What I've come to realize is that for the majority of artists, this so-called piracy may have actually been working in their favor," testified alternative rock star Alanis Morissette. RAC also says artists who want to put their music on free sites like Napster should have that right -- something they don't now have.
That's from a Business Week article referenced from the Artist's Coalition site -- which, curiously enough, has the domain name "artistsagainstpiracy.com". Either they're missing something, or they've correctly realized that music sharing is not the biggest "piracy" going on here.
"You give something to your audience, and it always seems to come back somehow."
Of course, the difference between the record industry and the artist is that the artist receives the goodwill and interest. So the record industry has to secure their return by other means...
'NSync represents nothing more than the ability to sing lyrics written by somebody else to a tune composed by somebody else and to look pretty in the process.
It's a misunderstanding to think of N'Sync as musicians. They're an entertainment act who use music as part of the package. So I think you underestimate them a bit. The "looking pretty" bit is obviously part image-constulting and camera effects, but if they really are singing at the same time they do all their dancing, it's reasonably impressive. That's not easy to do. And dancing well in time with music can be particularly powerful in creating and image/mood.
It's part of the whole entertainer thing.
And really, just like music can be part of the entertainer's bag of tricks, so can entertaining skills (stage presence, storytelling, etc) be part of a genuine musician's performance. Not always... especially as you get more and more into what people consider art music, the presentation has less and less window dressing.
But anyway, don't confuse musicians with entertainers.... show choirs with chamber choirs, britney with sting, janet jackson with natalie merchant, gwar with U2, etc:).
Saying "fuck" and "screw" are the same isn't quite accurate. They may convey a similar action... but it's pretty easy to argue that for whatever reason, "fuck" has a harsher connotation. You can argue that it's all just convention, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there, and getting society to change convention overnight is pretty tough. And in my experience, most people who use "fuck" or derivatives as every part of speech aren't simply using it because they feel it's just a syllable or they've managed to de-harsh it. They use it to take advantage of the symbol: to either try doing psychological violence, or to build up an image of one not bound by convention. They're taking advantage of the "curse" nature of the syllable.
"Fuck" is a syllable... but it's not "just" a syllable, any more than "is" is, or "not". They each have meaning in a pretty rich/complex system of communication. They also have the ability to change the state of your brain. It's not quite as powerful as throwing a brick, but let's face it, there's got to be a physical effect of hearing a word going on somewhere in you.
It's really funny to see a product like this
come out, because I've seen movie studios get
VERY upset when individuals and organizations try
editing a movie to their liking.
I live in the Provo/Orem area of Utah. Because of the religious nature of the community, lots of people/institutions here prefer films with less cursing, nudity, sex, violence, etc (and please, for the sake of discussion here, suspend any reverse propensities you may have and just realize that for whatever reason, some people prefer this).
So several businesses sprang up to meet the demand. Brigham Young University, for example,
had the "Varsity Theatre" which edited movies down to a PGish/PG13ish... and it did really well.
A couple of video rental stores also sprung up,
where they'd offer edited versions of popular
rentals.
But about 4-5 years back, the movie studios suddenly became aware people were doing this. They issued BYU, BYU's distributor, and the video stores an ultimatum: stop showing edited films or face lawsuits, plus you'll never get a chance to show anything we license again. BYU complied, and tried to get by showing classics and various other "safe" films for a while. The stores stood up to the idea for a bit, but eventually caved in. Now they edit videos that people have already purchased -- which is apparently still on solid
legal footing.
I think I understand the desire of an artist/creator to see their work distributed w/o being pressed/chopped/smoked beyond recognition (anyone remember that part in "Reality Bites" where whatshername watches her documentary hopelessly mainstreamed?). But it's also rather scary how insistent the movie studios really are about having total control over the way their content is delivered/presented.
So I'm surprised to see a device like the one in the article in existence... and I'll be even more surprised if non-MPAA edits ever make it to market.
In a sane world, without a neurotic behemoth convinced that its survival depends on the erradication of Free Software, what MS does doesn't matter to linux one bit.
However, the parent poster brings up an excellent point. Microsoft is, in fact, everything I've described above. While obviously limited in their technical innovations, they have proven to be extremely tencacious and creative in coming up with practices that kill anything they perceive as competition.
