to the President to solve all their problems -- that's not what the Preisident is for. Skill at appointing competent people to Executive positions is *very* important.) He admitted once that his running mate was smarter than him, and said, "That's why I picked him".
Isn't this a breath of fresh air to all the arrogance we've seen for the past 8 years? All the self-glorifying bullcrap we've heard out of Gore this past year?
To me it is a breath of fresh air. To me, that's as close to Integrity as you can get (while still being a politician). And I still think Integrity is important. Call me old-fashioned, but you can see what the lack of it has done to the office of the President.
Incidentally, I think I'm a Liberetarian... But I haven't decided yet, there's a couple of Liberetarian platforms I'm unsure about. But I still think Bush is the best all-around Presidential candidate to come along in a *long* time. I didn't like voting for Dole. I'm going to actually enjoy casting my vote for George W. Bush.
Even if I'm the only Slashdotter brave enough to admit it.
Insurance and Credit Cards have been doing this for years. It's nothing new. Car insurance companies give you a cheap deal at first (compared to your old company), then wait until you've been a good policy holder for a couple of years, and then start raising your rates. Most people blame it on inflation, or don't even notice, and the insurance gains.
Credit cards are the worst for this though. They offer some ridiculous introductory rate (2% or something) then 6 months later, introductory time is over, and the 24% reality sets in -- on the money you borrowed when it was 2%.
The best thing to do is just to keep a lookout for the best prices. Don't always go to one store. Compare, who can give it to you cheaper, B&N or Amazon? So if they raise the price too high you go somewhere else. So what?
And what ever happened to that shopping agent idea? Did that get beaten down with that auction site lawsuit? It was going to be a little web window, and you would tell it the item you wanted, and it would search, and then keep a continuous lookout over time (for sales, etc) to get you the best price. Did this die? Something like this would keep the market in balance.
Can you imagine the bugs on this thing? Instead of 1+1=1.99938427, 1+1 would = 1.99938427, OR 3.27329436 OR 2.489302434, depending on what method you use to observe the answer. You could know either the momentum of the answer OR the location of the answer, but never both at the same time!
And wouldn't the computer travel in the form of a wave and a particle? How do you put a wave into your carry-on luggage??
The implications are staggering!
Re:You Obviously Don't Live In New York.
on
The Virtual Tip Jar
·
· Score: 1
I agree. I am VERY excited about the tipjar concept. Since the first MP3s I downloaded, back in late '96, I realized what this would do to the record industy. If you understand business, the service the labels provide is distrubtion. With MP3s, the artist has the power to control distribution themselves, and the record company niche vanishes.
I'm also a firm believer in the "try before you buy" concept. Most of my favorite bands, bands I've bought more than 1 CD of, I've downloaded several MP3s first. Portishead, Placebo, Fiona Apple, K's Choice, etc. I've wondered how things would go, knowing that any system which leaves the record co's involved would retain inneffeciency, and they would still control who becomes popular and sold, and dictate what those bands say, do, wear, etc.
So the idea I had way back then was sort of a shareware concept. It worked in the 80's. Many programmers became millionaires, and many more made thousands of dollars, by giving away fully-functional programs, and asking for a donation. Everyone knew that tons of people were using the software without paying. I didn't register any programs, but I felt guilty for not doing so. I knew the programmer deserved the money. (At the time, I was poor. I register things now though.. most of the time:) )
Until the tipjar idea, I really hadn't seen it talked about, and it did have technical problems. Like, I think $1-5 is fair for a bunch of mp3s. (It's more than the band is getting from their lable already!!). But with such a small dollar sum, how do you get it to the artist without a hassle?
The tips jar service solves that right away. It's a wonderful idea.
And sure people won't pay. They'll all have reasons. Some people will be selfish, grabbing free music for the sake of free music. Some people are financially drained. The reason I didn't buy many CDs back in '96 was because I was still poor. I WANTED to, but I COULDN'T.
Most people are fairly honest. Most people I've talked to in this whole Napster thing agree that the artist should get compensation.
Don't forget that it does cost money to make a CD. There are NO material costs to make an MP3 cost. Yes, there are studio fees. Yes, there is the time of the artists. But compared to the cost of printing, stamping, mastering, labeling, jewel cases, inserts, the rest is nothing.
If you're a really small band, and 5,000 people hear your music, and 2,000 of them like you, and 1,500 download more than one of your mp3s, and 500 of those thing you're worth $2, you've just made $1000. You didn't have to print 100 CDs (spending $250-$500 out-of-pocket risk) to get this. It doesn't matter that 1000 people downloaded more than one mp3 and liked you without paying! Those 500 paying are a LOT more than if you'd've relied upon CD sales at the door of the concert.
I think that's a good deal. Think of what that number would be if you were Metallica or Barenaked Ladies or Blink!
One thing many people don't think about is the difference between government (public) and private censorship. In my book, the government does not and should not have the right to censor in most instances. On this topic I am like you, Denubis. Our First Amendment rights are foremost, and without them, this country would fall quickly into inescapible tyranny.
On the other hand, we have the freedom to assemble, and within those assemblies, I beleive those groups should be allowed to govern as they see fit, even if it includes censorship. If we have been given the rights by our government, we should have the freedom to give them up by freely joining an organization, if that organization has certain rules.
For example, if you join a religion, and that religon requires you are not allowed to say the word "Tarzan"... Then if you really want to be able to say the word Tarzan, you shouldn't have joined that religion. Just so long as you are never forced to join the organization or are never allowed to leave, this is all fair.
This kind of thing happens in the real world all the time. In Girl Scouts, we had this little motto thing we all said at the beginning of class, and had rules governing how we ran meetings. All religons have dictates of behavior. Companies have rules and things you are not allowed to say or do.
And again, this is fair, because we can always disassociate ourselves from the organization. If government were to impose such rules, however, we would not be able to disassociate without defecting, and the rules would likely be enforced through terrible means. And that's not our government's job.
So in your case, someone owns a laundromat. That is their own private organization. As such, they are allowed to make any rules they want. They can say you can't use the washers unless you pay a $150 setup fee. Or you had to jump on one foot the whole time you're there. No one would go if they did that, but they have that freedom. That's why it's fair for them to have that freedom, because people can choose to go to a differnt laundromat, or not wash, or rent/buy a washer, etc.
I think it's a wonderful idea, putting computers in a laundromat. They're doing a wonderful service to the community, and at the same time, they're attracting customers.
Since they're their computers on their property, providing something they don't have to provide, I think it's perfectly fine and dandy that they put filters on the computers. To me, as a parent, it actually adds value to the whole system, knowing that my 5 yr old child won't catch a glimpse of sweaty skin, fur, chains, and all other combinations available out there, as he's looking over someone's shoulder. It gives me more freedom as a parent (in a public place where I have less control of my surroundings), so that I can feel safe bringing my child there, and knowing then that I can teach him about sex the way I feel is best.
