Uhh, no. Not for a home user. Home users want to USE software, not write it, not compile it. Pretty much anything you'd want to do as a home user is better done using the standard Windows GUI, or (god forbid), DOS. Shit, I'm a developer and I still prefer the old Dos commands to Cygwin...it just seems so kludgy. Windows isn't UN*X like in most of the ways that are important (different threading, different hardware interface, different file systems, different security model), so I see no reason to have a seperate, non-Windows system for performing file operations, etc. Unless you've got a really good reason for emulating Linux on windows (like a bunch of legacy apps on a server), it's just confusing.
Since the machine has Mandrake installed for the dual boot, it makes sense that users savvy enough to want the extensibility and control of a UN*X like system are going to reboot anyway. That gross green CYGWIN icon can only confuse the people you don't want confused.
Wow, that is funny! And you know, one time I snuck into my mechanic's garage and broke all of his ratchets! Ho ho ho!
Seriously, I use the keyboard exclusively, and if anybody did this to me, I would fucking punch them. What, is there something funny about knowing your machine and wanting to avoid unnecessary steps? Or is it just because he's an "old guy" who doesn't "get" the concept of a mouse? Listen, I'm 25. I've been using the mouse since GeOS. And it sucks. Scan text. Click Edit. Click Copy. Click Edit. Click slider, move carfully down. Click insertion point. Click Paste. Click file. Click Build. Fuck that. Shift-End, Ctrl-C, Page Down, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Shift-B. A quarter of the time and my fingers never leave the keyboard.
Seriously, you know what make google so great? Part of it's the interface. Part of it's the software. But most of it is the company. The clout to afford enough bandwidth to spider the earth on a routine basis. The cash to maintain thousands of servers and a complicated database with which to serve not only their engine, but a CACHE of pretty much everything they index.
No open source project will ever have the ability to do these things. Because the people who are good enough salesmen to get the revenue needed to do what google does won't want to dillute their position by allowing any hacker with a gimpbox to run the same engine. And the people who are good enough open source software designers to write an engine like google wouldn't want some ad guy treating their work like it was inktomi. You can't run a search engine without money, and you can't run an OSS project like a truly commercial enterprise.
At the end of the day, distributed software doesn't lend itself well to large, FAST, searchable databases. And if this is -1, Flamebait, I guess you may flame away.
Have you ever tried to install a windows program that is distributed as a source package?
Why on earth would I want to do that? Windows' biggest success is the inclusion of everything I need to do to run a binary program already in the OS on a single (more or less) hardware architecture. There is no real advantage to compiling source rather than running a binary unless you are a developer interested in extending the application, and we developers should expect to have to jump through a few hoops. Those hoops help us acquire an understanding what's going on with a program. All they do for end users is confuse the shit out of them.
Windows has taken uniformity to a new level, and in the process has acquired a reputation for oversimplification, poor performance and general bloat. Recompiling a program that uses Windows API calls may not have much effect on performance or stability, because most applications rely heavily on calls to APIs we can't touch. Linux, on the otherhand, is at its best when used as a minimalist architecture. Everybody want to squeeze the maximum performance out of applications because they can...and that's why you felt the need to compile from source, despite there being a number of great binaries from Sun.
I've got no problem with wanting minimalism (shit, my favorite server runs a gentoo kernel with support for little else than a keyboard and an ethernet card), but when you've got a highly advanced application like a media player, I think you should really err on the side of ease of installation. I mean, reading this article...this guy performed more steps to run MPlayer than I did to BUILD my gentoo kernel...would it really kill these guys to take a few days to write an autodetecting installation that by default provided users with a 100% working beta?
Judging from what I've read about that team, probably. And that's why so much open source software is still flunking the newbie test...developers are providing what the developers want, and not what new users need, because after the community gets large enough it no longer needs to attract them. Projects get BORED of newbies and their sycophantic pleas to use their software. It's elitism, plain and simple, RTFM is developer speak for "Talk to the hand."
Re:Here we go again...
on
Mplayer Revisited
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
His argument: "I am a user savvy enough to be running linux. I am bright enough to fix problems. And yet, it was not easy for me to install this application. Therefore, it will be even harder for somebody who is new to Linux."
Your argument: "What an idiot! He should have read the acoryphal poorly laid out document! Things are easy if you do all the chores perscribed to you by developers with no talent for technical writing and different systems than you!"
My argument: "RTFM is not a valid complaint. Windows software installs without a manual. It does not expect you to RENAME directories after installing things to get them to work. It does not expect you to KNOW what codecs you want to use and already have them downloaded. It allows somebody to do what they need to do before hacking the source code of the underlying software. Why can't linux software do this as well. Oh right. Because we're better than them."
So what's to stop MS from stamping an "As-is" label on Windows? People will still buy it. Shit, for all I know there's an "as-is" clause in the EULA already, I didn't read it.