They'll try with linux. They'll try to shape their contracts and the law. They'll try to shape public opinion. They'll try technical trapdoors. They'll try anything they can. That's how MS works: use any means necessary to kill anything competing.
And anybody who is interested in making choices about what kind of software they use should care
If Bill thinks that homgeneity brought about open source software, then it's only because he hasn't bothered to use anything other than an intel box for a couple of years. Or he's following the advice of Joseph Goebels.
Open source software runs across any number of platforms, hardware and software. My experience is that non-intel versions of Linux sometimes lag a little bit, but other than that, platform often has little to do with it.
Case in point: my Powerbook G3 laptop running Apache, MySQL, and PHP on OS X (previous to release of public beta, sortof running LinuxPPC). No, I'm not running the binaries apple distributed with their system (don't think they did distribute MySQL binaries at first)... I downloaded OS X patches offered by open source developers and ended up making one or two patches myself -- which are no longer needed because the above will now configure/make "out of the box" thanks to open source developers. Open source developers not using Bill's homogenous platform.
But then again, watching microsoft make ridiculous claims of their own virtues in face of obvious contradictions is not really shocking anymore. It's long become obvious they belong to the Goebel's school of public relations thought.
The constitution does not grant congress any power of any kind to use copyright law to defend the profitability of corporations
The problem here is that the prevailing wisdom is that the arts/sciences are most advanced when profit from them is assured. And profit (again the prevailing wisdom goes) is only assured when people tightly control the rights to use their discovery. It's hard to completely argue that viewpoint away. Profit is a powerful motive that works in a lot of cases.
So if you want to argue the case in the current political climate, you have to be able make an economic case, or make a truly compelling case to the average individual that some legitimate rights are being taken away.
On the contrary, I think the post should have been marked +1, Funny. The idea of someone using access for a large, mission critical rdbms is hilariously absurd.:)
We do it to annoy the anti-anti-Microsoft drones like yourself, of course. To feed, as it were, the troll. Posting this here is likely to result in a flood of Microsoft attacks based on poor facts or none at all. I mean, with this prophesy on hand, how can we resist? It's almost as appealing as "I know I'm going to get modded down for this".
But you're absolutely right. That's why it's time for slashdotters everywhere to unite and create (and perhaps eventually, when we learn to spell, even present).... the Microsoft FAQ:
1. Why does Microsoft suck?
The issue could be succinctly summarized in two words: anticompetitive behavior. More expressively: effective anticompetitive behavior. Lots of software companies produce offerings that, for whatever reason, some people just don't like. Lots of software companies would like to behave anticompetitively. But only Microsoft seems to be effective in their drive to make sure nobody is using anything else. For those of us that like to make choices about what software we use, this is profoundly disturbing. Those who have already chosen Microsoft or simply don't care may, of course, find this point of view hard to understand. But Microsoft's business plan is simple: whenever possible, don't give the customer a choice except using their software. And they're pretty good at it.
2. Is there any evidence to support the idea that Microsoft is effectively anticompetitive?
There are several court cases that point to this -- most recently, the findings of fact issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Some consider Jackson biased towards Microsoft and therefore feel that his findings might also be biased. Others feel that perhaps his bias was influenced by Microsoft's behavior during the trial.
3. You're just jealous of their success! You'd tear down anyone who was at the top! This is a classic case of jealousy!
Sorry, you must phrase your question in the form of a, well, question.
4. Um, OK. Isn't this sort of thing likely to be a problem with ANYONE who's at the top of the heap?
Yes. But we don't have a problem with applying these standards to anyone. We'd prefer to see companies compete in terms of the merits of their offerings and marketing skills, rather than their ability to lock up and strong arm distribution channels.
Bottom line: most of us don't have a problem with Microsoft's existence, we just a have a problem with them manipulating OEMs and other corps -- heavy-handedly in some cases and illegally in others -- to place themselves as the exclusive purveyor of software/software services in the world.
Re:Spelling/Grammer Nazis...
on
Looking At Gobe
·
· Score: 2
Either there is some sarcasm at work here that is too subtle for me, or there's a supreme irony present....
