It's not necessary to put a perfect math teacher in every classroom. Elementary school teachers are perfectly capable of teaching a math curriculum that presents kids with mathematical concepts in game form as Lockhart mentions. Later in their school careers the kids who show interest and aptitude for math could be taught algebra etc, and the rest could stick with the mechanics of arithmetic that will enable them to deal with checkbooks and mortgages. I think our problem today is that we use a one-size-fits-all approach that evolved from the "new math" of the 1960s, which was aimed at teaching kids mathematical concepts instead of practical arithmetic. It was based on the theory that students would see the beauty and wonder of math, and as a result the mechanics would come naturally. That didn't happen, but rather than scrap the whole idea the education system kept the subject matter and devolved the teaching approach. There's a lot of window dressing but basically it's the same kind of rote instruction as before. I think the author's lament is that the system has been trying to teach the beauty of mathematics like a metal shop class.
Professional musicians still make their living by performing live, like they've done for thousands of years. Even the famous ones. Theoretically a recording contract gets you royalties from sales of records, but in a standard recording contract all the expenses of recording, manufacturing, packaging, distributing and marketing the record are deducted from the royalties, so the musician generally gets ZERO actual cash. Except for a tiny minority who have the clout and business savvy to negotiate their own contracts, even well established musicians still get their income by performing. A century of recording technology hasn't changed that basic fact. So if you only want to record and not perform, better think of it as a hobby.
I was thinking similarly. Solid Oak could wreak some happy fun by adding banned political sites to the OK list or banning the Chinese government's own sites.
Heck, my site makes more than that each month
on
Most Blogs Now Abandoned
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Maybe he's doing it wrong. My site http://www.geekazon.com/ which mostly documents a big home renovation project, consistently brings in about $30/month from Google ads. Pays for my DSL line it does. I started the site mainly to keep distant relatives informed about the remodel. I have only updated it a few times in the past 5 years and have done nothing to promote it, but it's usually the top Google result for "lifting a house".
At the end of the year your car will still be worth at least $6000, but your bus passes will be worth $0. Based on my own experience I estimate that you will have spent more than twice as much time riding buses and waiting at bus stops than you would have spent driving your car to the same places. So all in all you will be out $960 and hundreds of hours of your life by riding the bus./hates the [expletive deleted] bus.
I'm proud to say I knew the guy who originally created StreamRipper. Oddly enough, we were contractors at Microsoft at the time. Hope you're well, Jon!
First people get sued for imaginary losses, then they get taxed for imaginary gains. Maybe we should just give both the RIAA and the government open access to our bank accounts, and let them take whatever they want without having to make up a reason.
The fact that you have nothing to post on your site tells me you probably don't need one. Not trying to be snarky, but why grope around for stuff to post? If there's anything you really want to say to the world you'll probably think of it. Until then why merely fill space?
I wonder if other activities have lost corresponding market share -- like television watching, reading, hobbies... This could have an impact on tv advertising revenue. Some of the RIAA's losses could probably even be attributed to people not having as much time to go to record stores. Maybe they'll sue MySpace and Facebook for "theft of audience."
Maybe we could selctively paint them to form graffiti. That would at least make global warming more entertaining on Google Maps. You could use multiple roofs to form dot matrix ASCII characters, then at a larger scale use those ASCII characters to form nudes. The first pr0n visible from space! Finally, a welcome that would truly impress aliens!
You know how a TV tube works? The electron beam sweeps back and forth really fast, painting each dot on the screen? Well the laser in this thing is like the beam and the wall is like the screen. Since the laser beam can travel a great distance and still make just a small dot, so the image are in focus at different distances. Of course the farther away the screen is, the farther apart the dots are, so the image would become grainy at some point.
Assuming they actually get paid real money, it's more than they get when somebody buys a CD with that same track on it [see my other comment in this thread]. Standard recording contracts deduct all production expenses from the artists royalties. So usually the artist ends up getting zero, unless they're Madonna or somebody with equal clout who can negotiate better contract terms. If these theoretical streaming royalties are somehow covered by the recording contract, then the musicians are still getting nothing. The whole recording industry rant about protecting musicians from getting ripped off by the public has always been a load of crap.
"We need to ensure the music artists are paid for their work..."
A little clarification: Musicians, even the ones with recording contracts, get paid to Perform, like they have for thousands of years. Very few musicians ever get actual money from record sales, because in a standard recording contract all the expenses of producing a record -- from recording to manufacturing to advertising and distribution -- are deducted from the musician's royalties, which in practice means musicians almost never receive a dime no matter how many records they sell. If the companies really wanted to "ensure the music artists are paid for their work," they could try actually paying royalties instead of making them disappear through bookkeeping.
