They could also be better, in the sense of being less predictable.
I'm one of those people who complain music, movies, books, etc. are "too predictable". I actually like most of the things I complain are too predictable though. I've come to the realization that we as a species (and certainly as a culture in the USA) like predictability. It imitates life. If life weren't predictable, we would have a lot harder time and wouldn't be making all this "art".
Imagine, using these machines to compose sibling symphonies, when played alone, sound pleasing, but when played together combine to form an entirely new harmony.
Ah, we call those mashups, or in old-skool-speak "remixes". Though they don't really create a new harmony but mostly combine two disparate sounds to make something new.
But once those variant styles are programmed how do you know the software won't start developing its own style that is a combination of the different styles it has been programmed with? That's all any of us do as humans, we take our influences and create our own new version of that, be it music, or sports, or writing or even sex.
Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games. If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed. The fact that it's possible to extract patterns from analyzing human behavior and then replicate those patterns as well as a person isn't all that special. Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.
Please explain to me exactly how that's any different than a human growing up and "learning" through a lifetime of exposure to all that which we are exposed? If it had been a human opponent who went back and "studied" tapes of Kasparov people would have been indifferent to it other than saying "he studied his strategies well" but since Deep Blue was "programmed" (arguably the same thing as educated just in a much faster process) it doesn't count? I call bullshit.
the album is where the art comes in. the emotional connection between songs that makes the experience worth having. i can enjoy an individual track as much as the next person, but experiencing an amazing album is so much more worthwhile. i don't see software ever being able to do that.
You do understand that very few artists actually accomplish this goal right? "Concept albums" were the rage for a while and there are a few bands/artists that really consistently pull them off, but they are very very few.
As for software not being able to do it, just give it time. If software can write an individual piece, it most certainly will be able to write cohesive concepts of multiple pieces in the not so distant future.
Wouldn't such a suit be more appropriate to suing over Bing than over WinXP anyway? Also, I've never had a C:\Program Files\Xerox folder in any windows installation I've ever used at home (though there is one on my work machine).
1. Gold definitely has aesthetic value. 2. You do realize we (the USA and as far as I know all other major economies) are not on the "gold standard" anymore right? Fort Knox doesn't "secure a whole system of currency" and hasn't since the 60s at the latest. 3. Yes, all of that is true. People won't care about any of it when they're looking for food. They will care about it once they've been fed and have shelter. That's when gold becomes valuable to people, when they have enough of what they need to start having the things they want so they can prove they have enough to other people.
Gold isn't that rare. People used to think it was rare (kind of like diamonds though they were wrong there too) because it wasn't easy to get (in most places). That's simply not the case with modern technology. The only truly redeeming quality of gold is that it doesn't corrode.
Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.
/Mikael
That will only determine its initial value, not the value it has upon resale at some arbitrary future time.
No, what the GP said was that the current system is in place to "protect copyright" and adding fees based on value of the work wouldn't be difficult and wouldn't inhibit any kind of creativity. There is already a registration fee for officially registering your work. Making that annual or "every 5 years" or something like that wouldn't be cost prohibitive for the creators or to administer and could potentially generate a useful source of cash to be used in supporting creative works or whatever else society wants to support.
A "work" is exactly as you described. Basically anything you create on paper or print, or event sculpt is copyrighted. If you feel like you want it protected, you have to actually register the copyright and actively pursue infringement. Whether it's music, visual art, written word, or whatever.
Yeah, this quote from the GP linked article makes me want to puke. "I feel like one of those workers, because I earned less for a year's work off Google or YouTube than they did off the Bahrain government."
The fact that he thinks that a couple hours (at most) worth of work over 20 years ago equates to "a year's work" today just makes the guy a giant douchebag. I have no problem with artists being paid for their work. He was paid, quite well from the sounds of it, when he actually did the work! (Apparently he's worth 47 Million British Pounds.) Anyone with that kind of money and that attitude is just asking to be kicked in the nuts.
Yes, the laptop drives aren't particularly easy to swap, but I was referring to desktops, as was the post I responded to. Laptop batteries, desktop hard drives. Easily swapped laptop hard drives are not particularly commonplace for any computer manufacturer, though they are certainly becoming more so.
I'd argue that TiVo is dying because the internet provides more options than it did in the first decade of this century. Hulu and broadcast television shows, not to mention YouTube Netflix provide far more "user friendly" options that can be watched in more places on more devices. I built a myth box but we never use it. We don't watch enough television to bother with it. When we miss something, we watch it online. The few exceptions to this are filled in by renting Netflix DVDs.
Yes a lot of people go ahead and pay for the cable company DVR, but most I know complain that they suck. When they see us watch what want online (1 day after it airs, usually) when and where we want, on whatever device, they generally do the same after that. I only know a few people actually still using true DVRs.