What I do know is that while MS may claim its software is secure, they never suggest it cannot be broken into. So they've never lied to you. My house is pretty secure until you break a window. Is it the window manufacturer's fault?
Auto companies only issue recalls because they can be sued for wrongful death if a critical part dies. Non-critical parts go bad all the time, no recall. I suspect Jeep was making shoddy transmissions for years (my dad's had FIVE of them, good thing it's a work car!) but since a bum transmission doesn't cause the car to explode, they've never recalled it. I know subaru has a problem with the bearings on the Impreza, I know its due to shoddy workmanship because the part numebr changed (meaning they fixed the problem), but I don't get free bearings until a few peoples' wheels fly off.
Since MS software has NEVER killed anyone to my knowledge (no FUD about embedded OSs, please, even in automotive applications, CE is only used for mapping software and audio programs), and MS strictly forbids the use of its software in such conditions where peoples' lives would be at stake, I don't see why they have any liability here.
What losses have been sustained? Lost data? Well, people have tried to sue hard drive manufacturers for that and failed. IT costs? Well, nowadays when people get viruses it is because IT was lax and didn't properly apply patches, or didn't install virus software, or left their default settings untouched, or had no firewall...court's not going to reward when it's your own damn fault.
That's really high. Assuming you're not in CA dollars, maybe you should price the lower efficiency solar shingles they have now. My house was estimated at about $9000, no rebates but i could get sizable tax breaks and a special low interest loan. Solar shingles are very low profile and they don't look dramatically. different from regular shingles.
Who needs storage batteries? A nice heavy kinetic generator is the way to go...you use your day's power to spin a big heavy cylinder, and then use its inertia to power a generator at night. Or, better still, sell your power back to the grid while you're at work and use the local hydro during the night.
Really, this is a pretty crass assessment considering all the progress solar has made. It is a very real solution.
Sure, omnidirectional cells are not above 15% efficiency. They may never be. But they are dramatically denser, and getting more dense every year...and with dense enough cells, even 15% efficiency is plenty. Also, thanks to LEDs and micronization, overall power usage is actually decreasing.
The cost is not that much any more...I could do up my house for $9000 to cover all my electric costs including heat, and actually make a little money selling back to the grid during the summer to offset my neighbour's power usage. The only reason I haven't done it is that I don't intend to keep the house long enough to recoup that.
After all, as of right now solar power is a break even proposition. It's no longer prohibitively costly like it was in the 1980s, but it's not going to save your wallet, either. Add in the cost of batteries and maintenance, and it still only makes sense for people who are really concerned about the environment or whose power needs are otherwise not being met.
Is it cheap, readily available and ubiquitous? No. But that's because the social, environment and economic drivers to solar are SLOW. People are doing it, but they aren't getting the tools from the Home Despot because there's a big difference between installing shingles and installing a solar system. You want to have experts on your side. So the industry has grown up around these experts. These experts cost more, so contracting costs more. You deal with the same thing when you do any specialty work on your house, be it having a custom shaped pool dug or installing copper gutters.
But this is not the same realm of fantasy as flying cars or fusion. Real people are doing it, not just libertarian nutjobs. If you're waiting for some evolutionary advancement, you might as well wait for the rapture. I heard on the radio it's due any day.
As soon as 2040, I've heard, and that's with 1995's consumption rate at a constant. It has gone up a bit. Meaning that by 2020, oil will be getting VERY expensive. And people controlling what's left will be getting VERY rich.
I don't doubt that inexpensive items like automobile engines will be driven off petroleum WELL before the cut off due to rising oil prices and falling solar and hydro prices. But hard to convert systems, (industrial and aerospace are good examples) will still need gas. That's why we're so keen to get a "stable power source." Foreign control over what will within a generation be worth more per ounce the gold, but will be needed to survive, will quickly overtake our perceived economic lead.
Doesn't mean we have to be such dickheads about it. After all, killing thousands of foreign civilians because their governments weren't willing to play ball on the subject of an essential commodity is crass in and of itself. Lying about it doesn't make it any better.
It also helps artists like Andrew Bird or Chris Murray, "one man band" artists whose musical abilities include everything from writing lyrics to playing all their own instruments to doing their own recording. The whole DIY music thing really appeals to me, as it allows you COMPLETE control over your sound. When I first got into these two, I was so impressed I started recording every time I practice; I still have an EP's worth of material I assembled this way.
But it is by no means GOOD. I can't mix to save my life. I'm not good rhythm because I tend to break time fairly often. And there's nothing worse than singing with yourself and realizing your recorded voice is off-key.
Anyway, if the idea of complete solo production intrigues you, get a copy of Andrew Bird's last CD Weather Patterns. It's whispy dream diary stuff that I don't like as music, but the concept is amazing...from his texture-generating fiddle layers to his comingling melodies, he makes everything digitally from extremely analog sources. Like playing fiddle inside a grain silo to concentrate the reverb on the microphone. There's a little video on the disc showing his musical workshop, a farmhouse in the carolinas, and it is very interesting stuff.