Say, anyone know much about Automated Transition Grammars? I've been looking into natural language translation that would understand an average slashdot post.
It's better to begin the right thing than finish the wrong thing, so if this is really the wrong thing for you, then by all means, start planning you change of direction NOW, and act on it daily. But there are some caveats to that principle.
Most of them have to do with the fact that it's often hard to find out what you really want to do -- as you now know. And your desires and ambitions change as you grow as a person. Your information is imperfect and subject to change. In other words, you can't plan your own satisfaction perfectly.
Also, most of us have trouble beginning the right thing until we've finished the wrong and can lay it to rest. Leaving a degree unfinished is like trying to clean your house by simply leaving.
But here's a couple of principles that I think are good:
1) Do whatever you're currently doing well. Finish it if you can. This wins you respect and credibility, which are as helpful for moving laterally from career to career as anything else. If you find that you get to a point where you can't do what you're doing well, then it's time to move -- or at least take a vacation -- very soon. BUT.... if you can finish out what you're currently doing and do a good job of it, then finish.
2) Allow yourself periods of lateral drift in your life. They may be weeks, months, or years. They may involve travel, moving to another place, trying a series of entry-level jobs, reading widely, giving time to good causes.
3) Develop a spirituality. Everyone has their own idea about what that constitutes, and so do I: a community which follows practices, the study of religious texts, and prayer/pondering/meditation. Find something which makes you more alive AND a more humane, charitable, compasionate person.... and which gives you an inner voice that can guide you better than slashdot can.:)
4) Don't try to plan out your whole life. Just continually be learning new skills and filling your toolbox with things that can help you do things later. Make changes when you need to make changes.
I just want to offer a caution against this. After spending 2-3 years adding an education degree to my math degree, I'm really soured on the whole thing.
It might just be the Education faculty at my university. Some of them have a tendency to treat US like we're still in high school, and act as if some of the glittering generalities they're spouting are actually education wisdom. And there are way too many of the Math Ed faculty who talk about getting people excited about the coolness of mathematics but have never done anything cool with it.
By doing Teach For America, of course, you have have a chance to bypass all that and get the real education in the trenches. And if you teach Computer Science, you'll probably have better students. CS is still a voluntary class in most places. Algebra is taken by students who'd consider cutting off one of their fingers if it got them out of math for the rest of their life.
But there's still some big problems: lots of high school students don't want to learn anything, lots of administrators/other faculty want you to do things THEIR way, and finally: what do YOU know how to do well? If you do know how to do some cool things, then you can be the cool teacher. But until you do, you're no more the cool teacher or part of the solution than my Technology in Math Ed instructor is: lots of general enthusiasm for the subject, but bare minimum of practical knowledge, and more of a love of imparting it and seeming cool than of doing something with it. That's the main reason why I stopped teaching Math. I knew that I couldn't teach people how to do anything with it that _I_ thought was suffeciently interesting. Maybe I'll go back after a few years when I do.
I haven't been paying attention to the market... I guess things like this aren't all that rare. Apparently there's a G4 PPC computer-on-a-card as well.
But anyway, it reminds me a quite a bit of what Avid/Digidesign do for their high-end systems.
You see people who've got 6 slot PCI systems and 4 of those slots are filled with extra computing cards (sometimes more... some people get expansion chasis'). You can rely on your computers processor if you're not doing to many complex effects on a track of audio, but at some point (not too hard to reach... throw in a tube amp emulator and a reverb) you run out of CPU. So they have PCI cards which have a couple of DSP chips (Motorola 56xxx series, I think) on them, and the more of these you add, the more audio processing you can do simultaneously.
At some point, perhaps people will think: hey, why add a specialized card? Why not just more general purpose computing power?
OK, slashdot activists. Those who know what's
going on. Friends of Jamie Love, etc.
I want to know what I can do about this. When
lawmaking is being talked about, I at least know
I can write/call my congress reps.
But when the DOJ is basically caving in, I have no idea what to do.
Help?
Re:Mac-only ..... nobody seems to get it.
on
The Guts Of An iPod
·
· Score: 1
I am actually thinking about getting a el cheapo iMac just to play with OS X, but then again, it will run like garbage on a 233mhz CPU
You could probably find a 300-400 Mhz model for fairly cheap as well... perhaps as cheaply, as some people are holding onto their original 233's as collectors items.
