That's crap. College radio is there for the college students not all those crappy garage band albums I got, time after time after time when I was music director. I'd put them out and let people call their own shots, but 3/4s of the discs I saw never got played. Sure I hyped them up because I liked the promotions people, but the bread and butter of a *GOOD* college station are the students and the local listeners, appease them and you'll have a better station for it.
Re:"Corporate Culture"
on
Disconnected
·
· Score: 2
I've never understood the desire to work for a company you _cannot_ believe in. It just does not compute. I suppose, I'm still a bit wet behind the ears in terms of work experience, but I wouldn't even consider working for a company that held beliefs different from my own. I don't think that the presence of a company softball team automatically makes it an indoctrination machine, that's not a fair generalization. I played softball for a company I worked with last year. It wasn't mandatory, hell, I was the only person from my particular branch of the company on the team, but I had a good time, and no where in that field was there any talk of work, or whose contracts were up, or which releases were going on. It was just _softball_. Sometimes a cigar *IS* just a cigar.
Per your comments about company loyalty, etc. I'm afraid I don't have enough work experience to make good generalizations. I _can't_ say anything definitive, and that kinda sucks, because I'm enjoying this debate. If you're just going through the motions at work, you must ask yourself, why are you there? If you don't enjoy doing what you do, why do you do it? Just for that paycheck that lands magically in your hands each month (or biweekly)? No a company does not *have* to be loyal to its employees, but companies suffer when they do not. At least small ones. And those are the ones with the best softball teams:)
Re:"Corporate Culture"
on
Disconnected
·
· Score: 2
When I posted, this was at the bottom in the quote field. I felt it appropriate:
"QOTD: Talent does what it can, genius what it must. I do what I get paid to do. "
Re:"Corporate Culture"
on
Disconnected
·
· Score: 2
Believe me, I'm far from trolling here.
Far be it from me to be disillusioned, but generally, aren't the people you work for and with supposed to be people you like? Or are you telling me that everywhere you've worked, the participants have been mindless cogs in a larger machine? I've had the experience that if you treat people like cogs, they act like them. Instead, if you try to create a bond there, then there's a human level to the interaction that might not normally be there.
If you feel that strongly about not participating in company activities (outings, retreats, softball, etc) because you're not getting paid, then why bother staying past 40 hours a week, ever. Even if that means not getting work done. Perhaps it's because I've always worked for small companies (not a conscious choice, BTW).
My point came from this: If you don't want to ever mix business with pleasure (i.e. forced company outings, sports, yada yada yada) quit your job. You can find a new one. But don't ruin it for those of us who enjoy playing with our companies.
Re:"Corporate Culture"
on
Disconnected
·
· Score: 2
Who's posing? You're the one who forgot to log in.
Re:"Corporate Culture"
on
Disconnected
·
· Score: 2
I may tend to agree that forcing culture onto a not-so-cohesive group may not be the best idea, buy if you've got an odd-man-out situation, then you can't just leave it there...I know how bad this sounds. Maybe I've always been lucky in terms of employment of having mostly good coworkers, and as such social atmosphere was very manageable and often included intramural sports. But to say that companies shouldn't try is foolish. That just creates apathy. Apathy is always bad.
Re:"Corporate Culture"
on
Disconnected
·
· Score: 2
"America" may be the proper geographical location for the area consisting of the continents of South America and North America, but American is the proper abbreviation for someone from the United States of America. Placing the term "american" on someone from Trinidad, or Costa Rica would definitely not be accurate.
I think that if Johnny were at the library and a document on buddhism or taoist thought were restricted by the filter, Johnny would have the balls to ask the librarian why that is, and ask to see what was so objectionable. This is mostly about filtering smut, not ideas.
This isn't about freedom of information, this is about porn. These conservative christians (and I use the term loosely) want to rid America of pornography, not of freedom of information. Chances are the average pro-filter person doesn't give a damn about DeCSS, open source movements, or anything of the like. They just don't want little Johnny staring at boobies on the internet at the public library. Personally, I couldn't care less if Johnny sees nude XXX asians, but then again he's not my child. However, these people seem to think it will make johnny a corrupt man if he stares at boobs, not only that, it's taking parenting away from the parents and that's the travesty of justice here.