I'd like you to listen sometime to the difference between well mixed computer produced music and poorly mixed, poorly sequenced computer produced music. It is UNCANNY. The former is a seamless creation which allows each instrument to express itself without overpowering the others, while the latter can be quite horrible. Just ask my buddy, whose lack of skill in using Protools lead to the downfall of his studio venture after only three sessions. Not that I mind, I got his effects boxes when he liquidated;).
It is a fallacy that using better tools eliminates the need for skilled labor. What you're talking about is nothing more than an advanced form of recording, which artists have been doing since the advent of a four track. "Professional" recording, getting the music into an editor, is only the first step of making a "recording" of a song. The talents that make a great audio recording technician -- the ability to turn recorded audio into something that is meaningful when played back by muting overpowering sounds, enhancing important sounds, and seamlessly combining multiple takes -- do not appear merely because your soundboard is a digital. It is a skill that has a MASSIVE impact on the end product. Take a listen sometime to an unmixed digital demo and compare it to a studio version of the same song. They won't sound anything NEAR the same, and the difference can be the killing point of an album. My favorite band, the Screaming Trees, released an album mixed by Chris Cornell that was mixed completely wrong. The songs were better written and performed than those on their commercial "success" Sweet Oblivion, but the grunge dynamics did not play well, and killed the sound for a mass market.
However, the simplicity of LEARNING the new digital tools means that a lot of people who would be very good at old style mixing are getting the chance to hone their skills without going to school for them. That's the real promise of cheap, uniquitous audio: it allows the amateur to try his hand at musical skills that are otherwise reserved for $100/hour technicians. And perhaps new "bare bones" styles of production will be adopted, resulting in the end of overproduced albums (like last year's Audioslave disc, check out the "Civillian" demos for some REAL rock & roll).
Really? Buried in the source code? That's a good place for it, after all I ALWAYS read the source code before compiling or running a program. Whereas I NEVER remove the shrink wrap before running software...I just pull out the disks by osmosis.
Sheesh, and MY argument is "BS." Saying the GPL is stronger than a normal license because it is referenced in the source code is like saying the best place for a "NO TRESPASSING" sign is somewhere in the basement of a building. Do you work for the planning office in Hitchhiker's Guide?
The GPL purports to perform two tasks: pass along rights of usage, manipulation and distribution, and yet place restrictions on commercial manipulation. This "enforced sharing" has never really been done, and I think it is subject to some of the other questions about common licensing practices in software licensing.
Example: I buy a copy of some software. I don't like the software, so I want to sell it, but the license says I can't. A lot of people complain about this, saying "a license can't do that, I never agreed to this, so it has no teeth." The say if you buy something, I should be allowed to use it as I wish, and that's the soul of it.
This has yet to be tested summarily. But if it is, if the shrink wrap or click through EULAs people complain about have no value, that's very bad for Linux and the GPL. Because it means that the GPL's "READ GPL.TXT PLEASE" technique of establishing compliance is also worthless. Which follows that you can sell it how you like. Which follows that the perceived legal enforcement of the community is severely shaken. Doesn't mean that Linux is going to disappear in a puff of logic...just that some developers may become a bit more selfish.
Uhm, no. See, the problem with that argument is that it's very humanist. Copyright law is not. If SCO's argument is found to be legally sound, and that the GPL is invalid, that means that all the programmers supporting Linux will have, essentially, been donating their work to a pirated project. Think about it: what rights do pirates have?
Right or wrong, I'd love to see this go to trial. If for no other reason then it has the potential to greatly increase the power of the FSF, or prove that it's all been a trick to get developers to deliver work to IBM et al for free. Interesting outcomes either way.
All the better. Let's put all the shitty, expensive, overly complicated solutions to common problems together in the same company and then completely ignore it. Do you imagine IBMNOVELL would want to buy CITRIX?
Seriously, I spent most of yesterday learning Novell's Border Manager and have come to the decision that it is actually less powerful and far less useful than the interface that came with my $100 wireless router. I would like to find the consultant that sold us this thing and beat the shit out of him. It would make up for having missed going to the gym yesterday.
Selling short is a bad idea in a stock like SCO which is going up. When you sell short, you are essentially buying a slightly bad deal and selling it as a worse deal. In a way, it's like MLM...somewhere down the line, somebody gets the worst deal of all.
SCO, however, has gone from under $5 in may to over $20 today. That's very strong performance. You'd be a fool to sell it short now, since it's guaranteed to go up more.
That said, a lawsuit of this magnitudeis for sure something to bank on. If it pans out, SCO is almost guaranteed to throw good dividends. A few hundred bucks could be worth thousands if the GPL, which has no real legal ground yet, fails to impress the courts. I'd say the odds are about even on that one.
