I have, and believe me, brother, there is not much of anything there. The longer you work, the smaller it gets. There have been days where that hat wouldn't have fit on my little toe.
Now, I could say that this is due to a lack of appreciation of my art on the part of the general populace. Or, I could say it was due to a certain lack in my performance. But from just looking at it, I would say that it is simply because folks don't want to think about it. They assume that the piper gets paid, and that is that. Soothes their minds enough to keep them from feeling guilty.
I cannot blame these folks, after all, they are conditioned by radio and the telly to think that all performances are paid for by advertising, or free.
Perhaps a simple sponsorship method, without the advertising blurb, might be appropriate. Can you say "patronage"? An example:
Say a group records a tune. Then, they figure out what the net profit would have been if they had gone through the ususal distribution channels. They divide this amount into a number of easily affordable amounts. They advertise that they have a new tune (easier if they are famous, hard if they aren't), maybe with some content (samples), maybe without. When enough folks have expressed interest in the tune by paying their little bits, the music is made available to public and the list of patrons exposed.
There are some problems with the above. There is keeping track. There is also the situation where the tune is a hit (the group gets less than they could have) versus a flop (they get more than they would have). Plus, if the band does enough flops, then nobody sponsors them. I would call this "self-correcting"!
One would think that larger companies would get a clue and start paying sucks sites to be in business.
Consider that as corporate management, one of my biggest problems is determining reality, as opposed to reality filtered through a mass of spineless butt-sniffing lackeys attempting to keep their jobs at any cost.
What if the sux site encouraged input with a few well-crafted bits, collected the tales of woe and doom about my company, then gave me statistics on categories of problems? I could figure out if I am being hornswaggled by the customer service division.
Aside from being a really cool trade-mark, the answer may be tradition.
Designing a circuit with way, way more of a particular resource (speed, memory, etc.) than actually required is referred to as "using the sledgehammer" or "sledgehammer design".
One of the first print examples I can think of was a chapter in Don Lancaster's "TTL Video Cookbook" entitled "Use a sledgehammer", where the suggested solution to a video program that didn't work quickly enough was to simply add another processor and memory
Slashdot Mirror
Worse yet, have you ever had to pick one up?
I have, and believe me, brother, there is not much of anything there. The longer you work, the smaller it gets. There have been days where that hat wouldn't have fit on my little toe.
Now, I could say that this is due to a lack of appreciation of my art on the part of the general populace. Or, I could say it was due to a certain lack in my performance. But from just looking at it, I would say that it is simply because folks don't want to think about it. They assume that the piper gets paid, and that is that. Soothes their minds enough to keep them from feeling guilty.
I cannot blame these folks, after all, they are conditioned by radio and the telly to think that all performances are paid for by advertising, or free.
Perhaps a simple sponsorship method, without the advertising blurb, might be appropriate. Can you say "patronage"? An example:
Say a group records a tune. Then, they figure out what the net profit would have been if they had gone through the ususal distribution channels. They divide this amount into a number of easily affordable amounts. They advertise that they have a new tune (easier if they are famous, hard if they aren't), maybe with some content (samples), maybe without. When enough folks have expressed interest in the tune by paying their little bits, the music is made available to public and the list of patrons exposed.
There are some problems with the above. There is keeping track. There is also the situation where the tune is a hit (the group gets less than they could have) versus a flop (they get more than they would have). Plus, if the band does enough flops, then nobody sponsors them. I would call this "self-correcting"!
Consider that as corporate management, one of my biggest problems is determining reality, as opposed to reality filtered through a mass of spineless butt-sniffing lackeys attempting to keep their jobs at any cost.
What if the sux site encouraged input with a few well-crafted bits, collected the tales of woe and doom about my company, then gave me statistics on categories of problems? I could figure out if I am being hornswaggled by the customer service division.
What do you think?
Aside from being a really cool trade-mark, the answer may be tradition.
Designing a circuit with way, way more of a particular resource (speed, memory, etc.) than actually required is referred to as "using the sledgehammer" or "sledgehammer design".
One of the first print examples I can think of was a chapter in Don Lancaster's "TTL Video Cookbook" entitled "Use a sledgehammer", where the suggested solution to a video program that didn't work quickly enough was to simply add another processor and memory