Moving on, I noticed some other people making this comment, and I'll add my vote to it. Words like fuck, cum, and slut don't tend to find their way into sites about breast cancer or chicken recipies. I think blocking those types of words will block most porn sites while allowing freedom to other sites quite nicely.
As for quelling fears, that one's difficult given the situation. It depends on if you'll have an attendant there who is technically knowledgable, or if you will just have the computers sitting there. That would be the best way, have someone there who can teach newbies how to use the system, and answer their questions. If someone has an irrational fear, that's where you get it, when they ask.
If its in an inner-city area, you might be able to find some kids in the neighborhood who maybe are a bit on the geeky side, or at least would like to be if given the chance. They would be more than happy to work min. wage, to guide people on the internet. Something like this would benefit everyone.
We had trouble with VA too. This has been in the past year. We were planning on going with VA 100% for our servers and linux machines in our new startup.
We ordered 2 boxes, were given an ETA, and we waited and waited and waited. We would call, and they'd say, "Oh, those will ship tomorrow," and then we'd wait some more, and still no boxes. Finally, we called and canceled our order and went with Dell, who was more than happy to comply with our wishes, and has been easy to work with. We've ordered 4 or 5 servers from them.
Funny thing was, about a week after we canceled our VA order, the boxes finally arrived. We stamped return to sender on them, and away they went.
I'm glad to see that VA reps are reading this, and I hope you guys take a good look at customer service. I don't think these are issolated incidences.
Dude, for me this has very little to do with feminism or equality. It has to do with anyone who has a brain who doesn't use it because it's not popular. It is less popular for girls than for guys (though guys have the problem too). I don't care if a girl learns, and then chooses to stay home and raise kids. Fine. But don't give me women who think there's no reason to learn. And especially don't give me women who say, "I can't."
I agree that men and women are wired differently, think differently, and have a different way of looking at things. But I think that this perspective is beneficial in a technical setting. It is more of a social thing than a wiring thing. It's just not "cool" to be geeky. Even less cool to be geeky AND a girl, because at least you have your little group of guy geeks, and when I step into it, I'm the only girl. And sometimes I get flack for that from guy groups just like yours.
And I would never suggest a change in the laws. The laws are adequate. I'm suggesting a change in social attitudes and perspectives. And it starts with individuals.
It burns me that you said girls are never discouraged. I read an article in either InternetWeek or NetworkWorld. There were women in there from big companies with horror stories. I thought this stuff didn't go on anymore, but it does. One lady said that just 10 years ago, her high school councilor told her to stop taking math classes, that she needed to major in something more feminine, and math wouldn't help her towards that goal. !!! This was an American High School. This particular girl didn't listen to her councilor, but how many more do??
Another woman said that none of the men in management would take her seriously, despite being the most qualified. She said in the past, she has explained a problem over the phone to someone, they wouldn't listen to her, then she would hand the phone to a guy in the room, have him repeat exactly what she said, and only THEN would they listen.
The problem still exists, and it's close-mindedness like yours that keeps it up. I go to LAN parties some weekends. I am THE only girl who goes. I have a hard time fitting in. Sometimes I just wish I was "one of the guys". I want to blend in. Sure, they treat me with respect, but I still feel different. The first couple of weeks I went, guys were telling me how to do things. "Just plug your network cable in there.." I felt like screaming, "I'm a network administrator! I know more about this stuff than you do!"... It's kinda like Miranda on User Friendly. Though I'm not nearly as good at Quake as she is:)
Excuse me, but I have already hit the glass ceiling at my job here. There is a strong good old boys network in management, and they will not take me seriously about anything. I know my stuff. I'm responsible. I do all the work of an IT Manager, but they will not give me that title or pay, and instead we currently have no IT Manager, because no one else is qualified, and the ones they could hire cost too much.
Now, I don't know if it's because I'm female or not. I have no way of proving it. The management in question are 97% computer illiterate, and don't have any idea what I actually do here. They also don't have any idea what an IT Manager does. And who knows, maybe I really am a terrible worker. But it's not like I don't try, like I don't take responsibility. The more ambition I show, the more boats I rock, and that only sets me back.
Discrimination in the workplace DOES still occur. If you don't realize that, then it's either because you work for a good company, or because you're a guy.
Bravo! This is the first good comment I've read in here.
This is a topic I've given a lot of thought to. Growing up, I was always into science type things. As a three year old, I studied bugs, and as a 6 year old I could pronouce the work Etymologyist (it's what I wanted to be when I grew up). I loved one little Apple IIe we had at school, and would spend as much time as I could get on it (5 minutes a month or so:) ). I was in an club called Young Astronauts. I wanted a telescope. I read up on physics. In high school I did a science fair project on photons and quantum theory. I was forunate enough to have parents who, while encouraging me to be lady-like (unsuccessfully!), also encouraged my learning. They let me learn about anything I wanted to, took me to science centers, bought me ant farms, and kept the station tuned to PBS.
I also suffered a great deal for my geekyness. I was once a very outgoing child, until first grade, where through humiliation from both my teacher and my peers, I started to imagine myself as a social lesser, a self-image I continue to battle today, even though I know it's false. It only went down-hill from there, and fortunatly, I choose my brain over what other people thought of me. At any time I could have chosen to shun learning, shun science and math, and re-build an outer-image based on playing with Barbies, talking about guys, and going shopping.
I think this is what girls tend to do though. None of their friends like computers, or astronomy, or biology. They find that when they do get curious, these behaviors are frowned upon by parents, teachers, and most importantly, their peers. That is who they feel are the most important influence -- their friends, or lack thereof.
While it's bad for boys, it isn't nearly as bad. Boys can get A's in math, and as long as they don't act or look geeky, it's ok. In fact, one of the most popular guys in my high school was a 4.0 GPA, who took as many math and physics and chemistry classes as he did drama and sports.
I do think this is a serious problem. I've felt some discrimination in my workplace. I know I make less money than my male co-worker who has fewer responsibilites and fewer skills than I do. Yes, it bothers me. I'm not going to burn my bra or lobby for legal changes, or sue anyone (I'm generally conservative), but I have been wanting to do something about it.
I've been thinking about starting an organization, or finding an existing one and become very active in it. There are organizations for women in construction, why not computers/technology?
And one of my main goals would be helping bright young girls find a place to belong, show them that there are other girls and women who like math and science and computers, and encourage them. Show them how much fun learning and discovery can be.
Just a note to you guys, it has nothing (at least for me) to do with not wanting to work with "geeky guys". For girls, it has more to do with being thought of AS a geek, as BEING a geeky girl. And this has nothing to do with intelligence either, but of social acceptance.
I think one of the things that makes me the most upset is when I see a girl or woman who has the potential, yet denies it, shakes her head, laughs, and says, "Oh, I could never learn to do that!" Because they're wrong, and they have no idea how much their loosing out on: the ability to think for themselves and grow.