What musicians do get out of recording is publicity and exposure, which gets them bigger gigs and higher ticket prices, which is where they make a living. Exposure is exposure, whether it comes from people buying a record, listening to it on the radio or at a friends house, downloading an mp3 for free or shoplifting a copy from WalMart. In no way does the method of acquiring the copy hurt the musician.
This endless "protecting the artists" refrain on the part of record companies is complete nonsense. Music "piracy" hurts them and them alone. If record companies suddenly ceased to exist, most musicians would be completely unaffected because they don't have recording contracts. The other.01% (a number I pulled out of my ass, but let's just say a tiny fraction) would have to get exposure in a different way, say for example by posting their songs for downloading, or by having wardrobe malfunctions onstage, hanging out with Paris Hilton, or going in and out of rehab a lot.
Whether you work for a small startup or a megacorp there's always an emphasis on the importance of teamwork, cooperation and selflessness -- but only within the organization. Those attitudes seem to be great as long as they serve one business, but somehow they become evil when they aren't helping one business compete against another. The business world's combination of cooperation and competition has produced great things, but it doesn't always. For example, competition is paramount even in the face of a superior product. Better products often disappear because of bad marketing, lack of advertising money, or because of short-term price pressure introduced artificially by competitors with deeper pockets who want to keep their own inferior products on the market. The competitive spirit of capitalism can certainly show a lot of gumption and drive, but there's a peeing-in-the-pool aspect to it that just doesn't appeal to me. I think the reason it usually wins over cooperation is that it dangles the carrot of fabulous wealth in front of people's faces, like a Golden Ticket, and more people are drawn to that particular carrot than the wouldn't-this-be-cool carrot.
The video of the process is a work of art all its own, capturing the evolution of the scene. There is a sense of change and even of loss, which you wouldn't get from the finished work alone.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not necessary to put a perfect math teacher in every classroom. Elementary school teachers are perfectly capable of teaching a math curriculum that presents kids with mathematical concepts in game form as Lockhart mentions. Later in their school careers the kids who show interest and aptitude for math could be taught algebra etc, and the rest could stick with the mechanics of arithmetic that will enable them to deal with checkbooks and mortgages. I think our problem today is that we use a one-size-fits-all approach that evolved from the "new math" of the 1960s, which was aimed at teaching kids mathematical concepts instead of practical arithmetic. It was based on the theory that students would see the beauty and wonder of math, and as a result the mechanics would come naturally. That didn't happen, but rather than scrap the whole idea the education system kept the subject matter and devolved the teaching approach. There's a lot of window dressing but basically it's the same kind of rote instruction as before. I think the author's lament is that the system has been trying to teach the beauty of mathematics like a metal shop class.
the studio artist makes $1-2 for each album sold
I would like to see where are you getting that figure.
Professional musicians still make their living by performing live, like they've done for thousands of years. Even the famous ones. Theoretically a recording contract gets you royalties from sales of records, but in a standard recording contract all the expenses of recording, manufacturing, packaging, distributing and marketing the record are deducted from the royalties, so the musician generally gets ZERO actual cash. Except for a tiny minority who have the clout and business savvy to negotiate their own contracts, even well established musicians still get their income by performing. A century of recording technology hasn't changed that basic fact. So if you only want to record and not perform, better think of it as a hobby.
But it never seems to outrun ignorance and religion.
I was thinking similarly. Solid Oak could wreak some happy fun by adding banned political sites to the OK list or banning the Chinese government's own sites.
A device for forcing Alzheimer's patients to keep their shoes on.
Usually about 3000 hits/month.
Ahhh, so YOU'RE Rusty Shackleford.
Maybe he's doing it wrong. My site http://www.geekazon.com/ which mostly documents a big home renovation project, consistently brings in about $30/month from Google ads. Pays for my DSL line it does. I started the site mainly to keep distant relatives informed about the remodel. I have only updated it a few times in the past 5 years and have done nothing to promote it, but it's usually the top Google result for "lifting a house".
Now if I can just remember how to get to my blog...
Or we could admit that speculation either way is pointless. People do fake crimes, and Occam's Razor != knowing.
At the end of the year your car will still be worth at least $6000, but your bus passes will be worth $0. Based on my own experience I estimate that you will have spent more than twice as much time riding buses and waiting at bus stops than you would have spent driving your car to the same places. So all in all you will be out $960 and hundreds of hours of your life by riding the bus. /hates the [expletive deleted] bus.