Then, when you get it, dump 512 MB-1 GB of ram in it (since RAM prices are cheap these days). You're set. I'm typing this on a Powerbook G3/333 Mhz with 320 MB of RAM, running 10.0.4, and performance is acceptable.
You know, we should have a unit basically dedicated to
thinking up terrorist attacks to the united states, and
trying to "implement" them. Just more war games. So
we get a couple of agents trying what the Sep 11 hijackers
tried on July 13th, and we shore up weaknesses before they're
really exploited (we would, of course, have our gamers stop
short of say, actually killing or even threatening anyone. Wouldn't
do to have people saying "Oh, this isn't a REAL terrorist attack...
it's just the gamers. Sit back, everything's going to be OK.").
Actually, I know this is done to some extent. A couple of
weeks ago, for example, I heard a guy on the radio who
used to work out at Dugway Proving grounds in the Utah
west desert. His job for a while was to come up with
anthrax delivery scenarios.... from city wide to single
building to single person. I don't know if they actually
disseminated a "marker" substance to test their theories
and come up with security techniques, but I'd be happy
to some portion of my taxes spent on such a thing.
Just remember... after everyon's favorite evil legislation kicks in, it will be illegal to build this.
So get your hacking in now.
Microsoft makes life easy for programmers?
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That is why Microsoft has always sold its operating system cheaply and has done everything to make life easy for programmers.
It's been a long number of years since I've attempted to develop
any sort of software with MS tools/APIs, because every experience
I had was miserable compared to alternatives. The only positive
experiences I've ever had developing for DOS or Windows were because of Borland.
I'm a programmer and part of my beef with Microsoft is that if they
have their way, I'll have little choice but to use their tools and do things their way. Of course, that might be good... it'd provide suffecient incentive for me to become a subsistence farmer or luthier or anti-trust economist and lead a simpler life.
And the OS is cheap? Hardly.
Best thing about such a device
on
Desktop Biodetectors
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The best thing about such a device is that it could justify its cost.
A $500 "detect Anthrax" device wouldn't yield much value for a large portion of the population. But... a $500 device that could detect and identify a wide variety of microorganisms might be very useful -- and worthwhile -- indeed.
Maybe it'd be like running "top" -- instead of giving you information about processes taking up system resources, you could get information about microorganism activity in the environment (or your body, given an appropriate sample...).
ID NAME EST COUNT/CU CENT % OF TOTAL
787 Staphlo 2324572 12.2%
8901 Antrax 253334 1.3%
143 E. Coli 289217 1.4%
1589 Ebola 16333.035%
I'm curious to know exactly what you explained to them. You see, I find that most of my friends I explain this to just don't get it.
Here are the negative effects I can think of:
1) Burdensome effect on industry. It will slow
competition by raising barriers to entry by adding requirements.
2) Furthermore, there is strong potential for abuse... will the standard for establishing
security be open and easily implementable and
interoperable? Or will it (more likely) be closed
and favor some industry players over others?
3) The average citizen (thanks, we are citizens
and not just consumers) will see their fair use rights diminish or disappear.
4) It stands to reason that all data storage will
become proprietary, and therefore, data ownership
for the average individual will go down the drain.
And exactly what _doesn't_ fall into that category?
Monitors do (they project images of information).
Speakers sure do.
Cameras, tape recorders, hell, a freakin' PENCIL is a product which can be used for storing and transmitting information in digital form (really... just write down the bits).
Every storage medium would have to have protection. Every telephone.
However, if you've got the raw data, and our government does, constructing such a system is so simple, I can't help but conclude it's inevitable. It's going to happen.
I have to agree. The data is already out there. As another poster has
already pointed out, we really didn't need new information in order
to flag the 9/11 terrorists; we just needed to put 2+2 together
using a system that could look these guys up.
The idea that a centralized system could help them do just that has
enough appeal to some people (esp. those in power) that they WILL
do this. We need to come up with a way to make it as non-abusive
as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
wakicha-wakicha-wakicha-wakicha....
"Cedar lattice... gets 'em every time!"
