How do you feel about the pervceived value of music by fileshares and in soceity in general ?.
Many who support filesharing of music argue that the RIAA is reaping what it sowed in regards to how willing people are to download music with out paying for it. We live in a soceity where music is freely avaliable, mediums such as radio and TV already offer free music to consumers (or at least it seems free to them).
I remember reading a book about Paul Mcartney, in it he recalled the early part of their career where he and Lennon signed away the rights to their songs. They felt that the idea of "owning a song" was laugable and that music couldn't be controlled like that. Obvioulsy they got shafted, had they held on to the rights they would of made a lot more money that compartively small sums they were offered at the time. And seeing how powerful the RIAA is today it would be an understatement to say that they were naive.
But there is an argument that the lower perceived value of music would be a good thing. If people became casually comfortable with the idea of having any song they want whenever they like without paying for it, they may start to value live music more (which, at least in the UK, is in a bit of a decline).
How would most artists feel about their primary source of income coming from live performance and recording being a very small part of what they do ?.
Obviously in such a situation Britney Spears and the like would not be able to make money in the same way, but there is a market for that kind of music and suspect the public would just end up paying for it in a different way.
I think it would be a good situation and would allow people more access to talented musicians who can entertain people live.
You wouldn't need to do this if users deleted files that were bad instead of just leaving them in the shared directory.
I'd like to see the p2p programs have an option to ask for a "test of legitimacy" (I have just applied for the patent so don't bother;-) ) every time you finish downloading a file, just play or view a bit of the file and ask the user if it matches the description.
If there was a fault in circuitry that wasn't picked up when they were testing the machines they would have to recall all the ones they have sold and fix them, if all the chips were unidentifiable then this would be very difficult.
Still downloading the engine but the docs on the site make for interesting reading. This engine is not capable of having rooms over rooms, in fact the author compares it to doom which is obviously not 3D.
From reading the docs I think the real innovation here is in the gui which sounds like it has obviously had a lot of time spent on it.
Having edited with the quake and unreal engines it seems this prog is trying to remove the bar into editing by making editing easy enough for anyone to jump in and play around. A good thing in my opoinion.
It's called "Vertical Integration", this is a similar situation to the hollywood studio system. In the 20's, 30's and 40's the studios that made films also owned their own chain of cinema's and would only show their films in them (they controlled production, distribution and exhibition). So if you wanted to see a MGM film you had to go to an MGM cinema, this made it very difficult for independent films to get to audiences. This was all ended in the late 40's (1948 I think) when paramount were accused of having a monopoly position, this led to the paramount decrees which meant that studios were prevented from doing the distribution and exhibition side of things.
Sony is an example of a Vertically Integrated company on a grand scale. Sony is a music publisher, a computer game company, sony also own several labels and columbia pictures to name but a few of their creative assets.
Sony also makes the TV's, VCR's and DVD players (playstation 2) that a lot of people use to watch films. They also make the stereo's, hi fi's that people use to listen to music, they even make most of the equipment that is used to record music (and I think the digital camera's that were used to shoot episode 2 were made by sony as well).
This total dominance of technology is the main reason why sony amongst all the other record companies hate mp3 so much. It's a distribution method that they don't own or control. Also they see mp3 as being in competition with MiniDisc which they have been pushing for the last 6 or 7 years.
So will there be an equilvalent to the paramount decrees in regards to sony ?. I doubt it as sony is a multinational corporation which no single government (yes not even the US) has the power to control. Maybe we should boycott their products after all there are compettitors, but no one else makes those cool electronic dogs do they ?.
The computer game industry is worht more than the film industry worldwide, it is predicted that it will grow year on year for the next five and there is a specific lack of people who have experience or specific training (cause none really exists).
Downsides are that it is very competitive, only 10% of games released make money. It is very difficult to make headway in the industry unless you work for a publisher or a well established software house.
One of the reasons that MS doesn't want to share source code is so that developers creating rival applications don't copy code.
It strikes me that this works both ways, an open source alternative to MS Office will always have a hard time competing, as MS can just copy any "Great New Feature" that that is implemented in an open source app.
This does of course assume that your version of windows and office is stable enough, but credit where it's due, I have an XP box and it is very stable.