Well, since the whole fucking reason for downloading a show in FLAC or SHN is because you want LOSSLESS compression as you don't want to lose any resolution in the audio, your argument is worthless. It's like somebody trying to buy a backhoe and you suggesting "Why not use a shovel? They're smaller." Because it doesn't do the same thing! If you want to record the exact soundwave produced by a singer on a high note, and play exactly that back into your ear, then lossless compression is your only choice. Pure digital is too big, Flac is 2 to 3 times smaller, and therefore this device fills an essential niche: it gets your Flac files to your receiver without requiring a compact disc.
I'm not sold on lossless audio (and don't really see the reason for a flawless representation of all the cracked voices and feedback of a live show recorded on some amateur's microphone), but it seems obvious that the whole Flac trading community is sold on its illusion of quality. Take a look at the accompanying text file with any live show you get on etree...it will contain the exact equipment used to record the show, including the type of digital tape and the manufacturer of the DAC and ADC. (Then, many of them convert the 48k source to 44.1, which destroys the whole process as the two do not convert cleanly).
The difference this makes on recording Trey mumbling the words to Heavy Things is probably negligible. But I respect people's right to search for musical truth. After all, I built a JL Labs 300B tube amp to listen to Ramones records.
I had an awesome post about musicians and fucking but as I am reading Breakfast of Champions at the moment I decided it would probably be too infantile, even for slashdot.
Suffice to say this: I once got laid after singing a folk song about litter. Here is my ascii art of an asshole: *
I'd rather keep both feet planted firmly on the ground, enjoy my sense of who I am (a rational, drug-free realist), and walk along my merry way.
Good luck...it worked for Greg Graffin (lead singer of Bad Religion, who just got his PhD in some ungodly strange field like philosophical biology). However, he did it by working in shifts. Take courses for a while, teach for a while, gig for a while, etc. However, I know plenty of musicians who have "moved on" to careers or scholastics, and their music just stagnates. They just don't have the time to devote to it, so it becomes atrophied. Great music takes nothing so much as time and passion, and if you're willing to write music off as something you don't want to throw yourself into, you may never realize your full potential.
I know a guy...a pianist...who played through college at the conservatoryand was consistantly competent, but not great. Then he quit his job, and wound up in a small apartment with just a yamaha keyboard...over the course of maybe six months, he became a dynamo, churning out soulful energetic jazz that was completely unlike him. His devotion to his art was what did it. That's the spirit of the advance...it's supposed to give you funds to live on while you perfect your skills, so your album is the best it can be. And if you use it for that (as opposed to renting a mansion and a dozen cars to show off to the MTV Cribs film crew), it can be a real lifesaver.
That said, you can still have a lot of fun and be quite creative without buying into the sink or swim world of the record companies. Open mics and local scenes love "amateur" musicians who are willing to goof around while playing great music because they aren't image conscious. We have an open blues gig in our area that is a haven for jobbers who need to get out and wail once in a while.
Or maybe even small artists are freightened by loss of control. And they feel they have the right to protect their music (which they do).
I like the idea of "anonymous" filesharing, but it is reprehensible to think that we have the right to do so without the author's consent. Just because the RIAA's arguments are inconsistant and antisocial doesn't make it okay to infringe copyrights.
So? You saying that people don't have a right to ask people not to violate their copyrights?
I love Metallica, but I have to admit that their last four albums have lacked the passion of their earlier shit. In fact, shortly after I bought St. Anger, I also bought a new copy of...And Justice for All. I pined for it.
Metallica was a great band, they've gotten old. Bands don't get pensions, man. All they have to live on once they break up is new sales and their back catalogue (which, since they've recouped the advance, is now more valuable than ever). Metallica has come off a little greedy, and a little whiny, during the whole P2P debacle. But they have every right to want to protect their futures. They are one of the rare bands that have MADE it. Theirs are the songs people want to listen to, and so they are the people copyright law was designed to protect.
Hey, if you don't like them making money off of music, don't buy the album. But you can't listen to St. Anger -- an album which is fairly popular, but which is a completely new direction and new sound for them -- and say they aren't playing music the way they want to play it. Metallica is the exception that proves the rule...back in the 80s/early 90s when they maintained their hard edge and played what they wanted to play, long thrashing rock ballads, they appealed to a generation of metal heads. When they started to write short pop metal songs and remakes, they lost a little of that edge. They have been a cheap garage band and they've been a rich shilling pop metal band. They're asking for the chance to make money off their old shit so they don't have to shill anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh, no. Not for a home user. Home users want to USE software, not write it, not compile it. Pretty much anything you'd want to do as a home user is better done using the standard Windows GUI, or (god forbid), DOS. Shit, I'm a developer and I still prefer the old Dos commands to Cygwin...it just seems so kludgy. Windows isn't UN*X like in most of the ways that are important (different threading, different hardware interface, different file systems, different security model), so I see no reason to have a seperate, non-Windows system for performing file operations, etc. Unless you've got a really good reason for emulating Linux on windows (like a bunch of legacy apps on a server), it's just confusing.