What I've come to realize is that for the majority of artists, this so-called piracy may have actually been working in their favor," testified alternative rock star Alanis Morissette. RAC also says artists who want to put their music on free sites like Napster should have that right -- something they don't now have.
That's from a Business Week article referenced from the Artist's Coalition site -- which, curiously enough, has the domain name "artistsagainstpiracy.com". Either they're missing something, or they've correctly realized that music sharing is not the biggest "piracy" going on here.
Anyway, as another artist put it in a senate field hearing:
"You give something to your audience, and it always seems to come back somehow."
Of course, the difference between the record industry and the artist is that the artist receives the goodwill and interest. So the record industry has to secure their return by other means...
'NSync represents nothing more than the ability to sing lyrics written by somebody else to a tune composed by somebody else and to look pretty in the process.
:).
It's a misunderstanding to think of N'Sync as musicians. They're an entertainment act who use music as part of the package. So I think you underestimate them a bit. The "looking pretty" bit is obviously part image-constulting and camera effects, but if they really are singing at the same time they do all their dancing, it's reasonably impressive. That's not easy to do. And dancing well in time with music can be particularly powerful in creating and image/mood.
It's part of the whole entertainer thing.
And really, just like music can be part of the entertainer's bag of tricks, so can entertaining skills (stage presence, storytelling, etc) be part of a genuine musician's performance. Not always... especially as you get more and more into what people consider art music, the presentation has less and less window dressing.
But anyway, don't confuse musicians with entertainers.... show choirs with chamber choirs, britney with sting, janet jackson with natalie merchant, gwar with U2, etc
Saying "fuck" and "screw" are the same isn't quite accurate. They may convey a similar action... but it's pretty easy to argue that for whatever reason, "fuck" has a harsher connotation. You can argue that it's all just convention, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there, and getting society to change convention overnight is pretty tough. And in my experience, most people who use "fuck" or derivatives as every part of speech aren't simply using it because they feel it's just a syllable or they've managed to de-harsh it. They use it to take advantage of the symbol: to either try doing psychological violence, or to build up an image of one not bound by convention. They're taking advantage of the "curse" nature of the syllable.
"Fuck" is a syllable... but it's not "just" a syllable, any more than "is" is, or "not". They each have meaning in a pretty rich/complex system of communication. They also have the ability to change the state of your brain. It's not quite as powerful as throwing a brick, but let's face it, there's got to be a physical effect of hearing a word going on somewhere in you.
It's really funny to see a product like this
come out, because I've seen movie studios get
VERY upset when individuals and organizations try
editing a movie to their liking.
I live in the Provo/Orem area of Utah. Because of the religious nature of the community, lots of people/institutions here prefer films with less cursing, nudity, sex, violence, etc (and please, for the sake of discussion here, suspend any reverse propensities you may have and just realize that for whatever reason, some people prefer this).
So several businesses sprang up to meet the demand. Brigham Young University, for example,
had the "Varsity Theatre" which edited movies down to a PGish/PG13ish... and it did really well.
A couple of video rental stores also sprung up,
where they'd offer edited versions of popular
rentals.
But about 4-5 years back, the movie studios suddenly became aware people were doing this. They issued BYU, BYU's distributor, and the video stores an ultimatum: stop showing edited films or face lawsuits, plus you'll never get a chance to show anything we license again. BYU complied, and tried to get by showing classics and various other "safe" films for a while. The stores stood up to the idea for a bit, but eventually caved in. Now they edit videos that people have already purchased -- which is apparently still on solid
legal footing.
I think I understand the desire of an artist/creator to see their work distributed w/o being pressed/chopped/smoked beyond recognition (anyone remember that part in "Reality Bites" where whatshername watches her documentary hopelessly mainstreamed?). But it's also rather scary how insistent the movie studios really are about having total control over the way their content is delivered/presented.
So I'm surprised to see a device like the one in the article in existence... and I'll be even more surprised if non-MPAA edits ever make it to market.
In a sane world, without a neurotic behemoth convinced that its survival depends on the erradication of Free Software, what MS does doesn't matter to linux one bit.