Seems like MS are in a position to dominate the market for years to come just by living off open source code.
I can't help thinking that a version of the net that we know and love will always exist (at least in the forseeable future). It may have to revert to the days of BBS's and the like but I don't think that people are going to stop using computers to communicate any time soon.
Maybe it will be a good thing, seperate versions of the internet, one for bussiness, one for movies and porn, etc.
considering you can now get snes games for your gameboy advance it probably means that they are planning a portable GC in the future when the tech is right.
I was watching telly today and they had dodery old guy reviewing episode 2. He kept messing things up like pronoucing jedi "jedee" and calling c3po "cp03". Very funny.
That is what Ebert means when he said "What I dislike about Lucas' approach is that he wants to change the entire world of film to suit his convenience."
If we listen to ebert there will be no progress in the film exhibition industry.
I applaud Lucas, for years the focus has been on making the film look better using special effects and post production. It is about time that some money was thrown at the cinemas where the public (the consumers, who decide whether these movies make money or not) actually watch them.
I personally have always disliked the low quality of cinema screens and yes I do live near a modern multiplex, the fact is once a film has been shown a few times (or say 5 or 6 times a day) the picture becomes degraded through dust and scratches which I find all too noticeable (I cannot believe some people argue that this is a part of film experience).
With the surprisingly fast adoption of DVD into the mainstream the appetite of the film watcher for a clearer and sharper picture is obvious. I think eberts main sticking point is that millions of cinema goers will suffer with a slightly degraded picture because the vast majority of cinema's don't have digital projectors. I really doubt that the difference in quality between a film recorded digitally and traditionally shot film will be noticeable to your average joe in most poor quality cinemas.
Ebert should remember that it is easy to criticise (which is why I hate critics they don't have to prove themselves), I'd like to ask him if he has any better suggestions on how to improve the viewing experience. I personally can't wait for digital projectors to oust traditional projectors.
I think she was trying to come up with an analogy aimed specifically at school kids (I guess they must pirate the most or something). She was probably hoping that school kids would feel outraged by the idea that a friend could copy their work, but in my experience at school friends were quite willing to share work.
if you teach a kid proper respect for firearms, and he still kills himself, well, then something else prolly would have gotten him at some point. its called natural selection. not everyone dies of old age.
Thats fascism. Why should we bother to help disabled or sick people ?, they woudn't survive naturally would they ?.
I recently attended a recruitment presentation for codemasters in the uk.
One of the most interesting things that was said was the clever AI in games is a myth, most AI is just a series of hacks. Some of them are indeed complex but they never really make any serious attempt to scientifically replicate the way a human makes decisions.
In the late '90s, scientists discovered the Titanic was being consumed by a new life form, composed of 20 different species of bacteria, two species of fungus and two species of Archaea that, together, form a symbiotic rust coral or rusticle (they look like icicles) that thrive on iron.
These rusticles have formed a single biological mass that is believed to be the largest life form on earth. It seems like poetic justice that this death site of historic magnitude should make such large contributions to man's discovery of new life, not only on Earth, but perhaps on other planets as well.
Interesting, I have never heard of this before, does it really count as a single lifeform ?, sounds like a micro ecosystem to me.
would we be more advanced if the moon was bigger? (Thus making less asteroids hit the earth, thus, speeding up evolution because it decreases the amount of times life becomes diminished.))
Well taking that line of thought we might never have existed, it is quite possible that the dinosaurs were made extinct by a large asteroid impact. Had this never of occured it is more likely that intelligent life would have descended from them (although probably not directly). Us monkeys wouldn't of had an easy time in a world ruled by dinosaurs.
On the other hand evolution works through natural selection, some would argue that the dinosaurs had their chance to evolve into intelligent life and blew it. Perhaps they were incapable of evolving any further, a bit of a paradox really.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you feel about the pervceived value of music by fileshares and in soceity in general ?.
Many who support filesharing of music argue that the RIAA is reaping what it sowed in regards to how willing people are to download music with out paying for it. We live in a soceity where music is freely avaliable, mediums such as radio and TV already offer free music to consumers (or at least it seems free to them).