Bah.. I didn't have rich parents (middle-middle class, about $40k/year in the 80s), and I bought my first computer at age 16. Price tag was $1991 for a 386. Starting at age 13 I was buying such things as a piano, a spinning wheel (hehe), a 10-speed bike, etc. ($500, $75, and $100 respectivly). I bought this all with my own money. Of course, I was no normal child:)
I would wager to guess that the correct average spendutures for children are as follows. Children ages 8-10 probably get a $1 allowance a week (on average). They can buy $1 items, or save for a month and buy $4 items. 10-12 probably get a $5 weekly allowance, which means if they save they can buy a Britnay Spears CD now and then. They are also starting to earn money here and there for odd jobs around the house, neighbors, etc. 12-14 year olds, on average, are probably making $10 per week with allowances, bumming money off the folks, mowing lawns, and don't forget Babysitting!:) For occational to medium babysitters, this is probably more like $15-20 per week.
Once you hit 14, the sky's the limit for the average teen (remember, I was not average). Now you can (in some states) get a part time job, more mowing jobs, a LOT more bumming money from the folks, people (grandparents) send you money for your birthday or Christmas, EVERYONE wants you to babysit.. Then there's the little scam of embezzeling money off the soccer team fund raisers (they'll never notice just a little).....
COPA was struck down, COPPA was NOT. There is a distinct difference between these two Acts, and I haven't yet, in scanning the replies, seen someone make this distinction. I thought you guys were smarter than that;)
COPA was to protect children from porn. It roughly stated that any site with offensive material was to collect a credit card number before allowing a user on. It was a re-do of the Online Indecency Act.
COPPA is the Privacy act. It states that sites can not collect ANY information from children without getting a parent's permission. Since this is a technological nightmare (because congress has no concept of what technology can and can't easily do), many sites have opted to simply shut their doors to youngsters, including many game sites such as WON.net and M$'s Zone. It has NOT been struck down, nor have I heard much about any attempts to do so. I think the ACLU is making some kind of febel attempt.
I usually hate the ACLU, but lately they seem to be the only ones with enough money to bring the voice of reason into the latest barrage of uneducated decisions being made by Congress.
The COPPA angers me. And yes, I am a mother. It is my right as a mother to decide what sites my child can register with. My boy is only 5, but I'm building him his own computer. As soon as he learns how to type, I wouldn't mind him having an ICQ account, and certainly he's going to be big into gaming. Now, unless he lies, he can't join any game nets, except for the select few that still allow signups with a phone call or fax from me. And do you think I have time or enough interest to start calling people?? NO! This is the Internet! And like hell if I'm going to give them my credit card number. (Yet, right now my child couldn't even legally sign up for Ascheron's Call!!)
This doesn't even cover the fact that the bill is irresponsible. From what I've read of it, if cute little 8 year old Kimberly Smith sends an email to IBM saying, "Hi. I'm Kim. My mommy's name is Pattie and my dad's is Frank and we live in Los Angeles. I'm doing a report for school about bit computer companies. Can you please send me some information?". This is more than enough information to now put IBM in tresspass of the law, even though the information was unsolicited. The same thing goes if a child fills out an online form, even if it's for a company that has nothing to do with children, and makes no requests for information from children.
Also one must consider the impact this is having on dot-com startups who have catered to children. I read one article about a teen chat and teen's problem help sites that, due to low funding, have had to close their doors to the 11-12 year olds they once allowed. They simply do not have enough money to put in place a program to get parental approval. The same has gone for smaller children's sites. DisneyBlast.com has come out of this scott free, since they have the money, and they were collection credit card numbers anyway!
Well I've said my peice. Don't think that just because COPA has gone down that the COPPA has not! We still need to be speaking out against this. It is the parents' responsibility to police their child's web usage! NOT the gonvernment's!
Actually, technically, xyzzy WAS an easter egg, just in a different program. In Windows 3.1 and 95 (I have never tried it in 98, and it doesn't work in NT), that's the was cheat code for Minsweeper:) You held down either ctrl or alt or shift (I never could remember, so I always just hit all of them) they typed xyzzy, and then the upper left corner pixle of the desktop would change color for tiles that had mines under them:)
Ok, so less of an Easter Egg and more of a cheat, but I thought that was funny that the actually code itself had more of a history.
Actually... Napster isn't trying to make money. They've never once made a cent. You don't have to buy the software. Heck, you CAN'T buy the software. There's no advertising...
In fact, I don't think they ever really planned to make money. I know a guy who knows the guy who wrote Napster. My friend was asked by Nap author to join him in his business, and my friend turned him down because Napster wasn't designed to make a profit.
Yeah, Chuck D was actually sued by his label a while back (about a year ago?) for putting his MP3s on his website. (Sorry I don't have the refference, I read it in a hard-copy magazine). This has been the supporting evidence I've used all along that the RIAA and Record Companies aren't fighting for the "artist's rights" like they always claim. It's easier to feel sorry for the artist, but when they turn around and sue their own artists for breach of contract... They're only in it for their own pocketbooks. I guess "Protect Large multi-billion-dollar-a-year Record Mega-Conglomorates" doesn't sound as convincing.
Hey, here's an idea. We've all said our piece here. Would there be any chance we could send all these comments (in hard-copy) to Congress? Or get together a Slashdot petition?
The Internet, combined with widespread broadband access, will revolutionize the distribution of recorded entertainment and other media. Online delivery of music (and other creative products) will be a boon to consumers and record companies alike by reducing production costs, eliminating the danger of unsold inventory, streamlining the purchasing process, and reducing the role of CD manufacturers and music retailers. To the extent that online digital music accomplishes those goals, (including distributing non-copyrighted material through services like Napster) we are strongly in favor of it. Despite the threat of copyright violations, online digital music and other technologies can improve productivity and reduce costs to the consumer, which is clearly in the public interest.
The public debate over Napster, however, shows that the danger to artists and record companies comes not from technological innovation, but from companies and individuals using the technology in illegal ways...
The whole point of MP3's is that they eliminate the middle-men. In this case, the middle-men are the RECORD LABLES and the record stores. Two tiers in this industry are being ripped away (no pun intended.. really!!). That's what the RIAA is so afraid of. No more records, no more RECORDING. MP3's allow a direct channel (crap, another pun) from the artist to the end user. There is NO NEED for a record company in this model, except for artist promotion. None. Zip. No need.
The second paragraph turns right around and contradicts this. Sure, the artists need some kind of protection. But the record companies? They're loosing their jobs. There's no longer a need for them. Their place in society is deteriorating.
Where was congress to protect the Blacksmiths and Wheelrights and Saddlemakers when Henry Ford started selling cars? Entire industries died as a result of the invention of the car. Horse-drawn buggies were no longer needed. Horses were no longer needed. Horseshoes, no more. Did congress step in and say, "But what about the rights of the people in the horse industry??" No! It was considered progress, and a large bunch of horse people had to find new jobs as the years eliminated the need for them.
