There's a difference between "unrealistic" and "unstable".
Unrealistic suggests that it doesn't behave as in the real world -- but that doesn't mean it isn't modeled on the same principles (acceleration, momentum, etc.) And you still want to simulate it consistently; it should "feel" right.
But an unstable computation method can "blow up", regardless of realistic or unrealistic "physics."
Consider:
Jump pads in games like Quake or Unreal are "unrealistic". But they are modeled at least partially on physics. But to make them work right, in all their unrealistic glory, the computation method must be stable.
If it wasn't stable, then you might something like:
- Multiple, successive jumps on one would lead to a "blow up" where the player would be wildly, and unexpectedly shot through the roof and to the outer edge of the game universe.
For both realistic and cartoon physics, you need accurate and stable computation methods.
Unless you're creating 10 - 100 GBs of *new* data between every backup, it might be simpler (and cheaper) to use incremental backups.
Instead of dumping all 100GB of files every time, 95% of which haven't changed since the last backup, use an incremental backup program to write only the 5% that actually changed. After the initial archive, the backup files will be significantly smaller, and could potentially saved on CDs.
That's not quite correct. BMRT was used in the creation of A Bug's Life (and other movies), but it was not the sole program for for creating and rendering. Here's my little odyssey searching for info on this:)
But then here is a disclaimer that BMRT is not associated with Pixar and is not a replacement for Renderman:
"BMRT uses some APIs that are very similar to those described in the published RenderMan Interface Specification. However, BMRT is not associated with Pixar, and no claims are made that BMRT is in any way a compatible replacement for RenderMan. Those who want a licensed implementaion of RenderMan should contact Pixar directly. Exluna.com Docs
But then got to the BMRT site, we find something which seems contradictory:
"BMRT is a ray tracer that we distribute free of charge. BMRT has been used in the production of several feature films, including A Bug's Life, Stuart Little, The Cell, Hollow Man, and Woman on Top."
BMRT FAQ
Finally, from the links section of the BMRT site:
"Pixar's RenderMan Toolkit (a.k.a. PhotoRealistic RenderMan, a.k.a. PRMan), now in release 3.9, is the oldest RenderMan implementation. PRMan has been used to render effects for... Toy Story (Classic and II), A Bug's Life.
The Blue Moon Rendering Tools (BMRT) package... has been used on several productions, including A Bug's Life"
Links on Compatible Renderers
I'm a big-N fan, but the XBox ads work much better for me.
The XBox commericals show me the gameplay. They show me incredible graphics, cinematic scenes, and compelling gameplay.
GCN ads show me glass cubes with men squished in them.
Further, the XBox ads are exactly *unlike* the PS & PS2 ads. They'd show 25 seconds of random stuff (man in Crash Bandicoot costume. WTF?) and then 5 seconds of game footage. Sorry, but show me the game -- man in freak-suit doesn't make me want to buy the game.
This is a great opportunity for everyone to send in their intelligent and informed opinions on the matter. If by "intelligent and informed" you mean "half-baked and uninformed", then you've got the right place. Otherwise, you should note that your email was inadvertently posted to Slashdot.
I wonder if small companies (30 people) are more secure than large companies. A common theme between the article and posts are that no one knows who works in their own company. But in a small office, everyone knows everyone, and a stranger is obvious. It's also usually known by when someone is expecting a visitor, so an unexpected drop-in would also be obvious.
Are small companies less resistant to social engineering, because of greater employee "intimacy"? If so, how can this be utilized at larger companies to increase security?
First, I hope you get modded up for a good response.
I also agree that RTS would often be better labeled RTT (tactics), as you say.
While it's true that players must be given the gameplay tools with which to create interesting (and effective) strategies, it is also up to the players to utilize what is there. I think that Starcraft offers more strategic depth than you say. A Zerg Rush can be countered; likewise a foiled rusher can come back to win the game. There are a few interesting tactics and strategies for each race that can be used to win the game. No, it's not chess, but there are viable options.
I think a big part of the problem is that rushes and such are easy. They are pure twitch factor, easily done by hyperkinetic 12 year olds, and don't require as much strategic thinking.