Since the machine has Mandrake installed for the dual boot, it makes sense that users savvy enough to want the extensibility and control of a UN*X like system are going to reboot anyway. That gross green CYGWIN icon can only confuse the people you don't want confused.
Wow, that is funny! And you know, one time I snuck into my mechanic's garage and broke all of his ratchets! Ho ho ho!
Seriously, I use the keyboard exclusively, and if anybody did this to me, I would fucking punch them. What, is there something funny about knowing your machine and wanting to avoid unnecessary steps? Or is it just because he's an "old guy" who doesn't "get" the concept of a mouse? Listen, I'm 25. I've been using the mouse since GeOS. And it sucks. Scan text. Click Edit. Click Copy. Click Edit. Click slider, move carfully down. Click insertion point. Click Paste. Click file. Click Build. Fuck that. Shift-End, Ctrl-C, Page Down, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Shift-B. A quarter of the time and my fingers never leave the keyboard.
Slashdot (tm). Where reality is (-1, Flamebait).
Seriously, you know what make google so great? Part of it's the interface. Part of it's the software. But most of it is the company. The clout to afford enough bandwidth to spider the earth on a routine basis. The cash to maintain thousands of servers and a complicated database with which to serve not only their engine, but a CACHE of pretty much everything they index.
No open source project will ever have the ability to do these things. Because the people who are good enough salesmen to get the revenue needed to do what google does won't want to dillute their position by allowing any hacker with a gimpbox to run the same engine. And the people who are good enough open source software designers to write an engine like google wouldn't want some ad guy treating their work like it was inktomi. You can't run a search engine without money, and you can't run an OSS project like a truly commercial enterprise.
At the end of the day, distributed software doesn't lend itself well to large, FAST, searchable databases. And if this is -1, Flamebait, I guess you may flame away.
Also, no more speed and no more uptime! No more technicians being paid for their work! No more pretty interface!
Go open source! Let's give it away like my prom date with some other guy!
(Wow. My bitterness is really shining through today!)
Have you ever tried to install a windows program that is distributed as a source package?
Why on earth would I want to do that? Windows' biggest success is the inclusion of everything I need to do to run a binary program already in the OS on a single (more or less) hardware architecture. There is no real advantage to compiling source rather than running a binary unless you are a developer interested in extending the application, and we developers should expect to have to jump through a few hoops. Those hoops help us acquire an understanding what's going on with a program. All they do for end users is confuse the shit out of them.
Windows has taken uniformity to a new level, and in the process has acquired a reputation for oversimplification, poor performance and general bloat. Recompiling a program that uses Windows API calls may not have much effect on performance or stability, because most applications rely heavily on calls to APIs we can't touch. Linux, on the otherhand, is at its best when used as a minimalist architecture. Everybody want to squeeze the maximum performance out of applications because they can...and that's why you felt the need to compile from source, despite there being a number of great binaries from Sun.
I've got no problem with wanting minimalism (shit, my favorite server runs a gentoo kernel with support for little else than a keyboard and an ethernet card), but when you've got a highly advanced application like a media player, I think you should really err on the side of ease of installation. I mean, reading this article...this guy performed more steps to run MPlayer than I did to BUILD my gentoo kernel...would it really kill these guys to take a few days to write an autodetecting installation that by default provided users with a 100% working beta?
Judging from what I've read about that team, probably. And that's why so much open source software is still flunking the newbie test...developers are providing what the developers want, and not what new users need, because after the community gets large enough it no longer needs to attract them. Projects get BORED of newbies and their sycophantic pleas to use their software. It's elitism, plain and simple, RTFM is developer speak for "Talk to the hand."
His argument:
"I am a user savvy enough to be running linux. I am bright enough to fix problems. And yet, it was not easy for me to install this application. Therefore, it will be even harder for somebody who is new to Linux."
Your argument:
"What an idiot! He should have read the acoryphal poorly laid out document! Things are easy if you do all the chores perscribed to you by developers with no talent for technical writing and different systems than you!"
My argument:
"RTFM is not a valid complaint. Windows software installs without a manual. It does not expect you to RENAME directories after installing things to get them to work. It does not expect you to KNOW what codecs you want to use and already have them downloaded. It allows somebody to do what they need to do before hacking the source code of the underlying software. Why can't linux software do this as well. Oh right. Because we're better than them."
Don't tell disco granny!
"Dumb Dumb?"
That's my club name.
So what's to stop MS from stamping an "As-is" label on Windows? People will still buy it. Shit, for all I know there's an "as-is" clause in the EULA already, I didn't read it.