What Congress needs to understand is that by voting for this, they are STOPPING progress. The record companies are fighting not for a few dollars lost (and that question is up for debate) but for their very lives. If laws like these are put into place, the lables will keep themselves a niche, just another 75% stack of profit on top of an intangible item you buy. Right now, they give you a CD for that profit, and a nice store to buy it in. In the future, what would you get for that markup? Nothing. Personally, I don't want them in that position. If I'm going to pay for a song in MP3 format, I want the majority of the profit to go to the artist, not a middleman who is providing no added value to me, the end user.
I also noticed the footnote on this report, in the first page, where it talks about all the money the poor record companies are loosing. The footnote says they don't have any hard figures. Feh. All the recording industry figures I've seen have said their earnings increased 6% last year. I still say music piracy PROMOTES CD sales. I sure know I've bought more CDs (and enjoyed them more because I liked what I bought) since I started downloading MP3s.
Oh yeah, and one more thing! (hehe) Billions of dollars in damages?? $100,000 per song per infringement? That's looney! Their losses aren't that much -- they don't even make that much!! Damages in any suit like this should be a SMALL percentage of the industry's money, not a LARGE percentage. To say as much money is being "stolen" as is spent on the entire industry in a year is beyond reason.
I think to Bow Tie fits just fine into my Astral/Etherial Plane model... the AP model fits over everything, so what's inside doesn't really matter as much.
The internet is like the Astral Plane. We access it from the "real" world all the time. Time and space obey different rules there. You can leap from place to place, no matter the distance, in the same amount of time, and from any location. You can even be in more than one place at once. Matter can be changed and manipulated at will. Cyberspace and alternate dimensions have a lot in common.
This is an idea that was talked about in Discover Magazine long before the internet revolution. In this article, they called them "knowbots" and at the time it was a revolutionary idea. Now we have spiders and portal sites that have almost arrived, but in a push fashion and not pull. I've also seen this idea in cyberpunk and sci-fi.
The idea was this: You tell the agent information you're interested in, and it's always looking for it. The Knowbots of the article would get you the stock quotes you wanted and all news articles on emerging technology, for instance. This has already arrived, with web portals. Again, push, not pull and I would expand on that, make them smarter.
What if you had an AI on your computer. It's yours. It is learning about you all the time. You don't just say, "I want news from this catagory, and the latest movie releases and the following stock quotes". You would say that at first, but then it learns over time, based off of what you use and don't use, what you are actually interested in. It is always searching the entire web, news syndicates, etc. It uses a combination of AI technolgies, and things like Netflix, to determine all of this. It wouldn't tell you ALL new movie releases, it would tell you the ones it knows you like. It would tell you the day your favorite band releases a new song. It would pull up an obscure news article you never would have found on your own about a recent fire in your old home town. The longer you use it, the more tailored to you it becomes. It learns not only through your direct activity with it, but also all other activity on that computer: web browsing, software you install, CDs and DVDs you play.
Guess I replied to the wrong one:) Like I said in a previous post, there's already one out there that does this, only it's smarter than that even. You never have to manually rank things. You give feedback as you listen, or you can ignore than and just let it learn when you skip songs. Still in beta, www.etantrum.com.
I LOVE that netflix thing, and I was going to mention that as well. I actually saw a thing about that on TV before I found it on accident on the web. They can also apply that to CDs. Their plan is to make "soulmate" groups. Basically, the theory is that someone who shares your tastes for a lot of things will share your tastes for most things. They call these "soulmates" and keep them in a big database. They want to divide these out into groups of 4-5 of your soulmates, then you can talk about CDs, movies, etc. and recommend them to each other. I think it's a great concept. An interesting AI that uses existing patterns to make recommendations.
Actually, someone is working on this, and they plan to have a Linux client. It has an AI that figures out what kinds of songs you like, not based on genre but on how the AI figures out that the song sounds. You give it feedback on songs, and it also learns from what songs you skip, repeat, etc. It's currently in Beta, and the name of the thing hasn't yet been decided. I think the working name is Personal Media Agent.
It's a closed beta, but you can try to sign up. www.etantrum.com. Currently it only plays local MP3s, but their plan is to have it stream. It can play you songs you've never heard before that you will probably like, based off your profile that the AI builds over time.
One of the points, though, is it's not even easy to learn. Where is Joe A. User going to go to find this out? How long is it going to take him? How many HOW-TO's does he have to read, each being filled with the aforementioned un-needed info.
Windows and Mac OS are intuitive. For most people, you don't even have to read anything once you get past the basics of mouse clicking and menu reading. Most people don't have to read a manual or go to a class to figure out how to use Outlook or.. change their display settings. Everything you want is in the control panel, and there are even shorter-short cuts. Right click on the desktop and choose properties to change anything having to do with the desktop, including display settings. Possible to guess. Ctrl-Alt-+? That's Impossible to guess. A plus sign has nothing to do with display settings, that I can see. Right-clicking the desktop does. And if you miss-guess (if right-clicking the desktop was a BAD answer) you aren't going to break anything. Personally I'd be afraid to go randomly hitting ctrl-alt-key combinations in Linux.
Linux was a big step out of the world of Windows. It was incredibly anti-intuitive. I'm used to sitting down to new software and guessing my way through it. With Linux, I was asking people questions, frustratedly reading how-tos and websites and newsgroups. Joe A. User doesn't want to do this. He will not do this. I did it because I'm a geek and all my geek friends were using/had used Linux. Joe A. User has a different kind of peer pressure, and doesn't want to take the time.
It's the path of least resistance, and Windows, at this time, is that path.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard that carbon nanotubes, when mixed with plastic, shield against electro magnetic pulse.
So once that technology gets off the ground, once they figure out how to mass-manufacture those things, they could easily make electronic cases shielded in this manner.
I saw it estimated that the Federal Government has about $30 Trillion in assets. $5 Trillion in debt, vs. $30 Trillion in assets. This is a ratio almost ANY business would KILL for. And it's certainly a lot better than most individuals' personal debt-to-asset ratio.
People in business understand that some debt must occur for smooth operation. In fact, it often makes more sense to keep the debt, say your interest rate is 15%, but you could invest your money in materials to produce products that will yeild 40%. It makes a lot more sense in a lot of cases to keep the debt.
Also keep in mind that with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, you should see even MORE spending cuts than we saw in the past 8 years with Mr. Veto. Such spending cuts will create even more surplus (even, *gasp* REAL surplus).
I just got done reading/skimming ~150 replies, and counted only 1 that was vaguely pro-bush, and only three that were independantly defending him over the pandering to slashdot issue, and two which commented that his CIO idea was "interesting".
/. crowd. Surely there is some other /.er who likes Bush besides me.