I think it's the same argument as with the camping debate in FPS games. Many people view camping as evil, cheating and slimey and seek to eliminate it as a gameplay option. Others view it as a valid strategy, allow by the game. I say, if you don't like campers, then don't play with them. Find more interesting opponents. Likewise, if you want more varied RTS play, find more interesting opponents.
What could a game developer do in order to insure actual use of strategy in a game intended for it?
Require all potential buyers to swear an oath on their mother's grave that they will only play strategically.
Seriously, if you want opponents who use solid strategy, get good opponents.
Even playing a pure strategy game, like Chess, won't force someone to play strategically. An opponent is still free to play randomly -- they just won't win, most likely.
Moreover, mass units in an RTS is a strategy, and a valid one. This is essentially the strategy the US has used in some recent wars (victory through overwhelming force applied quickly to the key locations). What you really want is a game where players use different strategies.
Back to chess -- there is no unit production, so there are no "mass unit" strategies. A game where all players have identical starting units would remove that strategy. But then gameplay might suffer in other ways.
After years of licensing expensive, bug-ridden, proprietary calendars, I can finally move to an open-source calendar.
Just in time, as I was sick of MicrosoftMonday(tm) also starting late. Further, their new licensing requires me to upgrade to MS2002 by Jan 1, 2002 at the latest.
Now, I can upgrade when I feel like it (I won't need 2002 until sometime late 2005). And since I'll have the source, I can add an extra hour to all my days, an extra day to all my months, and find a work-around to my birthday (so it only happens once every 3 years).
But even rarer was the severity of the spanking received by Nestle at the hands of three arbitrators assigned by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).(emphasis mine)
The article states that Nestle was "spanked" hard by the WIPO arbitrators, but the only negative consequence mentioned was a tongue lashing, equivalent to, "Bad Nestle! No cookie for you!"
Is that what constitutes a severe retribution from the WIPO board?
Now taking bids for this exquisite, brown cardboard box! This mildly used, but still fully functional, box will be shipped to the winner of this auction.
As a special bonus, the winner of this box will receive Win98 OS for their PC, free!
Yes, those things matter. And that's another factor in what format is "best". At the risk of sounding trollish, anyone listening to music via their computer is most likely not particularly concerned about sound quality.
The S/N ratio of most soundcards is farily poor, especially compared to decent receivers.
Speaker wire and cabling makes a difference. No one agrees on how much, though:)
Finally, most people just arent' aware of, or don't care about, the actual sonic quality of stereo equipment. We just want something that sounds good to us.
Consider a previous poster, who loves his Bose speakers and Sony DE receiver. Home audio enthusiasts generally agree that the Sony DE line is definitely inferior to the higher DB and ES series. Likewise, Bose is generally known to be of lower sonic quality than other equivalently priced speakers. But he loves the setup, and that's the thing that matters.
Similarly, I've got a solid mid-range receiver (Onkyo 696) matched to low-end speakers (KLH bookshelf). Sounds great to me, but it's not really top-quality sound.
The encoder quality is just one of many possible limiters in sound reproduction. And if you're playing it through low-fi equpiment (e.g. computer soundcard and computer speakers), then just pick one that sounds decent and run with it.
I see a few repeated thoughts against subscription radio. Here's a some thoughts on why they're wrong.
Anti-1) Just buy CDs.
At $10/mo. you can't even buy one CD/mo. Assuming good playlists, this is a cheaper way to get a variety of music. As for the $300 one-time cost for the radio, that will come down. CD players debuted at $500 - $1000 (?? just buy blank tapes at $0.50 ea.!); likewise for VCRs, DVD players, etc.
Anti-2) Listen CDs for good selection; don't rely on radio.
CDs play for 70 min max. Then it either stops, repeats, or you must switch discs. The point of radio is fire-and-forget. Pick station, and not have to interrupt work to fiddle with music selection. Multi-discs CD players reduce the problem, but don't remove it.
Anti-3) Use MP3 player to play large compilation discs.
Like Anti-2, it reduces effort, but still requires effort (both up-front to make the MP3s, and possibly to switch discs). But it's also Anti-1 -- you gotta have discs before you can rip 'em. Unless you steal music, but that's another discussion.