I remember reading a book about Paul Mcartney, in it he recalled the early part of their career where he and Lennon signed away the rights to their songs. They felt that the idea of "owning a song" was laugable and that music couldn't be controlled like that. Obvioulsy they got shafted, had they held on to the rights they would of made a lot more money that compartively small sums they were offered at the time. And seeing how powerful the RIAA is today it would be an understatement to say that they were naive.
But there is an argument that the lower perceived value of music would be a good thing. If people became casually comfortable with the idea of having any song they want whenever they like without paying for it, they may start to value live music more (which, at least in the UK, is in a bit of a decline).
How would most artists feel about their primary source of income coming from live performance and recording being a very small part of what they do ?.
Obviously in such a situation Britney Spears and the like would not be able to make money in the same way, but there is a market for that kind of music and suspect the public would just end up paying for it in a different way.
I think it would be a good situation and would allow people more access to talented musicians who can entertain people live.
What do you think ?.
You wouldn't need to do this if users deleted files that were bad instead of just leaving them in the shared directory.
;-) ) every time you finish downloading a file, just play or view a bit of the file and ask the user if it matches the description.
I'd like to see the p2p programs have an option to ask for a "test of legitimacy" (I have just applied for the patent so don't bother
If there was a fault in circuitry that wasn't picked up when they were testing the machines they would have to recall all the ones they have sold and fix them, if all the chips were unidentifiable then this would be very difficult.
Still downloading the engine but the docs on the site make for interesting reading. This engine is not capable of having rooms over rooms, in fact the author compares it to doom which is obviously not 3D.
From reading the docs I think the real innovation here is in the gui which sounds like it has obviously had a lot of time spent on it.
Having edited with the quake and unreal engines it seems this prog is trying to remove the bar into editing by making editing easy enough for anyone to jump in and play around. A good thing in my opoinion.
It's called "Vertical Integration", this is a similar situation to the hollywood studio system. In the 20's, 30's and 40's the studios that made films also owned their own chain of cinema's and would only show their films in them (they controlled production, distribution and exhibition). So if you wanted to see a MGM film you had to go to an MGM cinema, this made it very difficult for independent films to get to audiences. This was all ended in the late 40's (1948 I think) when paramount were accused of having a monopoly position, this led to the paramount decrees which meant that studios were prevented from doing the distribution and exhibition side of things.
Sony is an example of a Vertically Integrated company on a grand scale. Sony is a music publisher, a computer game company, sony also own several labels and columbia pictures to name but a few of their creative assets.
Sony also makes the TV's, VCR's and DVD players (playstation 2) that a lot of people use to watch films. They also make the stereo's, hi fi's that people use to listen to music, they even make most of the equipment that is used to record music (and I think the digital camera's that were used to shoot episode 2 were made by sony as well).
This total dominance of technology is the main reason why sony amongst all the other record companies hate mp3 so much. It's a distribution method that they don't own or control. Also they see mp3 as being in competition with MiniDisc which they have been pushing for the last 6 or 7 years.
So will there be an equilvalent to the paramount decrees in regards to sony ?. I doubt it as sony is a multinational corporation which no single government (yes not even the US) has the power to control. Maybe we should boycott their products after all there are compettitors, but no one else makes those cool electronic dogs do they ?.
The computer game industry is worht more than the film industry worldwide, it is predicted that it will grow year on year for the next five and there is a specific lack of people who have experience or specific training (cause none really exists).
Downsides are that it is very competitive, only 10% of games released make money. It is very difficult to make headway in the industry unless you work for a publisher or a well established software house.
Anyone know whether this will have an affect on the UK ?
One of the reasons that MS doesn't want to share source code is so that developers creating rival applications don't copy code.
It strikes me that this works both ways, an open source alternative to MS Office will always have a hard time competing, as MS can just copy any "Great New Feature" that that is implemented in an open source app.
This does of course assume that your version of windows and office is stable enough, but credit where it's due, I have an XP box and it is very stable.
Seems like MS are in a position to dominate the market for years to come just by living off open source code.
I can't help thinking that a version of the net that we know and love will always exist (at least in the forseeable future). It may have to revert to the days of BBS's and the like but I don't think that people are going to stop using computers to communicate any time soon.
Maybe it will be a good thing, seperate versions of the internet, one for bussiness, one for movies and porn, etc.
considering you can now get snes games for your gameboy advance it probably means that they are planning a portable GC in the future when the tech is right.