We're probably still an exception to the rule, but the numbers of people doing it this way are growing.
We are talking about a device that IIRC has captured less than 2% of the market last I checked, yet everyone seems to be tripping over themselves to just slobber praise onto it
The iPod has between 70 and 87% market share, depending upon which numbers you look at. The iPhone has between 15 and 25%, depending upon which numbers you look at. Those are not "boutique niche" numbers by any stretch of the imagination.
The only real hit market wise has been the iPod, and I would argue that the PMP market before Apple had designs so damned terrible that anybody that made one with less buttons than the space shuttle that wasn't a royal PITA to deal with would have been a hit. So what gives? What gives is that Apple did it. And they've done it many times over the last decade or so. Arguably they've been the most successful "turn around" seen in a long time, if not in all time. People keep talking about it because it's almost unheard of for a company to have that kind of turn-around with the kind of consistent growth in market share (in multiple markets) that Apple has seen since Jobs' return.
Actually, in absolute numbers there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual.
However, as a percent of population, a significantly larger number of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. Something on the order of 2-5 percent of the population at large is homosexual. While something on the order of 32 % of sexual child molestation cases are homosexual. This indicates that there is some linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. That linkage is probably something that leads someone to both behaviors as opposed to one behavior leading to the other.
Or, it simply means that more people tell their daughters to "watch out for sexual predators" than they tell their sons. Comparing homosexuality and pedophilia is just ignorant. Also, please feel free to provide some citations for your numbers.
suddenly turn into normal, heterosexual human beings You're aware that confusing pedophilia and something other than heterosexuality is just plain ignorant right?
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but your choice of wording was bad.
Built-in screens made sense at the start of the computing age but they have thankfully gone the way of the dinosaurs.
Um...
That is the article author's opinion. I'd dare say with the explosion of laptops it's arguable that it's not the consensus either. Built in screens are still quite commonplace and it's not just Apple doing it. In fact, more and more desktops seem to be going back to that as components get small enough to fit into the screen bezels.
Slashdot Mirror
They could also be better, in the sense of being less predictable.
I'm one of those people who complain music, movies, books, etc. are "too predictable". I actually like most of the things I complain are too predictable though. I've come to the realization that we as a species (and certainly as a culture in the USA) like predictability. It imitates life. If life weren't predictable, we would have a lot harder time and wouldn't be making all this "art".
Imagine, using these machines to compose sibling symphonies, when played alone, sound pleasing, but when played together combine to form an entirely new harmony.
Ah, we call those mashups, or in old-skool-speak "remixes". Though they don't really create a new harmony but mostly combine two disparate sounds to make something new.
But once those variant styles are programmed how do you know the software won't start developing its own style that is a combination of the different styles it has been programmed with? That's all any of us do as humans, we take our influences and create our own new version of that, be it music, or sports, or writing or even sex.
Computers will teach us as a race one thing, humility.
Don't count on it.
Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games. If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed. The fact that it's possible to extract patterns from analyzing human behavior and then replicate those patterns as well as a person isn't all that special. Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.
Please explain to me exactly how that's any different than a human growing up and "learning" through a lifetime of exposure to all that which we are exposed? If it had been a human opponent who went back and "studied" tapes of Kasparov people would have been indifferent to it other than saying "he studied his strategies well" but since Deep Blue was "programmed" (arguably the same thing as educated just in a much faster process) it doesn't count? I call bullshit.
the album is where the art comes in. the emotional connection between songs that makes the experience worth having. i can enjoy an individual track as much as the next person, but experiencing an amazing album is so much more worthwhile. i don't see software ever being able to do that.
You do understand that very few artists actually accomplish this goal right? "Concept albums" were the rage for a while and there are a few bands/artists that really consistently pull them off, but they are very very few.
As for software not being able to do it, just give it time. If software can write an individual piece, it most certainly will be able to write cohesive concepts of multiple pieces in the not so distant future.
Wouldn't such a suit be more appropriate to suing over Bing than over WinXP anyway? Also, I've never had a C:\Program Files\Xerox folder in any windows installation I've ever used at home (though there is one on my work machine).
1. Gold definitely has aesthetic value.
2. You do realize we (the USA and as far as I know all other major economies) are not on the "gold standard" anymore right? Fort Knox doesn't "secure a whole system of currency" and hasn't since the 60s at the latest.
3. Yes, all of that is true. People won't care about any of it when they're looking for food. They will care about it once they've been fed and have shelter. That's when gold becomes valuable to people, when they have enough of what they need to start having the things they want so they can prove they have enough to other people.
Gold isn't that rare. People used to think it was rare (kind of like diamonds though they were wrong there too) because it wasn't easy to get (in most places). That's simply not the case with modern technology. The only truly redeeming quality of gold is that it doesn't corrode.
Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.
/Mikael
That will only determine its initial value, not the value it has upon resale at some arbitrary future time.