Anti-4) Just make your own mixes, and listent ot them. Why listen to corporate-run radio?
Uh huh. Just like you make your own DVD mixes, rather than getting cable-TV for movies, news, variety, etc.
For many of those people, the objections will be sufficient deterrent to trying digital radio. But early adopters are funny beasts, and are not easily stopped:) Subscription-based media access works (cable TV, newspapers, magazines), despite the wide variety of high-quality, free sources (network TV, indie 'zines).
There are many obstacles, but I think subscription, digital radio could work.
The IT guy was set to save $10,000 on 25 machines by moving to Linux. But there was no obvious consideration of the labor cost in that move.
- A new DB has to be created to replace the current MS one.
- 25 machines must be completely reconfigured.
- 25 users must be re-trained for *all* their software usage.
- Some tasks will be slower, always, even after re-training (e.g. making PDFs)
What's the cost of that? Just looking at 25 users x $10/hr x 10 hours effective training = $2500. A quarter of the savings is eaten just by basic staff transition costs.
Without further information about the real costs involved, this move may be penny-wise, pound-foolish.
"allot" - to parcel out
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=a ll ot
"a lot" - to a very great degree
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=a %2 0lot
You've never seen how a house is built, have you?
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Most software design is lousy. Most software is so bad, in fact, that if it were a bridge, no one in his or her right mind would walk across it. If it were a house, we would be afraid to enter. The only reason we (software engineers) get away with this scam is the general public cannot see inside of software systems. If software design were as visible as a bridge or house, we would be hiding our heads in shame.
You've apparently never seen how a house is built. While the exterior finish looks very nice to the final occupants, the construction process and actual "code" (if you will) of a new home is quite sloppy; easily the equal to typical ugly code.
Tract housing, in particular, are built as quickly and cheaply as possible. Wires are run rapidly, without much care to particular placement. Builders leave lunch trash inside wall interiors. Finishes are half-baked, details are of little concern. The materials used are the cheapest possible.
Just like a program, what the buyer sees is the outside finish, and that's basis for their purchase decision normally. But look at how they are actually built, and you'd be afraid.
People cut corners if they think they get away with it, be it bridges, houses, or programs.
Sadly (or fortunately, really) I'm not quite that old -- but I DJ'd a CCM show in college in the early 90s, and between that hanging with friends I learned a bit about the CCM history.
That old Petra stuff is funny, in some ways, how "country" it is.
And I agree, that the DC Talk album Jesus Freak is really good, but I guess I think of that in terms of new stuff, not old stuff.:)
I would also say that Jars of Clay first CD was quite good (and refreshing). Phil Keaggy continues to do awesome concerts. Beyond that, I'm totally out of the scene.
I'll have to check out the Keith Green covers some time.
Of course, there's One Bad Pig's cover of Petra's "Judas Kiss", and their cover of "Man in Black" with Willy Nelson, I believe it was. Ahh, those were the days...:)
"Meanwhile, there's a study circulating saying that people don't and won't purchase heavily restricted music online at higher prices for a less useful item. This is apparently a revelation to the music industry."
(Meanwhile, back in the RIAA-cave...)
Holy Over-Prosecuted Russians, Ms. Rosen! People don't want to pay more for less?!?! Since when?
We never saw this coming!
Quick, gather your finest demographers and statisticians to study this. The fate of Gotham depends on it!
"CCM is just the same tired crap all over again, with a few exceptions.
/me remembers Back in the Day, when DC Talk came out with Jesus Freak, bringing something new and innovative. That was really cool. "
Back in the day? How old are you, 12?:)
Back in the day is ~30 years ago, when Petra, Daniel Amos Band, and others were pioneering what is now CCM. Back when Keith Green, Phil Keaggy, Randy Stonehill were essentially underground musicians. More recently, back when Steve Taylor was actually performing, and not just performing. That's back in the day:)
DC Talk is new (and for some old-skool rap, check out there first album).