If it really fucked up your computer it would spread very far would it ?.
I was watching telly today and they had dodery old guy reviewing episode 2. He kept messing things up like pronoucing jedi "jedee" and calling c3po "cp03". Very funny.
That is what Ebert means when he said "What I dislike about Lucas' approach is that he wants to change the entire world of film to suit his convenience."
If we listen to ebert there will be no progress in the film exhibition
industry.
I applaud Lucas, for years the focus has been on making the film look better
using special effects and post production. It is about time that some money
was thrown at the cinemas where the public (the consumers, who decide
whether these movies make money or not) actually watch them.
I personally have always disliked the low quality of cinema screens and yes
I do live near a modern multiplex, the fact is once a film has been shown a
few times (or say 5 or 6 times a day) the picture becomes degraded through
dust and scratches which I find all too noticeable (I cannot believe some
people argue that this is a part of film experience).
With the surprisingly fast adoption of DVD into the mainstream the appetite
of the film watcher for a clearer and sharper picture is obvious. I think
eberts main sticking point is that millions of cinema goers will suffer with
a slightly degraded picture because the vast majority of cinema's don't have
digital projectors. I really doubt that the difference in quality between a
film recorded digitally and traditionally shot film will be noticeable to
your average joe in most poor quality cinemas.
Ebert should remember that it is easy to criticise (which is why I hate
critics they don't have to prove themselves), I'd like to ask him if he has
any better suggestions on how to improve the viewing experience. I
personally can't wait for digital projectors to oust traditional projectors.
I think she was trying to come up with an analogy aimed specifically at school kids (I guess they must pirate the most or something). She was probably hoping that school kids would feel outraged by the idea that a friend could copy their work, but in my experience at school friends were quite willing to share work.
if you teach a kid proper respect for firearms, and he still kills himself, well, then something else prolly would have gotten him at some point. its called natural selection. not everyone dies of old age.
Thats fascism. Why should we bother to help disabled or sick people ?, they woudn't survive naturally would they ?.
Ok guess I must of misunderstood when someone first mentioned it. Still it will be difficult to read a xbox dvd on a pc dvd drive won't it ?.
Why do they have guns ?, becuase they are allowed to by their constitution.
Apparently the dvd drive in the xbox can spin both ways and xbox games are burnt and read in reverse order than normal dvd's.
A very inventive way to try and stop games being pirated.
I recently attended a recruitment presentation for codemasters in the uk.
One of the most interesting things that was said was the clever AI in games is a myth, most AI is just a series of hacks. Some of them are indeed complex but they never really make any serious attempt to scientifically replicate the way a human makes decisions.
Why flamebait ?, this is funny.
Yeah but I wanna see what's down there...
The article says that the ice is broken all the time volcanic eruptions.
Also any life would most likely be at the bottom of the ocean where it's warmest.
In the late '90s, scientists discovered the Titanic was being consumed by a new life form, composed of 20 different species of bacteria, two species of fungus and two species of Archaea that, together, form a symbiotic rust coral or rusticle (they look like icicles) that thrive on iron.
These rusticles have formed a single biological mass that is believed to be the largest life form on earth. It seems like poetic justice that this death site of historic magnitude should make such large contributions to man's discovery of new life, not only on Earth, but perhaps on other planets as well.
Interesting, I have never heard of this before, does it really count as a single lifeform ?, sounds like a micro ecosystem to me.
Tesla is the answer to everything. Tesla, or surface area. Just about the right answer for any occasion.
I'm gonna blame el ninio.
Wasn't roddenerry involved in space 1999 ?
would we be more advanced if the moon was bigger? (Thus making less asteroids hit the earth, thus, speeding up evolution because it decreases the amount of times life becomes diminished.))
Well taking that line of thought we might never have existed, it is quite possible that the dinosaurs were made extinct by a large asteroid impact. Had this never of occured it is more likely that intelligent life would have descended from them (although probably not directly). Us monkeys wouldn't of had an easy time in a world ruled by dinosaurs.
On the other hand evolution works through natural selection, some would argue that the dinosaurs had their chance to evolve into intelligent life and blew it. Perhaps they were incapable of evolving any further, a bit of a paradox really.