/. poll, 18% of Slashdotters are planning to vote for Bush, 6764 of you. Where only 1% more plan to vote for Gore. (The largest percentage of you don't live in the US.) Why don't we see that represented in the posts? Why are the numbers of pro-Bush posts so contrary to the numbers of Slashdotters who plan to vote for Bush?
I'm used to feeling different, but I didn't expect it so much from the
In fact, accroding to the
I see the same thing in the media. The voices that are the loudest seem to always be attacking the Republicans. Take this DUI issue that came up today. Is Bush attacking Gore's *very* shady past? There are plenty of terrible things Gore has done too, but Bush is trying his hardest to play fair, talk about the issues, talk more about why he'd make a good prez than about why his opponant is terrible because of his past.
As for the CIO idea, I think it's more than just "interesting" -- it's FANTASTIC. I've said all along that the problem with the government in passing all these stupid technology laws *isn't* because they're trying to destroy life as we know it, but instead because they don't *understand* the technology issues. Because they're career politicians, and the only voices they hear are the voices on the other side. When they *do* hear our voice, it just sounds like a bunch of technobabble, and they don't get it.
The best thing *anyone* could do would be to appoint a CIO. That's the first step. You get someone close to you who can interpert this stuff, someone who can give you a clearer picture, and help you lead with knowledge. This is the best idea concerning technology I've heard come out of *any* politician's mouth EVER.
And I think that's Bush's strength. He's not the smartest man in the world. He knows he doesn't know everything. No one knows everything. And rather than being in denial that he's ignorant about some things, he comes to realize it, and then appoints the appropriate people around him who can successfully fill the positions. (Remember, the job of the President is in the Executive Branch, not the Legislative, and yet people seem to look to the President to solve all their problems -- that's not what the Preisident is for. Skill at appointing competent people to Executive positions is *very* important.) He admitted once that his running mate was smarter than him, and said, "That's why I picked him".
Isn't this a breath of fresh air to all the arrogance we've seen for the past 8 years? All the self-glorifying bullcrap we've heard out of Gore this past year?
To me it is a breath of fresh air. To me, that's as close to Integrity as you can get (while still being a politician). And I still think Integrity is important. Call me old-fashioned, but you can see what the lack of it has done to the office of the President.
Incidentally, I think I'm a Liberetarian... But I haven't decided yet, there's a couple of Liberetarian platforms I'm unsure about. But I still think Bush is the best all-around Presidential candidate to come along in a *long* time. I didn't like voting for Dole. I'm going to actually enjoy casting my vote for George W. Bush.
Even if I'm the only Slashdotter brave enough to admit it.
Insurance and Credit Cards have been doing this for years. It's nothing new. Car insurance companies give you a cheap deal at first (compared to your old company), then wait until you've been a good policy holder for a couple of years, and then start raising your rates. Most people blame it on inflation, or don't even notice, and the insurance gains.
Credit cards are the worst for this though. They offer some ridiculous introductory rate (2% or something) then 6 months later, introductory time is over, and the 24% reality sets in -- on the money you borrowed when it was 2%.
The best thing to do is just to keep a lookout for the best prices. Don't always go to one store. Compare, who can give it to you cheaper, B&N or Amazon? So if they raise the price too high you go somewhere else. So what?
And what ever happened to that shopping agent idea? Did that get beaten down with that auction site lawsuit? It was going to be a little web window, and you would tell it the item you wanted, and it would search, and then keep a continuous lookout over time (for sales, etc) to get you the best price. Did this die? Something like this would keep the market in balance.
Yes, but how do you know it's really there?
Can you imagine the bugs on this thing? Instead of 1+1=1.99938427, 1+1 would = 1.99938427, OR 3.27329436 OR 2.489302434, depending on what method you use to observe the answer. You could know either the momentum of the answer OR the location of the answer, but never both at the same time!
And wouldn't the computer travel in the form of a wave and a particle? How do you put a wave into your carry-on luggage??
The implications are staggering!
I agree. I am VERY excited about the tipjar concept. Since the first MP3s I downloaded, back in late '96, I realized what this would do to the record industy. If you understand business, the service the labels provide is distrubtion. With MP3s, the artist has the power to control distribution themselves, and the record company niche vanishes.
:) )
I'm also a firm believer in the "try before you buy" concept. Most of my favorite bands, bands I've bought more than 1 CD of, I've downloaded several MP3s first. Portishead, Placebo, Fiona Apple, K's Choice, etc. I've wondered how things would go, knowing that any system which leaves the record co's involved would retain inneffeciency, and they would still control who becomes popular and sold, and dictate what those bands say, do, wear, etc.
So the idea I had way back then was sort of a shareware concept. It worked in the 80's. Many programmers became millionaires, and many more made thousands of dollars, by giving away fully-functional programs, and asking for a donation. Everyone knew that tons of people were using the software without paying. I didn't register any programs, but I felt guilty for not doing so. I knew the programmer deserved the money. (At the time, I was poor. I register things now though.. most of the time
Until the tipjar idea, I really hadn't seen it talked about, and it did have technical problems. Like, I think $1-5 is fair for a bunch of mp3s. (It's more than the band is getting from their lable already!!). But with such a small dollar sum, how do you get it to the artist without a hassle?
The tips jar service solves that right away. It's a wonderful idea.
And sure people won't pay. They'll all have reasons. Some people will be selfish, grabbing free music for the sake of free music. Some people are financially drained. The reason I didn't buy many CDs back in '96 was because I was still poor. I WANTED to, but I COULDN'T.
Most people are fairly honest. Most people I've talked to in this whole Napster thing agree that the artist should get compensation.
Don't forget that it does cost money to make a CD. There are NO material costs to make an MP3 cost. Yes, there are studio fees. Yes, there is the time of the artists. But compared to the cost of printing, stamping, mastering, labeling, jewel cases, inserts, the rest is nothing.
If you're a really small band, and 5,000 people hear your music, and 2,000 of them like you, and 1,500 download more than one of your mp3s, and 500 of those thing you're worth $2, you've just made $1000. You didn't have to print 100 CDs (spending $250-$500 out-of-pocket risk) to get this. It doesn't matter that 1000 people downloaded more than one mp3 and liked you without paying! Those 500 paying are a LOT more than if you'd've relied upon CD sales at the door of the concert.
I think that's a good deal. Think of what that number would be if you were Metallica or Barenaked Ladies or Blink!
One thing many people don't think about is the difference between government (public) and private censorship. In my book, the government does not and should not have the right to censor in most instances. On this topic I am like you, Denubis. Our First Amendment rights are foremost, and without them, this country would fall quickly into inescapible tyranny.
:)
On the other hand, we have the freedom to assemble, and within those assemblies, I beleive those groups should be allowed to govern as they see fit, even if it includes censorship. If we have been given the rights by our government, we should have the freedom to give them up by freely joining an organization, if that organization has certain rules.
For example, if you join a religion, and that religon requires you are not allowed to say the word "Tarzan"... Then if you really want to be able to say the word Tarzan, you shouldn't have joined that religion. Just so long as you are never forced to join the organization or are never allowed to leave, this is all fair.