And if you want something that was a bit different, but unfortunately unsuccessful, check out "Chagall Guavera" (Steve Taylor signed with a 'secular' label, to try and get more artistic freedom. He learned that the secular labels were no more 'artistic' than the christian ones)
Maybe it's just late, but that's one of the funniest two sentences I've read online, ever. Wish I had mod points right now. I'm tempted to use that for a.sig quote.
Japanese scientists and researchers have done some great work, especially in recent years. However, let's not lose perspective.
For the past 50 years, many of Japan's largest markets have come from copying American products. This has been seen with: cameras & photographic lenses, steel, computer memory and solid state electronics, consumer electronics, and automobiles (SUVs in particular). Also, there powerful business culture came in large part from the post-WWII rebuilding efforts and the theories / ideas of an American, W. Edwards Deming.
And it's well known that the Japanese educational system and business cultures have promoted conformity over individual expression. Many think this leads to a promotion of sameness over creativity (rightfully so, IMO).
Don't take this as a rant/flame/troll. Japanese culture is very different to that of the U.S. (and other western nations). It's been to our detriment that we have failed to recognize this, especially during the trade negotiations of the '80s. -----
D. Fischer
If we encountered economic collapse, and the dollar was worthless, people WOULD accept gold. Yes, and people would also accept guns, butter, and sugar. And all the Y2K people would become the nouveau riche. Hmm... that gives me an idea.
Coming soon: e-guns.com (or e-sugar.com) -----
D. Fischer
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between "unrealistic" and "unstable".
Unrealistic suggests that it doesn't behave as in the real world -- but that doesn't mean it isn't modeled on the same principles (acceleration, momentum, etc.) And you still want to simulate it consistently; it should "feel" right.
But an unstable computation method can "blow up", regardless of realistic or unrealistic "physics."
Consider:
Jump pads in games like Quake or Unreal are "unrealistic". But they are modeled at least partially on physics. But to make them work right, in all their unrealistic glory, the computation method must be stable.
If it wasn't stable, then you might something like:
- Multiple, successive jumps on one would lead to a "blow up" where the player would be wildly, and unexpectedly shot through the roof and to the outer edge of the game universe.
For both realistic and cartoon physics, you need accurate and stable computation methods.
Unless you're creating 10 - 100 GBs of *new* data between every backup, it might be simpler (and cheaper) to use incremental backups.
Instead of dumping all 100GB of files every time, 95% of which haven't changed since the last backup, use an incremental backup program to write only the 5% that actually changed. After the initial archive, the backup files will be significantly smaller, and could potentially saved on CDs.
That's not quite correct. BMRT was used in the creation of A Bug's Life (and other movies), but it was not the sole program for for creating and rendering. Here's my little odyssey searching for info on this :)
... Toy Story (Classic and II), A Bug's Life.
... has been used on several productions, including A Bug's Life"
An abstract from a paper suggesting a connection between BMRT and Pixar's RenderMan standard:
BMRT: A Global Illumination Implementation of the RenderMan Standard
But then here is a disclaimer that BMRT is not associated with Pixar and is not a replacement for Renderman:
"BMRT uses some APIs that are very similar to those described in the published RenderMan Interface Specification. However, BMRT is not associated with Pixar, and no claims are made that BMRT is in any way a compatible replacement for RenderMan. Those who want a licensed implementaion of RenderMan should contact Pixar directly. Exluna.com Docs
But then got to the BMRT site, we find something which seems contradictory:
"BMRT is a ray tracer that we distribute free of charge. BMRT has been used in the production of several feature films, including A Bug's Life, Stuart Little, The Cell, Hollow Man, and Woman on Top."
BMRT FAQ
Finally, from the links section of the BMRT site:
"Pixar's RenderMan Toolkit (a.k.a. PhotoRealistic RenderMan, a.k.a. PRMan), now in release 3.9, is the oldest RenderMan implementation. PRMan has been used to render effects for
The Blue Moon Rendering Tools (BMRT) package
Links on Compatible Renderers
???
I'm a big-N fan, but the XBox ads work much better for me.
The XBox commericals show me the gameplay. They show me incredible graphics, cinematic scenes, and compelling gameplay.
GCN ads show me glass cubes with men squished in them.