What does this say about America? The few that are vocal hold reign over the silent majority. It's been that way since the 70s. We need to make our points clearly heard, and yes that means becoming an activist (much like those trying to install censorship in our libraries).
None of the Developer Preview versions of the software have expired yet (and DP3 is significantly old). So why should this expire? It's not totally functional, so you'll need the full version to get full fuctionality, plus support for 3rd party devices etc.
No, only the SUPPORT for the Beta will expire. THere's no expiration date on the actual software...and I'll bet Apple gives rebates to those who bought the Beta when OS X ships.
OS X does all the hardware thinking for the machine, and as such Mac OS 9 routes its hardware requests through OS X (the Darwin kernel specifically I believe) so...if it won't work with OS X, don't get too excited for it to work with the OS 9 layer of OS X.
Hate to break it to you, but most people don't have the broadband access necessary to make Napster really worthwhile. Even though they could get it for free, it would not be nearly as worth their while at 4k/sec (modem speed) as it would be at 60k/sec (lowspeed DSL) or at 200k/sec (T1). So I don't think people are using Napster as much as you think they are.
It seems that people are filling in lines that MAY not be there at all. We have two facts:
Napster usage is up.
Music sales are up.
Just because both have a common variable (music) does not mean that Music sales are up just because people are using Napster. It could be a swell in the number of good artists (I doubt it) but we Don't know, so we can't just assume that it is Napster that's driving record sales through the roof. We're jumping to conclusions that can't be made yet.
That's the RIAA's idea. I don't suggest we listen to them, in general. However, I'd pay a buck for most singles out there. 50 cents for others. I'd pay for the music. It's simple. If the RIAA is gonna make me buy a CD or pirate it, then I'm afraid I'll still buy CDs, because I don't like pirating. Maybe it's because I'm a musician. Maybe it's because I have ethics...I dunno.
Places flame suit on
This verdict is a good thing. It will make people realize that if a company or individual (ie Napster) does something, they can be held responsible for it, however if society at large does something (ie Gnutella, Freenet) then it will become a trend.
There's no question to me that the original intent behind Napster was to pirate music over the internet. I make no value judgment here, that's the truth. The supplemental benefit of getting some unheard artists a quick listen is beside the point. So now people use Napster as a "resource" to download music before they buy it...but this is something that's already available via real audio or other such media files on various online resale merchants. sarcasmEither that, or god forbid, you might actually have to go to a record store! My lord no. Please. Stop this now!/sarcasm
My problem with Napster is actually my problem with the RIAA (who by the way are worthy of a fate far worse than death). The artists don't see enough of the profits from a CD. And that's why we've flocked to Napster and Gnutella and the like.
This verdict is a good one. It will force the masses to the free versions of Gnutella and such. It will still force the RIAA to reconsider micropayment schemes and other such problems of intellectual property, but if it makes us think, then it is a good and fair verdict.
This post is to inform you and Cease and Desist LLC that I have acquired a patent for the phrase "Cease and Desist" please Cease and Desist(tm) from using it immediately.
Oh please. I find the smell of cigarette smoke detrimental to my dining experience (turns my stomach actually). Why should I have to deal with it in my dinner experience? It's not sanitary either. The carbon monoxide addressed as part of the auto pollution, not from cigarette smoke. If you go out to bars more than twice a week, even for just an hour or two, that can be hazardous if done on a regular basis. Please don't fight me on tobacco smoke. It's bad for you. Accept it.
I really sincerely doubt it. I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue that cigarette smoking and carbon monoxide are both deadly toxins, and so I think it's totally appropriate that Cali passed those laws. I don't think a "feel good" label is appropriate here, their state government is just concerned with the well being of their citizens, as well they should be. Hey, maybe *that's* why their economy is so good. (isn't it in the top ten worldwide?)