What I do know is that while MS may claim its software is secure, they never suggest it cannot be broken into. So they've never lied to you. My house is pretty secure until you break a window. Is it the window manufacturer's fault?
Auto companies only issue recalls because they can be sued for wrongful death if a critical part dies. Non-critical parts go bad all the time, no recall. I suspect Jeep was making shoddy transmissions for years (my dad's had FIVE of them, good thing it's a work car!) but since a bum transmission doesn't cause the car to explode, they've never recalled it. I know subaru has a problem with the bearings on the Impreza, I know its due to shoddy workmanship because the part numebr changed (meaning they fixed the problem), but I don't get free bearings until a few peoples' wheels fly off.
Since MS software has NEVER killed anyone to my knowledge (no FUD about embedded OSs, please, even in automotive applications, CE is only used for mapping software and audio programs), and MS strictly forbids the use of its software in such conditions where peoples' lives would be at stake, I don't see why they have any liability here.
What losses have been sustained? Lost data? Well, people have tried to sue hard drive manufacturers for that and failed. IT costs? Well, nowadays when people get viruses it is because IT was lax and didn't properly apply patches, or didn't install virus software, or left their default settings untouched, or had no firewall...court's not going to reward when it's your own damn fault.
That's really high. Assuming you're not in CA dollars, maybe you should price the lower efficiency solar shingles they have now. My house was estimated at about $9000, no rebates but i could get sizable tax breaks and a special low interest loan. Solar shingles are very low profile and they don't look dramatically. different from regular shingles.
Who needs storage batteries? A nice heavy kinetic generator is the way to go...you use your day's power to spin a big heavy cylinder, and then use its inertia to power a generator at night. Or, better still, sell your power back to the grid while you're at work and use the local hydro during the night.
Really, this is a pretty crass assessment considering all the progress solar has made. It is a very real solution.
Sure, omnidirectional cells are not above 15% efficiency. They may never be. But they are dramatically denser, and getting more dense every year...and with dense enough cells, even 15% efficiency is plenty. Also, thanks to LEDs and micronization, overall power usage is actually decreasing.
The cost is not that much any more...I could do up my house for $9000 to cover all my electric costs including heat, and actually make a little money selling back to the grid during the summer to offset my neighbour's power usage. The only reason I haven't done it is that I don't intend to keep the house long enough to recoup that.
After all, as of right now solar power is a break even proposition. It's no longer prohibitively costly like it was in the 1980s, but it's not going to save your wallet, either. Add in the cost of batteries and maintenance, and it still only makes sense for people who are really concerned about the environment or whose power needs are otherwise not being met.
Is it cheap, readily available and ubiquitous? No. But that's because the social, environment and economic drivers to solar are SLOW. People are doing it, but they aren't getting the tools from the Home Despot because there's a big difference between installing shingles and installing a solar system. You want to have experts on your side. So the industry has grown up around these experts. These experts cost more, so contracting costs more. You deal with the same thing when you do any specialty work on your house, be it having a custom shaped pool dug or installing copper gutters.
But this is not the same realm of fantasy as flying cars or fusion. Real people are doing it, not just libertarian nutjobs. If you're waiting for some evolutionary advancement, you might as well wait for the rapture. I heard on the radio it's due any day.
Not to mention the running out of oil very soon.
As soon as 2040, I've heard, and that's with 1995's consumption rate at a constant. It has gone up a bit. Meaning that by 2020, oil will be getting VERY expensive. And people controlling what's left will be getting VERY rich.
I don't doubt that inexpensive items like automobile engines will be driven off petroleum WELL before the cut off due to rising oil prices and falling solar and hydro prices. But hard to convert systems, (industrial and aerospace are good examples) will still need gas. That's why we're so keen to get a "stable power source." Foreign control over what will within a generation be worth more per ounce the gold, but will be needed to survive, will quickly overtake our perceived economic lead.
Doesn't mean we have to be such dickheads about it. After all, killing thousands of foreign civilians because their governments weren't willing to play ball on the subject of an essential commodity is crass in and of itself. Lying about it doesn't make it any better.
It also helps artists like Andrew Bird or Chris Murray, "one man band" artists whose musical abilities include everything from writing lyrics to playing all their own instruments to doing their own recording. The whole DIY music thing really appeals to me, as it allows you COMPLETE control over your sound. When I first got into these two, I was so impressed I started recording every time I practice; I still have an EP's worth of material I assembled this way.
But it is by no means GOOD. I can't mix to save my life. I'm not good rhythm because I tend to break time fairly often. And there's nothing worse than singing with yourself and realizing your recorded voice is off-key.