Further, the XBox ads are exactly *unlike* the PS & PS2 ads. They'd show 25 seconds of random stuff (man in Crash Bandicoot costume. WTF?) and then 5 seconds of game footage. Sorry, but show me the game -- man in freak-suit doesn't make me want to buy the game.
I guess you'll be getting the XBOX then.
This is a great opportunity for everyone to send in their intelligent and informed opinions on the matter.
If by "intelligent and informed" you mean "half-baked and uninformed", then you've got the right place. Otherwise, you should note that your email was inadvertently posted to Slashdot.
:)
I wonder if small companies (30 people) are more secure than large companies. A common theme between the article and posts are that no one knows who works in their own company. But in a small office, everyone knows everyone, and a stranger is obvious. It's also usually known by when someone is expecting a visitor, so an unexpected drop-in would also be obvious.
Are small companies less resistant to social engineering, because of greater employee "intimacy"? If so, how can this be utilized at larger companies to increase security?
First, I hope you get modded up for a good response.
I also agree that RTS would often be better labeled RTT (tactics), as you say.
While it's true that players must be given the gameplay tools with which to create interesting (and effective) strategies, it is also up to the players to utilize what is there. I think that Starcraft offers more strategic depth than you say. A Zerg Rush can be countered; likewise a foiled rusher can come back to win the game. There are a few interesting tactics and strategies for each race that can be used to win the game. No, it's not chess, but there are viable options.
I think a big part of the problem is that rushes and such are easy. They are pure twitch factor, easily done by hyperkinetic 12 year olds, and don't require as much strategic thinking.
I think it's the same argument as with the camping debate in FPS games. Many people view camping as evil, cheating and slimey and seek to eliminate it as a gameplay option. Others view it as a valid strategy, allow by the game. I say, if you don't like campers, then don't play with them. Find more interesting opponents. Likewise, if you want more varied RTS play, find more interesting opponents.
What could a game developer do in order to insure actual use of strategy in a game intended for it?
Require all potential buyers to swear an oath on their mother's grave that they will only play strategically.
Seriously, if you want opponents who use solid strategy, get good opponents.
Even playing a pure strategy game, like Chess, won't force someone to play strategically. An opponent is still free to play randomly -- they just won't win, most likely.
Moreover, mass units in an RTS is a strategy, and a valid one. This is essentially the strategy the US has used in some recent wars (victory through overwhelming force applied quickly to the key locations). What you really want is a game where players use different strategies.
Back to chess -- there is no unit production, so there are no "mass unit" strategies. A game where all players have identical starting units would remove that strategy. But then gameplay might suffer in other ways.
After years of licensing expensive, bug-ridden, proprietary calendars, I can finally move to an open-source calendar.
Just in time, as I was sick of MicrosoftMonday(tm) also starting late. Further, their new licensing requires me to upgrade to MS2002 by Jan 1, 2002 at the latest.
Now, I can upgrade when I feel like it (I won't need 2002 until sometime late 2005). And since I'll have the source, I can add an extra hour to all my days, an extra day to all my months, and find a work-around to my birthday (so it only happens once every 3 years).
Open Source Rules!
:)
ller Server Hardware to Serve Articles : $7,000
Big Fat Bandwidth to Transmit Articles : $15,500
Dictionary, to Spell Check Articles : Priceless
There are some words Slashdot can spell. For all the rest, there's Merriam-Webster.
"Comparison"
But even rarer was the severity of the spanking received by Nestle at the hands of three arbitrators assigned by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).(emphasis mine)
The article states that Nestle was "spanked" hard by the WIPO arbitrators, but the only negative consequence mentioned was a tongue lashing, equivalent to, "Bad Nestle! No cookie for you!"
Is that what constitutes a severe retribution from the WIPO board?
Now taking bids for this exquisite, brown cardboard box! This mildly used, but still fully functional, box will be shipped to the winner of this auction.
As a special bonus, the winner of this box will receive Win98 OS for their PC, free!
Bidding for the box starts at $10 + $5 shipping.
Yes, those things matter. And that's another factor in what format is "best". At the risk of sounding trollish, anyone listening to music via their computer is most likely not particularly concerned about sound quality.