I'm proud to say I knew the guy who originally created StreamRipper.
Oddly enough, we were contractors at Microsoft at the time.
Hope you're well, Jon!
Ohhhh Barnacles! It's Backwards Day!
First people get sued for imaginary losses, then they get taxed for imaginary gains. Maybe we should just give both the RIAA and the government open access to our bank accounts, and let them take whatever they want without having to make up a reason.
The fact that you have nothing to post on your site tells me you probably don't need one. Not trying to be snarky, but why grope around for stuff to post? If there's anything you really want to say to the world you'll probably think of it. Until then why merely fill space?
I wonder if other activities have lost corresponding market share -- like television watching, reading, hobbies... This could have an impact on tv advertising revenue. Some of the RIAA's losses could probably even be attributed to people not having as much time to go to record stores. Maybe they'll sue MySpace and Facebook for "theft of audience."
Can the RIAA ever be said to have "confirmed" anything when we pretty much assume that everything they say is a lie?
Maybe we could selctively paint them to form graffiti. That would at least make global warming more entertaining on Google Maps. You could use multiple roofs to form dot matrix ASCII characters, then at a larger scale use those ASCII characters to form nudes. The first pr0n visible from space! Finally, a welcome that would truly impress aliens!
You know how a TV tube works? The electron beam sweeps back and forth really fast, painting each dot on the screen? Well the laser in this thing is like the beam and the wall is like the screen. Since the laser beam can travel a great distance and still make just a small dot, so the image are in focus at different distances. Of course the farther away the screen is, the farther apart the dots are, so the image would become grainy at some point.
Project a movie or an e-book on your ceiling. No more tired arms from holding books up. I'm getting one of these babies!
Assuming they actually get paid real money, it's more than they get when somebody buys a CD with that same track on it [see my other comment in this thread]. Standard recording contracts deduct all production expenses from the artists royalties. So usually the artist ends up getting zero, unless they're Madonna or somebody with equal clout who can negotiate better contract terms. If these theoretical streaming royalties are somehow covered by the recording contract, then the musicians are still getting nothing. The whole recording industry rant about protecting musicians from getting ripped off by the public has always been a load of crap.
"We need to ensure the music artists are paid for their work..."
A little clarification: Musicians, even the ones with recording contracts, get paid to Perform, like they have for thousands of years. Very few musicians ever get actual money from record sales, because in a standard recording contract all the expenses of producing a record -- from recording to manufacturing to advertising and distribution -- are deducted from the musician's royalties, which in practice means musicians almost never receive a dime no matter how many records they sell. If the companies really wanted to "ensure the music artists are paid for their work," they could try actually paying royalties instead of making them disappear through bookkeeping.
What musicians do get out of recording is publicity and exposure, which gets them bigger gigs and higher ticket prices, which is where they make a living. Exposure is exposure, whether it comes from people buying a record, listening to it on the radio or at a friends house, downloading an mp3 for free or shoplifting a copy from WalMart. In no way does the method of acquiring the copy hurt the musician.
This endless "protecting the artists" refrain on the part of record companies is complete nonsense. Music "piracy" hurts them and them alone. If record companies suddenly ceased to exist, most musicians would be completely unaffected because they don't have recording contracts. The other .01% (a number I pulled out of my ass, but let's just say a tiny fraction) would have to get exposure in a different way, say for example by posting their songs for downloading, or by having wardrobe malfunctions onstage, hanging out with Paris Hilton, or going in and out of rehab a lot.
Whether you work for a small startup or a megacorp there's always an emphasis on the importance of teamwork, cooperation and selflessness -- but only within the organization. Those attitudes seem to be great as long as they serve one business, but somehow they become evil when they aren't helping one business compete against another. The business world's combination of cooperation and competition has produced great things, but it doesn't always. For example, competition is paramount even in the face of a superior product. Better products often disappear because of bad marketing, lack of advertising money, or because of short-term price pressure introduced artificially by competitors with deeper pockets who want to keep their own inferior products on the market. The competitive spirit of capitalism can certainly show a lot of gumption and drive, but there's a peeing-in-the-pool aspect to it that just doesn't appeal to me. I think the reason it usually wins over cooperation is that it dangles the carrot of fabulous wealth in front of people's faces, like a Golden Ticket, and more people are drawn to that particular carrot than the wouldn't-this-be-cool carrot.
The video of the process is a work of art all its own, capturing the evolution of the scene. There is a sense of change and even of loss, which you wouldn't get from the finished work alone.