This kind of thing happens in the real world all the time. In Girl Scouts, we had this little motto thing we all said at the beginning of class, and had rules governing how we ran meetings. All religons have dictates of behavior. Companies have rules and things you are not allowed to say or do.
And again, this is fair, because we can always disassociate ourselves from the organization. If government were to impose such rules, however, we would not be able to disassociate without defecting, and the rules would likely be enforced through terrible means. And that's not our government's job.
So in your case, someone owns a laundromat. That is their own private organization. As such, they are allowed to make any rules they want. They can say you can't use the washers unless you pay a $150 setup fee. Or you had to jump on one foot the whole time you're there. No one would go if they did that, but they have that freedom. That's why it's fair for them to have that freedom, because people can choose to go to a differnt laundromat, or not wash, or rent/buy a washer, etc.
I think it's a wonderful idea, putting computers in a laundromat. They're doing a wonderful service to the community, and at the same time, they're attracting customers.
Since they're their computers on their property, providing something they don't have to provide, I think it's perfectly fine and dandy that they put filters on the computers. To me, as a parent, it actually adds value to the whole system, knowing that my 5 yr old child won't catch a glimpse of sweaty skin, fur, chains, and all other combinations available out there, as he's looking over someone's shoulder. It gives me more freedom as a parent (in a public place where I have less control of my surroundings), so that I can feel safe bringing my child there, and knowing then that I can teach him about sex the way I feel is best.
Moving on, I noticed some other people making this comment, and I'll add my vote to it. Words like fuck, cum, and slut don't tend to find their way into sites about breast cancer or chicken recipies. I think blocking those types of words will block most porn sites while allowing freedom to other sites quite nicely.
As for quelling fears, that one's difficult given the situation. It depends on if you'll have an attendant there who is technically knowledgable, or if you will just have the computers sitting there. That would be the best way, have someone there who can teach newbies how to use the system, and answer their questions. If someone has an irrational fear, that's where you get it, when they ask.
If its in an inner-city area, you might be able to find some kids in the neighborhood who maybe are a bit on the geeky side, or at least would like to be if given the chance. They would be more than happy to work min. wage, to guide people on the internet. Something like this would benefit everyone.
Great idea, Denubis. Tell whoever thought it up
Although.... If comparing between the two, I'd have to say emmett is cuter ;)
:)
Yes, babyface is cute
Yep. At the risk of being a "me too", I would have to vote yes, emmett looks like Steve Jobs.
Maybe this should be a poll question, with links to the two pics as a part of the question so people can actually compare them side-by-side.
We had trouble with VA too. This has been in the past year. We were planning on going with VA 100% for our servers and linux machines in our new startup.
We ordered 2 boxes, were given an ETA, and we waited and waited and waited. We would call, and they'd say, "Oh, those will ship tomorrow," and then we'd wait some more, and still no boxes. Finally, we called and canceled our order and went with Dell, who was more than happy to comply with our wishes, and has been easy to work with. We've ordered 4 or 5 servers from them.
Funny thing was, about a week after we canceled our VA order, the boxes finally arrived. We stamped return to sender on them, and away they went.
I'm glad to see that VA reps are reading this, and I hope you guys take a good look at customer service. I don't think these are issolated incidences.
Dude, for me this has very little to do with feminism or equality. It has to do with anyone who has a brain who doesn't use it because it's not popular. It is less popular for girls than for guys (though guys have the problem too). I don't care if a girl learns, and then chooses to stay home and raise kids. Fine. But don't give me women who think there's no reason to learn. And especially don't give me women who say, "I can't."
... It's kinda like Miranda on User Friendly. Though I'm not nearly as good at Quake as she is :)
I agree that men and women are wired differently, think differently, and have a different way of looking at things. But I think that this perspective is beneficial in a technical setting. It is more of a social thing than a wiring thing. It's just not "cool" to be geeky. Even less cool to be geeky AND a girl, because at least you have your little group of guy geeks, and when I step into it, I'm the only girl. And sometimes I get flack for that from guy groups just like yours.
And I would never suggest a change in the laws. The laws are adequate. I'm suggesting a change in social attitudes and perspectives. And it starts with individuals.
It burns me that you said girls are never discouraged. I read an article in either InternetWeek or NetworkWorld. There were women in there from big companies with horror stories. I thought this stuff didn't go on anymore, but it does. One lady said that just 10 years ago, her high school councilor told her to stop taking math classes, that she needed to major in something more feminine, and math wouldn't help her towards that goal. !!! This was an American High School. This particular girl didn't listen to her councilor, but how many more do??
Another woman said that none of the men in management would take her seriously, despite being the most qualified. She said in the past, she has explained a problem over the phone to someone, they wouldn't listen to her, then she would hand the phone to a guy in the room, have him repeat exactly what she said, and only THEN would they listen.
The problem still exists, and it's close-mindedness like yours that keeps it up. I go to LAN parties some weekends. I am THE only girl who goes. I have a hard time fitting in. Sometimes I just wish I was "one of the guys". I want to blend in. Sure, they treat me with respect, but I still feel different. The first couple of weeks I went, guys were telling me how to do things. "Just plug your network cable in there.." I felt like screaming, "I'm a network administrator! I know more about this stuff than you do!"
Excuse me, but I have already hit the glass ceiling at my job here. There is a strong good old boys network in management, and they will not take me seriously about anything. I know my stuff. I'm responsible. I do all the work of an IT Manager, but they will not give me that title or pay, and instead we currently have no IT Manager, because no one else is qualified, and the ones they could hire cost too much.
Now, I don't know if it's because I'm female or not. I have no way of proving it. The management in question are 97% computer illiterate, and don't have any idea what I actually do here. They also don't have any idea what an IT Manager does. And who knows, maybe I really am a terrible worker. But it's not like I don't try, like I don't take responsibility. The more ambition I show, the more boats I rock, and that only sets me back.
Discrimination in the workplace DOES still occur. If you don't realize that, then it's either because you work for a good company, or because you're a guy.
Bravo! This is the first good comment I've read in here.
:) ). I was in an club called Young Astronauts. I wanted a telescope. I read up on physics. In high school I did a science fair project on photons and quantum theory. I was forunate enough to have parents who, while encouraging me to be lady-like (unsuccessfully!), also encouraged my learning. They let me learn about anything I wanted to, took me to science centers, bought me ant farms, and kept the station tuned to PBS.
This is a topic I've given a lot of thought to. Growing up, I was always into science type things. As a three year old, I studied bugs, and as a 6 year old I could pronouce the work Etymologyist (it's what I wanted to be when I grew up). I loved one little Apple IIe we had at school, and would spend as much time as I could get on it (5 minutes a month or so
I also suffered a great deal for my geekyness. I was once a very outgoing child, until first grade, where through humiliation from both my teacher and my peers, I started to imagine myself as a social lesser, a self-image I continue to battle today, even though I know it's false. It only went down-hill from there, and fortunatly, I choose my brain over what other people thought of me. At any time I could have chosen to shun learning, shun science and math, and re-build an outer-image based on playing with Barbies, talking about guys, and going shopping.