However, the parent poster brings up an excellent point. Microsoft is, in fact, everything I've described above. While obviously limited in their technical innovations, they have proven to be extremely tencacious and creative in coming up with practices that kill anything they perceive as competition.
They'll try with linux. They'll try to shape their contracts and the law. They'll try to shape public opinion. They'll try technical trapdoors. They'll try anything they can. That's how MS works: use any means necessary to kill anything competing.
And anybody who is interested in making choices about what kind of software they use should care
If Bill thinks that homgeneity brought about open source software, then it's only because he hasn't bothered to use anything other than an intel box for a couple of years. Or he's following the advice of Joseph Goebels.
Open source software runs across any number of platforms, hardware and software. My experience is that non-intel versions of Linux sometimes lag a little bit, but other than that, platform often has little to do with it.
Case in point: my Powerbook G3 laptop running Apache, MySQL, and PHP on OS X (previous to release of public beta, sortof running LinuxPPC). No, I'm not running the binaries apple distributed with their system (don't think they did distribute MySQL binaries at first)... I downloaded OS X patches offered by open source developers and ended up making one or two patches myself -- which are no longer needed because the above will now configure/make "out of the box" thanks to open source developers. Open source developers not using Bill's homogenous platform.
But then again, watching microsoft make ridiculous claims of their own virtues in face of obvious contradictions is not really shocking anymore. It's long become obvious they belong to the Goebel's school of public relations thought.
The constitution does not grant congress any power of any kind to use copyright law to defend the profitability of corporations
The problem here is that the prevailing wisdom is that the arts/sciences are most advanced when profit from them is assured. And profit (again the prevailing wisdom goes) is only assured when people tightly control the rights to use their discovery. It's hard to completely argue that viewpoint away. Profit is a powerful motive that works in a lot of cases.
So if you want to argue the case in the current political climate, you have to be able make an economic case, or make a truly compelling case to the average individual that some legitimate rights are being taken away.
On the contrary, I think the post should have been marked +1, Funny. The idea of someone using access for a large, mission critical rdbms is hilariously absurd. :)
We do it to annoy the anti-anti-Microsoft drones like yourself, of course. To feed, as it were, the troll. Posting this here is likely to result in a flood of Microsoft attacks based on poor facts or none at all. I mean, with this prophesy on hand, how can we resist? It's almost as appealing as "I know I'm going to get modded down for this".
.... the Microsoft FAQ:
But you're absolutely right. That's why it's time for slashdotters everywhere to unite and create (and perhaps eventually, when we learn to spell, even present)
1. Why does Microsoft suck?
The issue could be succinctly summarized in two words: anticompetitive behavior. More expressively: effective anticompetitive behavior. Lots of software companies produce offerings that, for whatever reason, some people just don't like. Lots of software companies would like to behave anticompetitively. But only Microsoft seems to be effective in their drive to make sure nobody is using anything else. For those of us that like to make choices about what software we use, this is profoundly disturbing. Those who have already chosen Microsoft or simply don't care may, of course, find this point of view hard to understand. But Microsoft's business plan is simple: whenever possible, don't give the customer a choice except using their software. And they're pretty good at it.
2. Is there any evidence to support the idea that Microsoft is effectively anticompetitive?
There are several court cases that point to this -- most recently, the findings of fact issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Some consider Jackson biased towards Microsoft and therefore feel that his findings might also be biased. Others feel that perhaps his bias was influenced by Microsoft's behavior during the trial.
3. You're just jealous of their success! You'd tear down anyone who was at the top! This is a classic case of jealousy!
Sorry, you must phrase your question in the form of a, well, question.
4. Um, OK. Isn't this sort of thing likely to be a problem with ANYONE who's at the top of the heap?
Yes. But we don't have a problem with applying these standards to anyone. We'd prefer to see companies compete in terms of the merits of their offerings and marketing skills, rather than their ability to lock up and strong arm distribution channels.
Bottom line: most of us don't have a problem with Microsoft's existence, we just a have a problem with them manipulating OEMs and other corps -- heavy-handedly in some cases and illegally in others -- to place themselves as the exclusive purveyor of software/software services in the world.
Either there is some sarcasm at work here that is too subtle for me, or there's a supreme irony present....