:)
The S/N ratio of most soundcards is farily poor, especially compared to decent receivers.
Speaker wire and cabling makes a difference. No one agrees on how much, though
Speaker placement & seating position greatly impacts sound quality (e.g. stereo imaging).
Speakers play an obviously important role.
Finally, most people just arent' aware of, or don't care about, the actual sonic quality of stereo equipment. We just want something that sounds good to us.
Consider a previous poster, who loves his Bose speakers and Sony DE receiver. Home audio enthusiasts generally agree that the Sony DE line is definitely inferior to the higher DB and ES series. Likewise, Bose is generally known to be of lower sonic quality than other equivalently priced speakers. But he loves the setup, and that's the thing that matters.
Similarly, I've got a solid mid-range receiver (Onkyo 696) matched to low-end speakers (KLH bookshelf). Sounds great to me, but it's not really top-quality sound.
The encoder quality is just one of many possible limiters in sound reproduction. And if you're playing it through low-fi equpiment (e.g. computer soundcard and computer speakers), then just pick one that sounds decent and run with it.
I see a few repeated thoughts against subscription radio. Here's a some thoughts on why they're wrong.
:) Subscription-based media access works (cable TV, newspapers, magazines), despite the wide variety of high-quality, free sources (network TV, indie 'zines).
Anti-1) Just buy CDs.
At $10/mo. you can't even buy one CD/mo. Assuming good playlists, this is a cheaper way to get a variety of music. As for the $300 one-time cost for the radio, that will come down. CD players debuted at $500 - $1000 (?? just buy blank tapes at $0.50 ea.!); likewise for VCRs, DVD players, etc.
Anti-2) Listen CDs for good selection; don't rely on radio.
CDs play for 70 min max. Then it either stops, repeats, or you must switch discs. The point of radio is fire-and-forget. Pick station, and not have to interrupt work to fiddle with music selection. Multi-discs CD players reduce the problem, but don't remove it.
Anti-3) Use MP3 player to play large compilation discs.
Like Anti-2, it reduces effort, but still requires effort (both up-front to make the MP3s, and possibly to switch discs). But it's also Anti-1 -- you gotta have discs before you can rip 'em. Unless you steal music, but that's another discussion.
Anti-4) Just make your own mixes, and listent ot them. Why listen to corporate-run radio?
Uh huh. Just like you make your own DVD mixes, rather than getting cable-TV for movies, news, variety, etc.
For many of those people, the objections will be sufficient deterrent to trying digital radio. But early adopters are funny beasts, and are not easily stopped
There are many obstacles, but I think subscription, digital radio could work.
Continuing with these thoughts...
The IT guy was set to save $10,000 on 25 machines by moving to Linux. But there was no obvious consideration of the labor cost in that move.
- A new DB has to be created to replace the current MS one.
- 25 machines must be completely reconfigured.
- 25 users must be re-trained for *all* their software usage.
- Some tasks will be slower, always, even after re-training (e.g. making PDFs)
What's the cost of that? Just looking at 25 users x $10/hr x 10 hours effective training = $2500. A quarter of the savings is eaten just by basic staff transition costs.
Without further information about the real costs involved, this move may be penny-wise, pound-foolish.
"allot" - to parcel outa ll ot
a %2 0lot
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=
"a lot" - to a very great degree
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=
Most software design is lousy. Most software is so bad, in fact, that if it were a bridge, no one in his or her right mind would walk across it. If it were a house, we would be afraid to enter. The only reason we (software engineers) get away with this scam is the general public cannot see inside of software systems. If software design were as visible as a bridge or house, we would be hiding our heads in shame.
You've apparently never seen how a house is built. While the exterior finish looks very nice to the final occupants, the construction process and actual "code" (if you will) of a new home is quite sloppy; easily the equal to typical ugly code.
Tract housing, in particular, are built as quickly and cheaply as possible. Wires are run rapidly, without much care to particular placement. Builders leave lunch trash inside wall interiors. Finishes are half-baked, details are of little concern. The materials used are the cheapest possible.
Just like a program, what the buyer sees is the outside finish, and that's basis for their purchase decision normally. But look at how they are actually built, and you'd be afraid.