I think this is what girls tend to do though. None of their friends like computers, or astronomy, or biology. They find that when they do get curious, these behaviors are frowned upon by parents, teachers, and most importantly, their peers. That is who they feel are the most important influence -- their friends, or lack thereof.
While it's bad for boys, it isn't nearly as bad. Boys can get A's in math, and as long as they don't act or look geeky, it's ok. In fact, one of the most popular guys in my high school was a 4.0 GPA, who took as many math and physics and chemistry classes as he did drama and sports.
I do think this is a serious problem. I've felt some discrimination in my workplace. I know I make less money than my male co-worker who has fewer responsibilites and fewer skills than I do. Yes, it bothers me. I'm not going to burn my bra or lobby for legal changes, or sue anyone (I'm generally conservative), but I have been wanting to do something about it.
I've been thinking about starting an organization, or finding an existing one and become very active in it. There are organizations for women in construction, why not computers/technology?
And one of my main goals would be helping bright young girls find a place to belong, show them that there are other girls and women who like math and science and computers, and encourage them. Show them how much fun learning and discovery can be.
Just a note to you guys, it has nothing (at least for me) to do with not wanting to work with "geeky guys". For girls, it has more to do with being thought of AS a geek, as BEING a geeky girl. And this has nothing to do with intelligence either, but of social acceptance.
I think one of the things that makes me the most upset is when I see a girl or woman who has the potential, yet denies it, shakes her head, laughs, and says, "Oh, I could never learn to do that!" Because they're wrong, and they have no idea how much their loosing out on: the ability to think for themselves and grow.
Bah.. I didn't have rich parents (middle-middle class, about $40k/year in the 80s), and I bought my first computer at age 16. Price tag was $1991 for a 386. Starting at age 13 I was buying such things as a piano, a spinning wheel (hehe), a 10-speed bike, etc. ($500, $75, and $100 respectivly). I bought this all with my own money. Of course, I was no normal child :)
:) For occational to medium babysitters, this is probably more like $15-20 per week.
I would wager to guess that the correct average spendutures for children are as follows. Children ages 8-10 probably get a $1 allowance a week (on average). They can buy $1 items, or save for a month and buy $4 items. 10-12 probably get a $5 weekly allowance, which means if they save they can buy a Britnay Spears CD now and then. They are also starting to earn money here and there for odd jobs around the house, neighbors, etc.
12-14 year olds, on average, are probably making $10 per week with allowances, bumming money off the folks, mowing lawns, and don't forget Babysitting!
Once you hit 14, the sky's the limit for the average teen (remember, I was not average). Now you can (in some states) get a part time job, more mowing jobs, a LOT more bumming money from the folks, people (grandparents) send you money for your birthday or Christmas, EVERYONE wants you to babysit.. Then there's the little scam of embezzeling money off the soccer team fund raisers (they'll never notice just a little).....
COPA was struck down, COPPA was NOT. There is a distinct difference between these two Acts, and I haven't yet, in scanning the replies, seen someone make this distinction. I thought you guys were smarter than that ;)
COPA was to protect children from porn. It roughly stated that any site with offensive material was to collect a credit card number before allowing a user on. It was a re-do of the Online Indecency Act.
COPPA is the Privacy act. It states that sites can not collect ANY information from children without getting a parent's permission. Since this is a technological nightmare (because congress has no concept of what technology can and can't easily do), many sites have opted to simply shut their doors to youngsters, including many game sites such as WON.net and M$'s Zone. It has NOT been struck down, nor have I heard much about any attempts to do so. I think the ACLU is making some kind of febel attempt.
I usually hate the ACLU, but lately they seem to be the only ones with enough money to bring the voice of reason into the latest barrage of uneducated decisions being made by Congress.
The COPPA angers me. And yes, I am a mother. It is my right as a mother to decide what sites my child can register with. My boy is only 5, but I'm building him his own computer. As soon as he learns how to type, I wouldn't mind him having an ICQ account, and certainly he's going to be big into gaming. Now, unless he lies, he can't join any game nets, except for the select few that still allow signups with a phone call or fax from me. And do you think I have time or enough interest to start calling people?? NO! This is the Internet! And like hell if I'm going to give them my credit card number. (Yet, right now my child couldn't even legally sign up for Ascheron's Call!!)
This doesn't even cover the fact that the bill is irresponsible. From what I've read of it, if cute little 8 year old Kimberly Smith sends an email to IBM saying, "Hi. I'm Kim. My mommy's name is Pattie and my dad's is Frank and we live in Los Angeles. I'm doing a report for school about bit computer companies. Can you please send me some information?". This is more than enough information to now put IBM in tresspass of the law, even though the information was unsolicited. The same thing goes if a child fills out an online form, even if it's for a company that has nothing to do with children, and makes no requests for information from children.
Also one must consider the impact this is having on dot-com startups who have catered to children. I read one article about a teen chat and teen's problem help sites that, due to low funding, have had to close their doors to the 11-12 year olds they once allowed. They simply do not have enough money to put in place a program to get parental approval. The same has gone for smaller children's sites. DisneyBlast.com has come out of this scott free, since they have the money, and they were collection credit card numbers anyway!
Well I've said my peice. Don't think that just because COPA has gone down that the COPPA has not! We still need to be speaking out against this. It is the parents' responsibility to police their child's web usage! NOT the gonvernment's!
Actually, technically, xyzzy WAS an easter egg, just in a different program. In Windows 3.1 and 95 (I have never tried it in 98, and it doesn't work in NT), that's the was cheat code for Minsweeper :) You held down either ctrl or alt or shift (I never could remember, so I always just hit all of them) they typed xyzzy, and then the upper left corner pixle of the desktop would change color for tiles that had mines under them :)
Ok, so less of an Easter Egg and more of a cheat, but I thought that was funny that the actually code itself had more of a history.
Actually... Napster isn't trying to make money. They've never once made a cent. You don't have to buy the software. Heck, you CAN'T buy the software. There's no advertising...
In fact, I don't think they ever really planned to make money. I know a guy who knows the guy who wrote Napster. My friend was asked by Nap author to join him in his business, and my friend turned him down because Napster wasn't designed to make a profit.
Yeah, Chuck D was actually sued by his label a while back (about a year ago?) for putting his MP3s on his website. (Sorry I don't have the refference, I read it in a hard-copy magazine). This has been the supporting evidence I've used all along that the RIAA and Record Companies aren't fighting for the "artist's rights" like they always claim. It's easier to feel sorry for the artist, but when they turn around and sue their own artists for breach of contract... They're only in it for their own pocketbooks. I guess "Protect Large multi-billion-dollar-a-year Record Mega-Conglomorates" doesn't sound as convincing.