Say, anyone know much about Automated Transition Grammars? I've been looking into natural language translation that would understand an average slashdot post.
It's better to begin the right thing than finish the wrong thing, so if this is really the wrong thing for you, then by all means, start planning you change of direction NOW, and act on it daily. But there are some caveats to that principle.
.... if you can finish out what you're currently doing and do a good job of it, then finish.
:)
Most of them have to do with the fact that it's often hard to find out what you really want to do -- as you now know. And your desires and ambitions change as you grow as a person. Your information is imperfect and subject to change. In other words, you can't plan your own satisfaction perfectly.
Also, most of us have trouble beginning the right thing until we've finished the wrong and can lay it to rest. Leaving a degree unfinished is like trying to clean your house by simply leaving.
But here's a couple of principles that I think are good:
1) Do whatever you're currently doing well. Finish it if you can. This wins you respect and credibility, which are as helpful for moving laterally from career to career as anything else. If you find that you get to a point where you can't do what you're doing well, then it's time to move -- or at least take a vacation -- very soon. BUT
2) Allow yourself periods of lateral drift in your life. They may be weeks, months, or years. They may involve travel, moving to another place, trying a series of entry-level jobs, reading widely, giving time to good causes.
3) Develop a spirituality. Everyone has their own idea about what that constitutes, and so do I: a community which follows practices, the study of religious texts, and prayer/pondering/meditation. Find something which makes you more alive AND a more humane, charitable, compasionate person.... and which gives you an inner voice that can guide you better than slashdot can.
4) Don't try to plan out your whole life. Just continually be learning new skills and filling your toolbox with things that can help you do things later. Make changes when you need to make changes.
I just want to offer a caution against this. After spending 2-3 years adding an education degree to my math degree, I'm really soured on the whole thing.
It might just be the Education faculty at my university. Some of them have a tendency to treat US like we're still in high school, and act as if some of the glittering generalities they're spouting are actually education wisdom. And there are way too many of the Math Ed faculty who talk about getting people excited about the coolness of mathematics but have never done anything cool with it.
By doing Teach For America, of course, you have have a chance to bypass all that and get the real education in the trenches. And if you teach Computer Science, you'll probably have better students. CS is still a voluntary class in most places. Algebra is taken by students who'd consider cutting off one of their fingers if it got them out of math for the rest of their life.
But there's still some big problems: lots of high school students don't want to learn anything, lots of administrators/other faculty want you to do things THEIR way, and finally: what do YOU know how to do well? If you do know how to do some cool things, then you can be the cool teacher. But until you do, you're no more the cool teacher or part of the solution than my Technology in Math Ed instructor is: lots of general enthusiasm for the subject, but bare minimum of practical knowledge, and more of a love of imparting it and seeming cool than of doing something with it. That's the main reason why I stopped teaching Math. I knew that I couldn't teach people how to do anything with it that _I_ thought was suffeciently interesting. Maybe I'll go back after a few years when I do.
I haven't been paying attention to the market... I guess things like this aren't all that rare. Apparently there's a G4 PPC computer-on-a-card as well.
But anyway, it reminds me a quite a bit of what Avid/Digidesign do for their high-end systems.
You see people who've got 6 slot PCI systems and 4 of those slots are filled with extra computing cards (sometimes more... some people get expansion chasis'). You can rely on your computers processor if you're not doing to many complex effects on a track of audio, but at some point (not too hard to reach... throw in a tube amp emulator and a reverb) you run out of CPU. So they have PCI cards which have a couple of DSP chips (Motorola 56xxx series, I think) on them, and the more of these you add, the more audio processing you can do simultaneously.
At some point, perhaps people will think: hey, why add a specialized card? Why not just more general purpose computing power?
Interesting that several mere rants got mod points instead of a post that points out how you can do something.
That said, some of the analyses above are really helpful and insightful. It'd just be nice to see action as well as words given due notice.
OK, slashdot activists. Those who know what's
going on. Friends of Jamie Love, etc.
I want to know what I can do about this. When
lawmaking is being talked about, I at least know
I can write/call my congress reps.
But when the DOJ is basically caving in, I have no idea what to do.
Help?