Slashdot Mirror
Per your comments about company loyalty, etc. I'm afraid I don't have enough work experience to make good generalizations. I _can't_ say anything definitive, and that kinda sucks, because I'm enjoying this debate. If you're just going through the motions at work, you must ask yourself, why are you there? If you don't enjoy doing what you do, why do you do it? Just for that paycheck that lands magically in your hands each month (or biweekly)? No a company does not *have* to be loyal to its employees, but companies suffer when they do not. At least small ones. And those are the ones with the best softball teams :)
Far be it from me to be disillusioned, but generally, aren't the people you work for and with supposed to be people you like? Or are you telling me that everywhere you've worked, the participants have been mindless cogs in a larger machine? I've had the experience that if you treat people like cogs, they act like them. Instead, if you try to create a bond there, then there's a human level to the interaction that might not normally be there.
If you feel that strongly about not participating in company activities (outings, retreats, softball, etc) because you're not getting paid, then why bother staying past 40 hours a week, ever. Even if that means not getting work done. Perhaps it's because I've always worked for small companies (not a conscious choice, BTW).
My point came from this: If you don't want to ever mix business with pleasure (i.e. forced company outings, sports, yada yada yada) quit your job. You can find a new one. But don't ruin it for those of us who enjoy playing with our companies.
shoulda previewed and closed my tag. D'oh!
I do like the idea of a slashdot softball team. I'll play left field.
What does this say about America? The few that are vocal hold reign over the silent majority. It's been that way since the 70s. We need to make our points clearly heard, and yes that means becoming an activist (much like those trying to install censorship in our libraries).
I stand corrected. Thank you.
None of the Developer Preview versions of the software have expired yet (and DP3 is significantly old). So why should this expire? It's not totally functional, so you'll need the full version to get full fuctionality, plus support for 3rd party devices etc.
Just because both have a common variable (music) does not mean that Music sales are up just because people are using Napster. It could be a swell in the number of good artists (I doubt it) but we Don't know, so we can't just assume that it is Napster that's driving record sales through the roof. We're jumping to conclusions that can't be made yet.
test
Oh God... I responded WAY offtopic...I saw MP3 and immediately assumed Napster. Shit. Oh well. I tried.
This verdict is a good thing. It will make people realize that if a company or individual (ie Napster) does something, they can be held responsible for it, however if society at large does something (ie Gnutella, Freenet) then it will become a trend.
There's no question to me that the original intent behind Napster was to pirate music over the internet. I make no value judgment here, that's the truth. The supplemental benefit of getting some unheard artists a quick listen is beside the point. So now people use Napster as a "resource" to download music before they buy it...but this is something that's already available via real audio or other such media files on various online resale merchants. sarcasmEither that, or god forbid, you might actually have to go to a record store! My lord no. Please. Stop this now! /sarcasm
My problem with Napster is actually my problem with the RIAA (who by the way are worthy of a fate far worse than death). The artists don't see enough of the profits from a CD. And that's why we've flocked to Napster and Gnutella and the like.
This verdict is a good one. It will force the masses to the free versions of Gnutella and such. It will still force the RIAA to reconsider micropayment schemes and other such problems of intellectual property, but if it makes us think, then it is a good and fair verdict.
Oh please. I find the smell of cigarette smoke detrimental to my dining experience (turns my stomach actually). Why should I have to deal with it in my dinner experience? It's not sanitary either. The carbon monoxide addressed as part of the auto pollution, not from cigarette smoke. If you go out to bars more than twice a week, even for just an hour or two, that can be hazardous if done on a regular basis. Please don't fight me on tobacco smoke. It's bad for you. Accept it.
I really sincerely doubt it. I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue that cigarette smoking and carbon monoxide are both deadly toxins, and so I think it's totally appropriate that Cali passed those laws. I don't think a "feel good" label is appropriate here, their state government is just concerned with the well being of their citizens, as well they should be. Hey, maybe *that's* why their economy is so good. (isn't it in the top ten worldwide?)