Anyway, if the idea of complete solo production intrigues you, get a copy of Andrew Bird's last CD Weather Patterns. It's whispy dream diary stuff that I don't like as music, but the concept is amazing...from his texture-generating fiddle layers to his comingling melodies, he makes everything digitally from extremely analog sources. Like playing fiddle inside a grain silo to concentrate the reverb on the microphone. There's a little video on the disc showing his musical workshop, a farmhouse in the carolinas, and it is very interesting stuff.
I'd like you to listen sometime to the difference between well mixed computer produced music and poorly mixed, poorly sequenced computer produced music. It is UNCANNY. The former is a seamless creation which allows each instrument to express itself without overpowering the others, while the latter can be quite horrible. Just ask my buddy, whose lack of skill in using Protools lead to the downfall of his studio venture after only three sessions. Not that I mind, I got his effects boxes when he liquidated ;).
It is a fallacy that using better tools eliminates the need for skilled labor. What you're talking about is nothing more than an advanced form of recording, which artists have been doing since the advent of a four track. "Professional" recording, getting the music into an editor, is only the first step of making a "recording" of a song. The talents that make a great audio recording technician -- the ability to turn recorded audio into something that is meaningful when played back by muting overpowering sounds, enhancing important sounds, and seamlessly combining multiple takes -- do not appear merely because your soundboard is a digital. It is a skill that has a MASSIVE impact on the end product. Take a listen sometime to an unmixed digital demo and compare it to a studio version of the same song. They won't sound anything NEAR the same, and the difference can be the killing point of an album. My favorite band, the Screaming Trees, released an album mixed by Chris Cornell that was mixed completely wrong. The songs were better written and performed than those on their commercial "success" Sweet Oblivion, but the grunge dynamics did not play well, and killed the sound for a mass market.
However, the simplicity of LEARNING the new digital tools means that a lot of people who would be very good at old style mixing are getting the chance to hone their skills without going to school for them. That's the real promise of cheap, uniquitous audio: it allows the amateur to try his hand at musical skills that are otherwise reserved for $100/hour technicians. And perhaps new "bare bones" styles of production will be adopted, resulting in the end of overproduced albums (like last year's Audioslave disc, check out the "Civillian" demos for some REAL rock & roll).
Really? Buried in the source code? That's a good place for it, after all I ALWAYS read the source code before compiling or running a program. Whereas I NEVER remove the shrink wrap before running software...I just pull out the disks by osmosis.
Sheesh, and MY argument is "BS." Saying the GPL is stronger than a normal license because it is referenced in the source code is like saying the best place for a "NO TRESPASSING" sign is somewhere in the basement of a building. Do you work for the planning office in Hitchhiker's Guide?
IANAL, but beware of the leopard.
The GPL purports to perform two tasks: pass along rights of usage, manipulation and distribution, and yet place restrictions on commercial manipulation. This "enforced sharing" has never really been done, and I think it is subject to some of the other questions about common licensing practices in software licensing.
Example: I buy a copy of some software. I don't like the software, so I want to sell it, but the license says I can't. A lot of people complain about this, saying "a license can't do that, I never agreed to this, so it has no teeth." The say if you buy something, I should be allowed to use it as I wish, and that's the soul of it.
This has yet to be tested summarily. But if it is, if the shrink wrap or click through EULAs people complain about have no value, that's very bad for Linux and the GPL. Because it means that the GPL's "READ GPL.TXT PLEASE" technique of establishing compliance is also worthless. Which follows that you can sell it how you like. Which follows that the perceived legal enforcement of the community is severely shaken. Doesn't mean that Linux is going to disappear in a puff of logic...just that some developers may become a bit more selfish.
Uhm, no. See, the problem with that argument is that it's very humanist. Copyright law is not. If SCO's argument is found to be legally sound, and that the GPL is invalid, that means that all the programmers supporting Linux will have, essentially, been donating their work to a pirated project. Think about it: what rights do pirates have?
Right or wrong, I'd love to see this go to trial. If for no other reason then it has the potential to greatly increase the power of the FSF, or prove that it's all been a trick to get developers to deliver work to IBM et al for free. Interesting outcomes either way.
All the better. Let's put all the shitty, expensive, overly complicated solutions to common problems together in the same company and then completely ignore it. Do you imagine IBMNOVELL would want to buy CITRIX?
Seriously, I spent most of yesterday learning Novell's Border Manager and have come to the decision that it is actually less powerful and far less useful than the interface that came with my $100 wireless router. I would like to find the consultant that sold us this thing and beat the shit out of him. It would make up for having missed going to the gym yesterday.
Selling short is a bad idea in a stock like SCO which is going up. When you sell short, you are essentially buying a slightly bad deal and selling it as a worse deal. In a way, it's like MLM...somewhere down the line, somebody gets the worst deal of all.
SCO, however, has gone from under $5 in may to over $20 today. That's very strong performance. You'd be a fool to sell it short now, since it's guaranteed to go up more.