People cut corners if they think they get away with it, be it bridges, houses, or programs.
Sadly (or fortunately, really) I'm not quite that old -- but I DJ'd a CCM show in college in the early 90s, and between that hanging with friends I learned a bit about the CCM history.
:)
:)
That old Petra stuff is funny, in some ways, how "country" it is.
And I agree, that the DC Talk album Jesus Freak is really good, but I guess I think of that in terms of new stuff, not old stuff.
I would also say that Jars of Clay first CD was quite good (and refreshing). Phil Keaggy continues to do awesome concerts. Beyond that, I'm totally out of the scene.
I'll have to check out the Keith Green covers some time.
Of course, there's One Bad Pig's cover of Petra's "Judas Kiss", and their cover of "Man in Black" with Willy Nelson, I believe it was. Ahh, those were the days...
"Meanwhile, there's a study circulating saying that people don't and won't purchase heavily restricted music online at higher prices for a less useful item. This is apparently a revelation to the music industry."
(Meanwhile, back in the RIAA-cave...)
Holy Over-Prosecuted Russians, Ms. Rosen! People don't want to pay more for less?!?! Since when?
We never saw this coming!
Quick, gather your finest demographers and statisticians to study this. The fate of Gotham depends on it!
"CCM is just the same tired crap all over again, with a few exceptions.
:)
:)
/me remembers Back in the Day, when DC Talk came out with Jesus Freak, bringing something new and innovative. That was really cool. "
Back in the day? How old are you, 12?
Back in the day is ~30 years ago, when Petra, Daniel Amos Band, and others were pioneering what is now CCM. Back when Keith Green, Phil Keaggy, Randy Stonehill were essentially underground musicians. More recently, back when Steve Taylor was actually performing, and not just performing. That's back in the day
DC Talk is new (and for some old-skool rap, check out there first album).
And if you want something that was a bit different, but unfortunately unsuccessful, check out "Chagall Guavera" (Steve Taylor signed with a 'secular' label, to try and get more artistic freedom. He learned that the secular labels were no more 'artistic' than the christian ones)
Maybe it's just late, but that's one of the funniest two sentences I've read online, ever. Wish I had mod points right now. I'm tempted to use that for a .sig quote.
Japanese scientists and researchers have done some great work, especially in recent years. However, let's not lose perspective.
For the past 50 years, many of Japan's largest markets have come from copying American products. This has been seen with: cameras & photographic lenses, steel, computer memory and solid state electronics, consumer electronics, and automobiles (SUVs in particular). Also, there powerful business culture came in large part from the post-WWII rebuilding efforts and the theories / ideas of an American, W. Edwards Deming.
And it's well known that the Japanese educational system and business cultures have promoted conformity over individual expression. Many think this leads to a promotion of sameness over creativity (rightfully so, IMO).
Don't take this as a rant/flame/troll. Japanese culture is very different to that of the U.S. (and other western nations). It's been to our detriment that we have failed to recognize this, especially during the trade negotiations of the '80s.
-----
D. Fischer
If we encountered economic collapse, and the dollar was worthless, people WOULD accept gold.
Yes, and people would also accept guns, butter, and sugar. And all the Y2K people would become the nouveau riche. Hmm... that gives me an idea.
Coming soon: e-guns.com (or e-sugar.com)
-----
D. Fischer
While this is not the best analysis possible, it is not wholly unreasonable. Taking your example:
Band A
1 million albums = 1 platinum
So, 1 platinum * 5 yrs = 005 (score)
Lookinbg five years from now:
1 plat * 10 years = 010
Band B
2.5 million albums = 2.5 platinum
Five years from now:
2.5 * 5 = 12.5 million sold = 12.5 platinums
12.5 plat * 5 yrs = 060 score
060 > 010 => Band B > Band A in 5 years, as it should be.
So, this ranking will account for continued sales over time.
Still, I would think that total profit, cumulative & inflation-adjusted per year, would be the most accurate way to investigate such things.
But those numbers are probably not available, and still neglect other profit sources such as concerts, merchandise & TV specials.
-----
D. Fischer