Hey, here's an idea. We've all said our piece here. Would there be any chance we could send all these comments (in hard-copy) to Congress? Or get together a Slashdot petition?
This is a direct quote from PPI's report at http://www.dlcppi.org/texts/tech/naps ter1.htm.
The whole point of MP3's is that they eliminate the middle-men. In this case, the middle-men are the RECORD LABLES and the record stores. Two tiers in this industry are being ripped away (no pun intended.. really!!). That's what the RIAA is so afraid of. No more records, no more RECORDING. MP3's allow a direct channel (crap, another pun) from the artist to the end user. There is NO NEED for a record company in this model, except for artist promotion. None. Zip. No need.
The second paragraph turns right around and contradicts this. Sure, the artists need some kind of protection. But the record companies? They're loosing their jobs. There's no longer a need for them. Their place in society is deteriorating.
Where was congress to protect the Blacksmiths and Wheelrights and Saddlemakers when Henry Ford started selling cars? Entire industries died as a result of the invention of the car. Horse-drawn buggies were no longer needed. Horses were no longer needed. Horseshoes, no more. Did congress step in and say, "But what about the rights of the people in the horse industry??" No! It was considered progress, and a large bunch of horse people had to find new jobs as the years eliminated the need for them.
What Congress needs to understand is that by voting for this, they are STOPPING progress. The record companies are fighting not for a few dollars lost (and that question is up for debate) but for their very lives. If laws like these are put into place, the lables will keep themselves a niche, just another 75% stack of profit on top of an intangible item you buy. Right now, they give you a CD for that profit, and a nice store to buy it in. In the future, what would you get for that markup? Nothing. Personally, I don't want them in that position. If I'm going to pay for a song in MP3 format, I want the majority of the profit to go to the artist, not a middleman who is providing no added value to me, the end user.
I also noticed the footnote on this report, in the first page, where it talks about all the money the poor record companies are loosing. The footnote says they don't have any hard figures. Feh. All the recording industry figures I've seen have said their earnings increased 6% last year. I still say music piracy PROMOTES CD sales. I sure know I've bought more CDs (and enjoyed them more because I liked what I bought) since I started downloading MP3s.
Oh yeah, and one more thing! (hehe) Billions of dollars in damages?? $100,000 per song per infringement? That's looney! Their losses aren't that much -- they don't even make that much!! Damages in any suit like this should be a SMALL percentage of the industry's money, not a LARGE percentage. To say as much money is being "stolen" as is spent on the entire industry in a year is beyond reason.
I think to Bow Tie fits just fine into my Astral/Etherial Plane model... the AP model fits over everything, so what's inside doesn't really matter as much.
The internet is like the Astral Plane. We access it from the "real" world all the time. Time and space obey different rules there. You can leap from place to place, no matter the distance, in the same amount of time, and from any location. You can even be in more than one place at once. Matter can be changed and manipulated at will. Cyberspace and alternate dimensions have a lot in common.
This is an idea that was talked about in Discover Magazine long before the internet revolution. In this article, they called them "knowbots" and at the time it was a revolutionary idea. Now we have spiders and portal sites that have almost arrived, but in a push fashion and not pull. I've also seen this idea in cyberpunk and sci-fi.
The idea was this: You tell the agent information you're interested in, and it's always looking for it. The Knowbots of the article would get you the stock quotes you wanted and all news articles on emerging technology, for instance. This has already arrived, with web portals. Again, push, not pull and I would expand on that, make them smarter.
What if you had an AI on your computer. It's yours. It is learning about you all the time. You don't just say, "I want news from this catagory, and the latest movie releases and the following stock quotes". You would say that at first, but then it learns over time, based off of what you use and don't use, what you are actually interested in. It is always searching the entire web, news syndicates, etc. It uses a combination of AI technolgies, and things like Netflix, to determine all of this. It wouldn't tell you ALL new movie releases, it would tell you the ones it knows you like. It would tell you the day your favorite band releases a new song. It would pull up an obscure news article you never would have found on your own about a recent fire in your old home town. The longer you use it, the more tailored to you it becomes. It learns not only through your direct activity with it, but also all other activity on that computer: web browsing, software you install, CDs and DVDs you play.
Guess I replied to the wrong one :) Like I said in a previous post, there's already one out there that does this, only it's smarter than that even. You never have to manually rank things. You give feedback as you listen, or you can ignore than and just let it learn when you skip songs. Still in beta, www.etantrum.com.
I LOVE that netflix thing, and I was going to mention that as well. I actually saw a thing about that on TV before I found it on accident on the web. They can also apply that to CDs. Their plan is to make "soulmate" groups. Basically, the theory is that someone who shares your tastes for a lot of things will share your tastes for most things. They call these "soulmates" and keep them in a big database. They want to divide these out into groups of 4-5 of your soulmates, then you can talk about CDs, movies, etc. and recommend them to each other. I think it's a great concept. An interesting AI that uses existing patterns to make recommendations.
Actually, someone is working on this, and they plan to have a Linux client. It has an AI that figures out what kinds of songs you like, not based on genre but on how the AI figures out that the song sounds. You give it feedback on songs, and it also learns from what songs you skip, repeat, etc. It's currently in Beta, and the name of the thing hasn't yet been decided. I think the working name is Personal Media Agent.
It's a closed beta, but you can try to sign up. www.etantrum.com. Currently it only plays local MP3s, but their plan is to have it stream. It can play you songs you've never heard before that you will probably like, based off your profile that the AI builds over time.
One of the points, though, is it's not even easy to learn. Where is Joe A. User going to go to find this out? How long is it going to take him? How many HOW-TO's does he have to read, each being filled with the aforementioned un-needed info.
.. change their display settings. Everything you want is in the control panel, and there are even shorter-short cuts. Right click on the desktop and choose properties to change anything having to do with the desktop, including display settings. Possible to guess. Ctrl-Alt-+? That's Impossible to guess. A plus sign has nothing to do with display settings, that I can see. Right-clicking the desktop does. And if you miss-guess (if right-clicking the desktop was a BAD answer) you aren't going to break anything. Personally I'd be afraid to go randomly hitting ctrl-alt-key combinations in Linux.
Windows and Mac OS are intuitive. For most people, you don't even have to read anything once you get past the basics of mouse clicking and menu reading. Most people don't have to read a manual or go to a class to figure out how to use Outlook or
Linux was a big step out of the world of Windows. It was incredibly anti-intuitive. I'm used to sitting down to new software and guessing my way through it. With Linux, I was asking people questions, frustratedly reading how-tos and websites and newsgroups. Joe A. User doesn't want to do this. He will not do this. I did it because I'm a geek and all my geek friends were using/had used Linux. Joe A. User has a different kind of peer pressure, and doesn't want to take the time.
It's the path of least resistance, and Windows, at this time, is that path.