No, what the GP said was that the current system is in place to "protect copyright" and adding fees based on value of the work wouldn't be difficult and wouldn't inhibit any kind of creativity. There is already a registration fee for officially registering your work. Making that annual or "every 5 years" or something like that wouldn't be cost prohibitive for the creators or to administer and could potentially generate a useful source of cash to be used in supporting creative works or whatever else society wants to support.
A "work" is exactly as you described. Basically anything you create on paper or print, or event sculpt is copyrighted. If you feel like you want it protected, you have to actually register the copyright and actively pursue infringement. Whether it's music, visual art, written word, or whatever.
It was probably something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc (not a rick-roll)
Not a Rick-Roll. Right, how are we expected to believe that?!
Yeah, this quote from the GP linked article makes me want to puke. "I feel like one of those workers, because I earned less for a year's work off Google or YouTube than they did off the Bahrain government."
The fact that he thinks that a couple hours (at most) worth of work over 20 years ago equates to "a year's work" today just makes the guy a giant douchebag. I have no problem with artists being paid for their work. He was paid, quite well from the sounds of it, when he actually did the work! (Apparently he's worth 47 Million British Pounds.) Anyone with that kind of money and that attitude is just asking to be kicked in the nuts.
Doh! It's a pdf. I do have it... damn that's just stupid.
page 104 and before you declare "YAY WE CAN DO IT!" also page 107.
If you have any beef with his figures read the appropriate section in the book.
Excellent summary. Now, if I only had the book to translate your summary of the book.
Yes, the laptop drives aren't particularly easy to swap, but I was referring to desktops, as was the post I responded to. Laptop batteries, desktop hard drives. Easily swapped laptop hard drives are not particularly commonplace for any computer manufacturer, though they are certainly becoming more so.
doh! That should read "Hulu and broadcast television websites..."
I'd argue that TiVo is dying because the internet provides more options than it did in the first decade of this century. Hulu and broadcast television shows, not to mention YouTube Netflix provide far more "user friendly" options that can be watched in more places on more devices. I built a myth box but we never use it. We don't watch enough television to bother with it. When we miss something, we watch it online. The few exceptions to this are filled in by renting Netflix DVDs.
Yes a lot of people go ahead and pay for the cable company DVR, but most I know complain that they suck. When they see us watch what want online (1 day after it airs, usually) when and where we want, on whatever device, they generally do the same after that. I only know a few people actually still using true DVRs.
We're probably still an exception to the rule, but the numbers of people doing it this way are growing.
We are talking about a device that IIRC has captured less than 2% of the market last I checked, yet everyone seems to be tripping over themselves to just slobber praise onto it
The iPod has between 70 and 87% market share, depending upon which numbers you look at. The iPhone has between 15 and 25%, depending upon which numbers you look at. Those are not "boutique niche" numbers by any stretch of the imagination.
The only real hit market wise has been the iPod, and I would argue that the PMP market before Apple had designs so damned terrible that anybody that made one with less buttons than the space shuttle that wasn't a royal PITA to deal with would have been a hit. So what gives?
What gives is that Apple did it. And they've done it many times over the last decade or so. Arguably they've been the most successful "turn around" seen in a long time, if not in all time. People keep talking about it because it's almost unheard of for a company to have that kind of turn-around with the kind of consistent growth in market share (in multiple markets) that Apple has seen since Jobs' return.
Can they get married?
I'm guessing the LGBT crowd might have issue with your argument that not being able to get married means someone/something isn't a person.
That said, there is definitely a difference between a legal "person" and a legal "entity".
Someone please mod parent up. Well said.
Actually, in absolute numbers there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual.
However, as a percent of population, a significantly larger number of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. Something on the order of 2-5 percent of the population at large is homosexual. While something on the order of 32 % of sexual child molestation cases are homosexual. This indicates that there is some linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. That linkage is probably something that leads someone to both behaviors as opposed to one behavior leading to the other.
Or, it simply means that more people tell their daughters to "watch out for sexual predators" than they tell their sons. Comparing homosexuality and pedophilia is just ignorant. Also, please feel free to provide some citations for your numbers.
suddenly turn into normal, heterosexual human beings
You're aware that confusing pedophilia and something other than heterosexuality is just plain ignorant right?
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but your choice of wording was bad.
Did I miss something? This isn't for a phone. This is for a tablet style PC. Who cares what coding for a phone is like?
I love Imac.
and FTFA:
Built-in screens made sense at the start of the computing age but they have thankfully gone the way of the dinosaurs.
Um...
That is the article author's opinion. I'd dare say with the explosion of laptops it's arguable that it's not the consensus either. Built in screens are still quite commonplace and it's not just Apple doing it. In fact, more and more desktops seem to be going back to that as components get small enough to fit into the screen bezels.