That said, a lawsuit of this magnitudeis for sure something to bank on. If it pans out, SCO is almost guaranteed to throw good dividends. A few hundred bucks could be worth thousands if the GPL, which has no real legal ground yet, fails to impress the courts. I'd say the odds are about even on that one.
WARNING!
Your vote will expire in 30 days!
You can recast your vote by sending $70 per vote to...
Well, since the whole fucking reason for downloading a show in FLAC or SHN is because you want LOSSLESS compression as you don't want to lose any resolution in the audio, your argument is worthless. It's like somebody trying to buy a backhoe and you suggesting "Why not use a shovel? They're smaller." Because it doesn't do the same thing! If you want to record the exact soundwave produced by a singer on a high note, and play exactly that back into your ear, then lossless compression is your only choice. Pure digital is too big, Flac is 2 to 3 times smaller, and therefore this device fills an essential niche: it gets your Flac files to your receiver without requiring a compact disc.
I'm not sold on lossless audio (and don't really see the reason for a flawless representation of all the cracked voices and feedback of a live show recorded on some amateur's microphone), but it seems obvious that the whole Flac trading community is sold on its illusion of quality. Take a look at the accompanying text file with any live show you get on etree...it will contain the exact equipment used to record the show, including the type of digital tape and the manufacturer of the DAC and ADC. (Then, many of them convert the 48k source to 44.1, which destroys the whole process as the two do not convert cleanly).
The difference this makes on recording Trey mumbling the words to Heavy Things is probably negligible. But I respect people's right to search for musical truth. After all, I built a JL Labs 300B tube amp to listen to Ramones records.
I had an awesome post about musicians and fucking but as I am reading Breakfast of Champions at the moment I decided it would probably be too infantile, even for slashdot.
Suffice to say this: I once got laid after singing a folk song about litter. Here is my ascii art of an asshole: *
I'd rather keep both feet planted firmly on the ground, enjoy my sense of who I am (a rational, drug-free realist), and walk along my merry way.
Good luck...it worked for Greg Graffin (lead singer of Bad Religion, who just got his PhD in some ungodly strange field like philosophical biology). However, he did it by working in shifts. Take courses for a while, teach for a while, gig for a while, etc. However, I know plenty of musicians who have "moved on" to careers or scholastics, and their music just stagnates. They just don't have the time to devote to it, so it becomes atrophied. Great music takes nothing so much as time and passion, and if you're willing to write music off as something you don't want to throw yourself into, you may never realize your full potential.
I know a guy...a pianist...who played through college at the conservatoryand was consistantly competent, but not great. Then he quit his job, and wound up in a small apartment with just a yamaha keyboard...over the course of maybe six months, he became a dynamo, churning out soulful energetic jazz that was completely unlike him. His devotion to his art was what did it. That's the spirit of the advance...it's supposed to give you funds to live on while you perfect your skills, so your album is the best it can be. And if you use it for that (as opposed to renting a mansion and a dozen cars to show off to the MTV Cribs film crew), it can be a real lifesaver.
That said, you can still have a lot of fun and be quite creative without buying into the sink or swim world of the record companies. Open mics and local scenes love "amateur" musicians who are willing to goof around while playing great music because they aren't image conscious. We have an open blues gig in our area that is a haven for jobbers who need to get out and wail once in a while.
Or maybe even small artists are freightened by loss of control. And they feel they have the right to protect their music (which they do).
I like the idea of "anonymous" filesharing, but it is reprehensible to think that we have the right to do so without the author's consent. Just because the RIAA's arguments are inconsistant and antisocial doesn't make it okay to infringe copyrights.
So? You saying that people don't have a right to ask people not to violate their copyrights?
...And Justice for All. I pined for it.
I love Metallica, but I have to admit that their last four albums have lacked the passion of their earlier shit. In fact, shortly after I bought St. Anger, I also bought a new copy of
Metallica was a great band, they've gotten old. Bands don't get pensions, man. All they have to live on once they break up is new sales and their back catalogue (which, since they've recouped the advance, is now more valuable than ever). Metallica has come off a little greedy, and a little whiny, during the whole P2P debacle. But they have every right to want to protect their futures. They are one of the rare bands that have MADE it. Theirs are the songs people want to listen to, and so they are the people copyright law was designed to protect.
Hey, if you don't like them making money off of music, don't buy the album. But you can't listen to St. Anger -- an album which is fairly popular, but which is a completely new direction and new sound for them -- and say they aren't playing music the way they want to play it. Metallica is the exception that proves the rule...back in the 80s/early 90s when they maintained their hard edge and played what they wanted to play, long thrashing rock ballads, they appealed to a generation of metal heads. When they started to write short pop metal songs and remakes, they lost a little of that edge. They have been a cheap garage band and they've been a rich shilling pop metal band. They're asking for the chance to make money off their old shit so they don't have to shill anymore.