I am actually thinking about getting a el cheapo iMac just to play with OS X, but then again, it will run like garbage on a 233mhz CPU
You could probably find a 300-400 Mhz model for fairly cheap as well... perhaps as cheaply, as some people are holding onto their original 233's as collectors items.
Then, when you get it, dump 512 MB-1 GB of ram in it (since RAM prices are cheap these days). You're set. I'm typing this on a Powerbook G3/333 Mhz with 320 MB of RAM, running 10.0.4, and performance is acceptable.
Just thought I'd let you know.
Seeing a Nextstep-ish window system on top of OS X is quite a hoot! Thanks.
You know, we should have a unit basically dedicated to
thinking up terrorist attacks to the united states, and
trying to "implement" them. Just more war games. So
we get a couple of agents trying what the Sep 11 hijackers
tried on July 13th, and we shore up weaknesses before they're
really exploited (we would, of course, have our gamers stop
short of say, actually killing or even threatening anyone. Wouldn't
do to have people saying "Oh, this isn't a REAL terrorist attack...
it's just the gamers. Sit back, everything's going to be OK.").
Actually, I know this is done to some extent. A couple of
weeks ago, for example, I heard a guy on the radio who
used to work out at Dugway Proving grounds in the Utah
west desert. His job for a while was to come up with
anthrax delivery scenarios.... from city wide to single
building to single person. I don't know if they actually
disseminated a "marker" substance to test their theories
and come up with security techniques, but I'd be happy
to some portion of my taxes spent on such a thing.
Just remember... after everyon's favorite evil legislation kicks in, it will be illegal to build this.
So get your hacking in now.
That is why Microsoft has always sold its operating system cheaply and has done everything to make life easy for programmers.
It's been a long number of years since I've attempted to develop
any sort of software with MS tools/APIs, because every experience
I had was miserable compared to alternatives. The only positive
experiences I've ever had developing for DOS or Windows were because of Borland.
I'm a programmer and part of my beef with Microsoft is that if they
have their way, I'll have little choice but to use their tools and do things their way. Of course, that might be good... it'd provide suffecient incentive for me to become a subsistence farmer or luthier or anti-trust economist and lead a simpler life.
And the OS is cheap? Hardly.
The best thing about such a device is that it could justify its cost.
.035%
A $500 "detect Anthrax" device wouldn't yield much value for a large portion of the population. But... a $500 device that could detect and identify a wide variety of microorganisms might be very useful -- and worthwhile -- indeed.
Maybe it'd be like running "top" -- instead of giving you information about processes taking up system resources, you could get information about microorganism activity in the environment (or your body, given an appropriate sample...).
ID NAME EST COUNT/CU CENT % OF TOTAL
787 Staphlo 2324572 12.2%
8901 Antrax 253334 1.3%
143 E. Coli 289217 1.4%
1589 Ebola 16333
I'm curious to know exactly what you explained to them. You see, I find that most of my friends I explain this to just don't get it.
Here are the negative effects I can think of:
1) Burdensome effect on industry. It will slow
competition by raising barriers to entry by adding requirements.
2) Furthermore, there is strong potential for abuse... will the standard for establishing
security be open and easily implementable and
interoperable? Or will it (more likely) be closed
and favor some industry players over others?
3) The average citizen (thanks, we are citizens
and not just consumers) will see their fair use rights diminish or disappear.
4) It stands to reason that all data storage will
become proprietary, and therefore, data ownership
for the average individual will go down the drain.
Anything else? Am I wrong about these?
And exactly what _doesn't_ fall into that category?
Monitors do (they project images of information).
Speakers sure do.
Cameras, tape recorders, hell, a freakin' PENCIL is a product which can be used for storing and transmitting information in digital form (really... just write down the bits).
Every storage medium would have to have protection. Every telephone.
However, if you've got the raw data, and our government does, constructing such a system is so simple, I can't help but conclude it's inevitable. It's going to happen.
I have to agree. The data is already out there. As another poster has
already pointed out, we really didn't need new information in order
to flag the 9/11 terrorists; we just needed to put 2+2 together
using a system that could look these guys up.
The idea that a centralized system could help them do just that has
enough appeal to some people (esp. those in power) that they WILL
do this. We need to come up with a way to make it as non-abusive
as possible.